Grading America's first 250 years

Summary

Today, Explained – “Grading America’s First 250 Years”

Release Date: May 2, 2026
Hosts: Ested Herndon (A), Vox
Guest: Heather Cox Richardson, historian, Boston College

Overview

In this special episode marking America’s 250th anniversary, host Ested Herndon is joined by historian Heather Cox Richardson to evaluate the nation’s history, assess its progress—and failures—and imagine the next social contract for the coming centuries. The conversation weaves between hard assessments of the past, the resilience of American democracy, and a collaborative, thought-provoking exercise: drafting a "manifesto" for the nation’s next 250 years.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Grading the American Experiment (00:00–01:07)

• Main Theme: Reflecting on 250 years—what deserves praise, what demands reckoning, and what should shape the future.
• Opening Honesty:
  • Ested Herndon: “So we are 250 years into this American experiment, and I'd say it's going okay. I give us like a C.” (00:01)
  • Recognition of great achievements (Declaration of Independence, women’s rights movement, inventions) alongside foundational failures (slavery, colonialism, inequality).

---

Cycles of American Change and the Role of Culture (01:26–04:39)

• Historical Adaptation:
  • America’s continual response to new challenges—from westward expansion to globalization—is part of its DNA, even if “reinvention” isn’t quite the right word.
  • Heather Cox Richardson: “Any country has to deal with new challenges all the time. We managed through our history to address new challenges…to expand American democracy, to more closely adhere to those foundational documents.” (01:48)
• Cultural Seeds of Change:
  • Richardson emphasizes the arts, music, language, and cultural creativity as “the seeds for reinvention.”
  • At moments of change, the nation reaches back to inspiring histories where “Americans having exercised their agency to make those traditions, our best traditions, come into law, or at least come into practice.” (03:34)

---

Is Trumpism New or Embedded? (04:39–07:42)

• The Trump Phenomenon:
  • Trump is both the product and beneficiary of decades of right-wing rhetoric, but he’s also uniquely personalist, consolidating power for himself rather than party or country.
  • Richardson: “He turned a democracy not just into an autocracy, but...a personalist autocracy. It’s sort of, in a way, a step beyond fascism.” (06:10)
• Was Trumpism Inevitable?
  • Richardson argues against an inevitable “Trump,” suggesting the real issue was complacency after achievements of the ‘60s and ‘70s, which allowed radical right narratives to fill a void.
  • The right gave people “a sense of a national narrative that made their agency feel deeply important to them. They were the ones protecting America in a way that people like me weren’t.” (07:30)

Memorable Quote

“Trump is very clearly the outcome of at least 40 years of right wing rhetoric...But what he did was...flip the script. He nodded to the establishment Republicans who wanted the tax cuts, but he empower[ed] the racists and the sexists and the America firsters.”
—Heather Cox Richardson (06:00)

---

The Use and Abuse of American Nationalism (08:58–12:19)

• Who Owns the American Story?
  • Explore how the right seized patriotic symbols and positive narratives, while liberals and Democrats sometimes shied away.
  • Richardson cautions against broad generalizations about Democrats, noting that attitudes toward the flag shifted post-Vietnam.
• The Dangers of “Perfect Past” Narratives:
  • Richardson warns: "What Donald Trump and the radical right is doing now is trying to reach back for a past that was perfect, and that's an authoritarian and even a fascist move." (10:02)
  • No exclusive claim to either a perfect or wholly negative American past; rather, “the story of America is the struggle of people who have not been included in the promise...to expand those principles, to include more people.” (11:22)
• Embracing the Struggle:
  • “If you think about democracy as being a process rather than a place or time...what Americans have done to each other and to others is horrific...but other Americans have stepped in to try and mitigate that trouble and to move the ball forward.” (11:53)

---

Founding Documents for the Future (12:19–15:36)

• Which Foundational Text Matters Most?
  • When asked which historic text will matter most for the coming century, Richardson surprises by choosing the Gettysburg Address over the Declaration or Constitution.
    • “The proposition that he actually explains at the end of that speech is that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. That to me, is the marching orders. If the Declaration is the plan, the Gettysburg Address is the marching orders.” (13:26–15:11)

Notable Quote

“There is no perfect past, but there is also no exclusively negative past, because humans. Humans are gonna. Human. That's what we do...the story of America is the struggle...to expand those principles.”
—Heather Cox Richardson (11:09)

---

Writing a New Foundational Document: “The America Actually Manifesto” (17:37–25:43)

Whiteboard Exercise — What Should the Next Social Contract Include?

• Agency & Voting Rights:
  • Affirming each person's agency and the need for “a free and fair vote.”
  • Richardson: "One person, one vote. Yes. For real. Like, can you write that in really big letters? For real this time?" (18:56)
• Environment:
  • A core governmental responsibility to ensure “clean air, clean water, and…care of the climate.” (19:33)
• Public Funding of Elections:
  • Reducing money’s influence in politics as a pillar for healthy democracy.
• Education:
  • Guaranteed public education as a foundation: “If you think about democracy, a democracy depends on an educated populace.” (20:04)
• Judicial and Political Terms:
  • Discussion of potential term limits or mandatory service periods—especially on the Supreme Court—to prevent gerontocracy. (21:40–22:46)
• Healthcare:
  • Basic healthcare as a necessary precondition for societal strength and resilience. “One of the ways you weaken a country is you make people sick.” (23:06)
• National Service:
  • Encouraging “two years” of national service for all young Americans to foster civic responsibility and unity. (23:53)
• Reframing “Left” vs. Democracy:
  • Richardson reminds listeners the list echoes early 20th-century Republican (TR) proposals and isn’t the radical platform many would claim today.

Naming the Document

• Working title: “Manifesto.”
• Richardson: “Not really a declaration...Manifesto. Oh, I like Manifesto. Can we do Manifesto?” (25:33–25:43)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Heather Cox Richardson, on America’s evolving proposition:

  “By Lincoln’s time, he’s saying [equality] was a proposition and it’s being tested. And that I think is really the heart of what it means to be an American: that there is this proposition...But that principle is always going to be a proposition.” (13:26)

• On the risk of nostalgia:

  “What Donald Trump and the radical right is doing now is trying to reach back for a past that was perfect, and that's an authoritarian and even a fascist move.” (10:06)

• The unfinished work:

  “If the Declaration is the plan, the Gettysburg Address is the marching orders.” (15:11)

• On foundational change:

  “To preserve American democracy, you must have these things.” (25:06)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:00: Grading America at 250 (“C” grade, nuanced legacy).
• 01:26: Introduction to Heather Cox Richardson and her thesis on American change.
• 04:39: Trump’s roots, the narrative vacuum & the rise of the radical right.
• 08:58: Nationalism, Democratic discomfort, and myths of “perfect pasts.”
• 13:22: Which founding clause matters most for the next 250 years? Gettysburg Address.
• 17:37: America Actually Manifesto—drafting the principles of the new social contract.
• 18:56: One person, one vote—written “in really big letters...for real this time.”
• 19:33–25:43: Whiteboard exercise—voting rights, environment, campaign finance reform, education, healthcare, national service.
• 25:43: Naming the new document, “Manifesto.”

---

Summary Flow & Tone

• The dialogue is frank, conversational, and hopeful, with Herndon and Richardson both acknowledging the deep flaws of the American past while consistently seeking practical hope.
• The whiteboard exercise is lively, creative, and at times playful—despite the gravity of the themes (“Can you write that in really big letters, for real this time?”).
• The episode never shies from critique but balances it with pragmatic optimism rooted in civic engagement and historical perspective.

---

Takeaway

America’s first 250 years are best graded with humility and nuance—acknowledging the horror and heroism, the setbacks and the progress. Looking forward, the next foundational document, as envisioned by Richardson and Herndon, would aggressively foreground equal voting, environmental stewardship, education, healthcare, and active national engagement, echoing both progressive and deeply-rooted republican traditions. The “Manifesto” is less a break from tradition, more a call to return to unfinished, perennial American work.

Transcript

[A]

So we are 250 years into this American experiment, and I'd say it's going okay. I give us like a C. The Declaration of Independence, the women's rights movement, the invention of basketball or the iPhone, all good. Slavery, colonialism, income inequality, unequivocally bad. But what's going to determine the next 250 years of America? And how do we write a new social contract that can give us the. The democracy we deserve? That's this week on America. Actually, let's dig in.

[B]

Burn your five pound weights. I'm Robert Arson. I'm an athlete and fitness instructor. And I am telling you, unless you have been limited to lighter weights by a medical professional, they're honestly inexcusable. You, you need to be lifting heavy. And I'm talking especially to the women out there, toned arms. What can your body do? This week on Project Swagger, what heavy means and rules to bring into your routine? Listen now.

[A]

Joining me now is Heather Cox Richardson. She's a historian and professor at Boston College, but you probably know her from her very popular substack Letters from an American and her YouTube channel. I am excited that Heather is joining us. You. Cause she's gonna help us think about not only the future, but how the past connects to it. Thank you for coming.

[C]

It's such a pleasure to be here.

[A]

I appreciate that. I mean, I wanted to kind of start by looking at your work. As I was preparing for this, I was reading about how you've argued that the country has basically reinvented itself every 80 to 90 years, from the founding to the Civil War to the New Deal. I wondered how you thought about those reinventions. What forces shaped them? And are we in a reinvention period where.

[C]

Oh, that's interesting. I'm not sure I've ever used the words reinvention because the way I think about it is that any country has to deal with new challenges all the time. And because we had set out at our foundation a series of principles that at the time were quite limited by who they covered, but were expansive in terms of what they could cover, we have managed through our history to address new challenges like westward expansion, like industrialization, like globalization, like the advent of nuclear weapons, to expand American democracy, to more closely adhere to those foundational documents, but to expand as they took on new issues. So are we at a moment like this now? Absolutely.

[A]

Now, what forces shape these kind of shifts in the country? If we. I don't know if it's. Reinvention's the right word, but if we think about those moments where we face new challenges, how do we muster up that kind of creativity? And what are the seeds that. That we should be looking for right now?

[C]

So there's a whole lot embedded in that question. And one of the places that I wanna start with that is that the seeds for reinvention, I think, come from the arts. They come from music, they come from art, they come from new languages and new clothing styles and sculpture and all sorts of new ways to envision the world through our imaginations. And we could talk about the late 19th century, for example, and how extraordinarily creative that time was and so forth. But. But those ideas, I think, come from there. But that's not enough. I think when you see reinvention, you see Americans reaching back for their stories, for their traditional history, and the places that they can see other Americans having exercised their agency to make those traditions, our best traditions, come into law, or at least come into practice. And, you know, it's an especially poignant time for us to be talking about this. On April 12, Hungarian voters in a put a supermajority of opposition figures to Viktor Orban into power in their parliament. And they will, of course, have a different prime minister. One of the things that they appear to have done is to have reached back to Hungarian history and said, listen, we might disagree with each other about immigration and about finances and so on, but we can agree that we care deeply about our country and we must start there with people who are trying to build our country rather than tear it down. And that really hit a chord for me, because that is precisely what the Republicans did when they formed in the 1850s. It's precisely what the populists and the Democrats did in the 1890s when they organized against the robber barons and then included the progressive Republicans. It's certainly what we saw in the 1920s and the 1930s, what we saw in the 1950s, and I think what we're seeing in the United States again today.

[A]

I wanted to ask about today. You know, the premise of this show is kind of to try to take Trump out of the center, to see the country beyond the lens of him. But kind of baked into that question is whether he is like an aberrant, malign piece in American politics or is reflective of a system. And we're gonna have to live with Trumpism for maybe longer than even the individual person.

[C]

So Trump is very clearly the outcome of at least 40 years of right wing rhetoric that has been adopted by the Republican Party that laid the groundwork For a man to come in and essentially get rid of the dog whistles and call to the sexists and racists who had ended up sliding into the Republican party, really, after 1965 and the voting Rights act, to basically create sort of a libertarian small government elite in the Republican Party that depended on the votes of those racists and sexists to stay in power. But what he did was he sort of did flip the script. He nodded to the establishment Republicans who wanted the tax cuts, but he empower the racists and the sexists and the American firsters and so on. And so he is very much a product of that, you know, that moment. But he is also something different, because by empowering them, what he did is he turned a democracy in not just to an autocracy, but to a personalist autocracy. It's sort of, in a way, a step beyond fascism that we can talk about.

[A]

But, you know, personalist autocracy, yes.

[C]

So the idea that he wants all the power, but he also wants the power not for his party and not for even his cronies, but for himself. But he's certainly a product of that 40 years. Now, there's a bigger question, as I say, embedded in what you said, and that is, is the United States of America's system so deeply flawed to begin with, that we were waiting for a Trump? And to that I would say no. I would say that we, many of us, dropped the ball after, really after the 1960s and the 1970s, and the idea that we had finally managed to create a new kind of American government that was premised on reality rather than on the previous images of American life. And by that, I mean that it was a government that recognized the worth of individuals. It didn't necessarily protect individuals the way the principles of that government suggested they should, but it recognized their worth in a way that the government before 1965 and before the Great Society under LBJ had not done. And so for a lot of people, they thought, oh, we're on this trajectory toward a liberal democracy that is, in fact, going to recognize the worth of disabled Americans and elderly Americans and so on. And as a result, we stopped focusing on the importance of democracy and of liberal democracy. But what that did is it enabled the radical right to step in and give people a sense of a national narrative that made their agency feel deeply important to them. They were the ones protecting America in a way that people like me weren't.

[A]

Because the immigrants are taking your job, because folks are coming in and represent a kind of imminent threat that's right.

[C]

And you know, one of the things that always jumps out to me is Lauren Boebert, the representative from Colorado, on the morning of January 6, 2021, texting to people, this is 1776, you know, the idea that they were the ones who were truly protecting America. And one of the things that I think Trump has done for us since his, you know, retaking the oath of office in January 20was to make it clear that our democracy and the guardrails of our democracy that so many people believed couldn't be challenged and Trump just tore em up.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And with that, a lot of people who sort of assumed the guardrails were there are stepping into the fray and saying, okay, I didn't think I was gonna have to get involved in politics, but clearly I do, and here I am. And that kind of engagement in protecting American democracy is the sort of thing that, as I say, we've seen in the past, the 1850s, 1890s and so on, to reclaim that democracy and crucially, make it adjust to new conditions that are currently challenging it, like in our lifetimes, the Internet, growth and technology, artificial

[A]

intelligence, things like that. I mean, I think your point is very important because it lays out that, you know, Donald Trump may have not been inevitable, but he did kind of, he was succeeding on the ground. The Republicans have been tilling for a long time. I wanted to ask about nationalism specifically. You know, it can sometimes feel as if Democrats or American liberals can be running from the shadow of America. Can sometimes feel like a little awkward about embracing a positive story and about America. I wanted to ask about that. Like, is some of what the right has been able to do in terms of seizing the flag and draping themselves in it been made easier by a liberal distance from it? Even though I know that's not how you come to your work. It sometimes has felt as if Democrats haven't been willing to drape themselves in red, white and blue or tell a positive story about America like some Americans want them to.

[C]

Okay, that's too broad a brush, I think. And I wanna be careful with the word Democrats, because in this moment, of course, when as many Americans identify as being independents as identify as Republicans or Democrats, it's important, I think, to look at the American population as a whole.

[A]

Yep, fair.

[C]

And in that case, I think one of the things that you are identifying is the 1960s and early 1970s and the based opposition to the Vietnam War meant for a lot of people that the trappings of that war, the American flag and so on, had Taken on negative connotations. And that was something, by the way, that the radical right grabbed hold of and really ran with. So there is that for sure. But I wanna be careful to say that if you look at what Donald Trump and the radical right is doing now is trying to reach back for a past that was perfect, and that's an authoritarian and even a fascist move. The idea that somehow there was a perfect past back there. And I always like to say when.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, I asked that on the road, too. When people say they're looking back to make America what it once was, I say, name me the time.

[C]

Yeah, like the date. Like, was it February 2nd? Like 1954? Because there is no perfect past, but there is also no exclusively negative past, because humans. Humans are gonna. Human. That's what we do. And what I love about America is that I think the story of America is the struggle of people who have not been included in the promise of America to expand those principles, to include more people. So if you think about democracy as being a process rather than a place or a time that there was a certain kind of achievement, you recognize that what Americans have done to each other and to others is horrific. In our past, we have done horrible things, but other Americans have stepped in to try and mitigate that trouble and to move the ball forward. And that is as important a story, I think, as the horrors. And one of the things that I really hope that we can reclaim is a recognition of the clear view of our past, both of the horrors of it. And yet also those people who have said, we as human beings don't have to live like this, and we're gonna make the situation better.

[A]

It's also a view, I think, based in reality. I mean, when I think about my travels across the electorate, people ask me, is the story of America as polarized or as entrenched as we sometimes say in political world? And you can kind of say both sides of the coin. That could rattle off a whole bunch of wild stuff that's happened and people throwing you out of rooms and slur or this or that. But you also, to your point, have people who care in the middle of that, have people who support you in the middle of that, have people who connect with you across demographic types and differences in individuals that I think often could tell a very positive story about the country as well. So both of those things exist right next to each other. The last question I want to ask you is really about your work. And as we kick off to a little game, I'm going to Play after this. When we look back to the founding documents of the last 250 years, is there a piece that you think will have the most relevance for going forward? Is there something that you look back to and you say, hey, this clause, this thing, this is what I think will be the kind of key for our efforts of perfection moving ahead.

[C]

Gettysburg Address.

[A]

Interesting. I'm surprised. Why?

[C]

Because the, you know, and I'm having, Obviously I'm a big fan of the Declaration because it establishes the foundation of American democracy, even though the country was not a democracy at the time. The idea that you must be treated equally before the law, have a right to equal access to resources and to have a right to have a say in your government, that's what a democracy is, Right? So that is crucially important. But with the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln I think emphasized. Think about it. Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. You know, when the founders put it in the Declaration, they said these are self evident truths. By Lincoln's time, he's saying it was a proposition and it's being tested. And that I think is really the heart of what it means to be an American is that there is this proposition that it is possible to create a nation that has the principles that the Founders put down on paper. But that principle is always going to be a proposition. And he says, listen, we're here to honor these men who died in this horrible battle to try and make that proposition come true. But there's really nothing we can do more than what they did to make that happen. And the proposition that he actually explains at the end of that speech is that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. That to me, is the marching orders. If the Declaration is the plan, the Gettysburg Address is the marching orders.

[A]

I like that framework because it speaks to the unfinished work and the work to be done going ahead. Okay, Heather, I would love to do an exercise with you and rethink how we should talk about our historical founding documents. But like any good history lesson, we're going to need some classroom tools. So hold on a moment.

[B]

It's all about you. And when you fly with Virgin Atlantic in their upper class cabin, they take the VIP treatment to the next level. With a private wing to check in and your own security channel at London Heathrow, you can glide from your car to their clubhouse, a destination in its own right, in 10 minutes or less. Onboard you can treat yourself to your own private suite to stretch out in with lots of storage space, a lie flatbed, and delicious dining from beginning to end. Just be sure to leave room for dessert. Their Mile High tea with all the little cakes and sandwiches is a Showstopper. Go to VirginAtlantic.com to learn more. I'm Mitch, first two time NWSL champion, championship MVP and forward for the US Women's National Team. Before I went pro, I graduated from Harvard with a degree in psychology, which comes in handy more than you think. Any athlete pursuing greatness knows there's a certain mentality you have to have. What people don't know is what that costs. In my podcast, Confessions of an Elite Athlete, I sit down with the best athletes in the world and explore the psychology, mindset and unseen battles on the path to greatness. So take a seat and learn from the Confessions of an elite athlete on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

[C]

I'm Maria Sharapova and I'm hosting a new podcast called Pretty Tough. Every week I'm sitting down with trailblazing women at the top of their game to discuss ambition, work ethic, and the ups and downs that come on the path to achieving greatness. We'll dive into their stories and get valuable insights from top executives, actors, entrepreneurs, and other individuals who have inspired me so much in my own journey. Follow Pretty Tough wherever you get your podcasts.

[A]

All right, we're back and thank you to everyone for joining us. I am here with Heather Cox Richardson and we're going to try a little bit of an exercise. So for those listening, I am currently seated next to a whiteboard where we are going to write a founding document together thinking about America's next 250 years. What can we take from things like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence? What things aren't in there that might make us a better democracy going forward? Heather, is there something that comes to your mind initially?

[C]

Okay, so I'm just gonna be a jerk here because I'm a historian, so we don't have to write this now, but we have to have a prologue explaining we the people or when in the course of human events or anything.

[A]

You know, I do still remember from Schoolhouse Rock, I should just we the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice. What is it? Ensure domestic tranquility.

[C]

The reason I'm being such a jerk about that is because I think the key one of the key things in this moment is to make sure we grab the idea of agency of everyday people having Agency. So in terms of. In terms of values, they gotta have a say in their government. They gotta be able to vote. So we gotta protect the Right.

[A]

Let's start there. We the people.

[C]

But we have to make sure that they have a free. That everybody has a free and fair vote.

[A]

Yep. One person, one vote.

[C]

Yes. For real. Like, can you write that in really big letters for real this time?

[A]

Seriously?

[C]

Okay. Not messing around.

[A]

You know, I had this on my list also, because I was thinking about things like the electoral College and gerrymandering and even how the Constitution, you know, says that Congress shouldn't infringe on someone's right to vote. But in our new founding document, we're gonna give people an affirmative right to vote. One person, one vote. And making sure we're leading from that place of equity.

[C]

Okay, so we'll start with that. Now, the next thing I want on there is we must protect the environment.

[A]

Okay. That feels like a fundamental governmental role.

[C]

And I don't care what language you use that with. I don't just mean we're protecting, you know, the Grand Canyon. I mean that we have to have clean air, clean water, and we have to take care of the climate.

[A]

I was thinking, what about public funding of elections? You know, like, thinking about something that could get money out of politics or things that I hear about all the time. I'll put that one as part of my list.

[C]

Yeah, definitely. Getting money out of politics, funding.

[A]

How about you next?

[C]

Education.

[A]

What do we want to say about education? Like that is part of the government's fundamental role. We think about public education, things like that.

[C]

Yes. And I'll tell you why we had to have fundamental public education. And we could actually argue about what ages that goes to. But the reason that that matters in a foundational document is because if you think about democracy, a democracy depends on an educated populace. It just has to have one. And one of the ways that our democracy has been hamstrung is by the destruction of public education. So this is not like saying this is not a luxury, which is one of the ways that the radical right has framed it, that it's actually a necessity in democracy to have robust public education for everybody.

[A]

Yeah, I think that's a great point. I mean, when I talk to again, where people bring their cynicism into government, a lot of times the roots of that are in poor public education, about people thinking as if government in cities or in rural places have not provided their first function. So let's put that on there.

[C]

And that, of course, is gonna cut Deeply into the whole right wing voucher movement, which is designed to destroy public education. Education and which is getting real teeth in a number of Republican dominated states.

[A]

100%. There has been a movement to privatize, we know the Department of Education, things like that. But to your point, it is something I hear about a lot in terms of government providing that role. Can I say maybe a little bit of a controversial one. I was thinking like, you know, since we have an age floor For President at 35, I could get down with an age ceiling, particularly out of the last couple years, something like maybe 80 for things like Supreme Court, president or Congress. What do you think about that?

[C]

I'm less keen on having a year because people are so different. What I like is the idea of having terms, a certain number of years

[A]

we can agree on. Term limits, for sure.

[C]

Well, not term limits, but terms for. In the Supreme Court because remember there were de facto limits when they set up the Supreme Court because you used to have had to ride the circuit.

[A]

Can you explain that a little more for folks who don't understand that?

[C]

So literally you had to ride a horse to the different. Or get in a carriage or whatever, which was no picnic to the different courts. And so judges used to be young because you didn't want to have to ride around on a horse to do all this stuff. And until we get World War II and the incredible ease of transportation and of really good medical care, both being in national government and being on the Supreme Court was generally a pretty young person's game. Interesting. Because you wouldn't, you know, you weren't gonna fly home to California every night.

[A]

Right, right, right. You were constrained by the, by the means of getting around itself and by

[C]

your own health terms.

[A]

Let's do term Supreme Court. We'll all agree on that.

[C]

Supreme Court's health.

[A]

Give me one more for you.

[C]

Healthcare.

[A]

Healthcare. Now, what does that look like? When we think about the government's role in kind of establishing a new social contract? Are we talking about universal healthcare? Are we talking about things that should be guaranteed as a human right?

[C]

I think people should have basic healthcare. And I wanna be really clear about this. These are not things that I personally. I mean, yes, they are in a way. They are things that I personally want people to have. Yeah, but you're talking about a foundational document. So I'm building a document that will protect American democracy. Yeah, and one of the ways that you weaken a country is you make people sick. I mean, I'm sorry, but that's just like rule number One you want to really hurt a population, make sure mothers die in childbirth. Where are we right now? Mothers are dying in childbirth.

[A]

The last one, I will add, and I'm interested in your thoughts of here, is somewhat based on my own experience. I did city year, national service program, and I really think a year of national service changed my life. Personally, I would be in favor of a year of national service for young people.

[C]

Two years.

[A]

Two years. Okay. I always enjoyed. You know why?

[C]

Because. Well, because I used to be. I mean, used to be. I am a college professor, and it really takes. Think about. You went to school. Think about freshman year.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Like, a lot of people are spending at least half that freshman year getting used to dealing with people they don't like or figuring out whether they like to drink or whatever. And they're really not hitting their stride until, like, March of their first year. So you want to give them a full. You want to let them screw around for a year and figure out who they are, and then you want them to have a year where they can get their feet under them.

[A]

I hear that because I certainly didn't really know what I was doing until about that March time.

[C]

Same.

[A]

Is there anything else you would add to our list?

[C]

Probably. But I want to point out something. That list that we just wrote looks extraordinarily like the list that Theodore Roosevelt put together in the early 20th century to protect American democracy. So this. You know, one of the things that gets me about the moment we're in is people who have been sort of sidetracked by our construction of American politics since the 1980s look at a list like that and says, oh, it's far left. This is so far from being far left. It was actually proposed by a Republican more than 100 years ago on the grounds that. Not of individual rights, which he was less into than people are today, but on the grounds that to preserve American democracy, you must have these things.

[A]

What should we call this document?

[C]

Oh, that's a good question, because what kind of a document is. It's not really a declaration.

[A]

It's not necessarily a Declaration of Independence. It's. You got it.

[C]

Manifesto. Oh, I like Manifesto.

[A]

Yeah, Manifesto works well, too.

[C]

Can we do Manifesto? I like Manifesto.

[A]

Let's definitely do this. This is the America actually manifesto. There you go. Thank you so much for joining us today, and we really appreciate your time. Have a great rest of your day.

[C]

You, too. Thanks for having me.

[A]

America actually will be in your feeds every Saturday with an interesting interview in culture or politics. You can also watch these episodes on the Vox YouTube channel. Just go to YouTube.com vox or click the link in the show notes. The best way to support this show is by becoming a Vox member. Members get a bonus segment on Patreon every week and they make our work possible. Go to vox.commembers to join that's vox.commembers to join. This show was edited by Kasha Bresalian, Fact Checked by Esther Gim, and mixed by Shannon Mahoney. Christopher Snyder is our video editor, and Khun Nui is our Senior Art director. Our Executive producer is Christina Vallis, and our theme music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Additional support from Miranda Kennedy, David Tadashore, and Nisha Chatal. I'm Estend Herndon and this is America. Actually.