This is Democracy – Episode 270: Political Violence

[00:00:00] Intro: This is democracy, a podcast about the people of the United States, a podcast about citizenship, about engaging with politics and the world around you, a podcast about educating yourself on today’s important issues and how to have a voice in what happens next.

[00:00:24] Jeremi: Welcome to our new episode of this is democracy.

This week, we are going to discuss a difficult topic. A topic that I think many of us would prefer not to talk about, but a topic that we must talk about and where historical scholarship is particularly helpful in exploding some of the myths and misperceptions that many of us have. The topic, of course, is political violence.

Why do we see so much political violence in American society? Where does it come from? How do we understand it? We are fortunate this week to be joined, uh, by the person who I think has written the most interesting work on this topic. The leading historian I think, of political violence. Uh, she’s not a politically violent person herself as far as I know, but she’s a scholar of political viol.

Uh, this is, uh, professor Joanne Freeman. Uh, she’s the class of 1954 professor of American history and American studies at Yale and the author of two books that I highly recommend, uh, to all of our listeners, two books that I often assign in my courses. Uh, I assigned them because they’re so important, but also because they’re so beautifully written, which, which might be even more important than the substance in some respects.

Uh, the first is Affairs of Honor, National Politics in the New Republic, which centers around a dueling and the, uh, the infamous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Uh, it’s a book that was used by Lin Manuel Miranda in the making of his extraordinary play. Uh, Professor Friedman has also written The Field of Blood, Violence in Congress, and The Road to the Civil War.

And for those of you who think the caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks, an incident most people know about in the years before the Civil War, those who think that that was a unique experience, uh, Professor Freeman shows up that in fact, the world of congressional politics in the early 19th century was filled with violence of that kind.

In fact, it was quite frequent, which was eye opening, certainly to me in reading this book. Professor Friedman also writes, uh, frequently, she does for the New York Times, for the Washington Post, for the Atlantic, and other publications, and she’s frequently on CNN, MSNBC, and probably other networks that I don’t watch, uh, but I’ve seen her on CNN and MSNBC, so I can rouch for that, uh, Professor Freeman, Joanne, uh, nice to have you here with us today.

[00:02:47] Joanne: Well, thanks for having

[00:02:48] Jeremi: me. Before we get into our conversation. Uh, of course we have our scene setting poem from Mr. Zachary Suri, uh, Zachary, what’s the title of your poem today? The War of Independence. Oh, that seems appropriate. What

[00:03:06] Zachary: does a revolution do to the soul of a country? Does it make us violent and old or, and does it make us free?

Each founder was a soldier. Each word they wrote was war, and independence hardly more than something to fight for. From broken ancient history, they recreated Rome. Her legions, though, were better, her battles far from home. Here they were fighting, as their children too would fight, over existential questions, over basic human rights.

Here was no empire but a ragtag group of men and women seeking truths they already must defend. Just as, fourscore and seven hence, on gravestones that were heaven bent, the orator would stand and ask, what does a revolution do to the soul of a country? Does it make us violent and old, or can it make us free?

[00:04:04] Jeremi: I love the historical references throughout that, Zachary. Rome, the Revolution, of course. What is your poem about?

[00:04:11] Zachary: My poem is trying to reckon with the role that the first great act of political violence in American history, um, or at least in independent American history, uh, the American Revolution, plays even today, uh, in our politics and throughout American history.

Um, I think that that moment Uh, when America declared its independence and then had to fight for years to secure it. Uh, that moment continues to define our politics and the violence that define that moment in particular from the Second Amendment, uh, to the presidency itself.

[00:04:42] Jeremi: Hmm. It’s a very strong argument.

Uh, Joanne, is that accurate? Is it appropriate to think about the late 18th century as a very violent period in our history?

[00:04:51] Joanne: Well, I suppose, um, sadly, I’d say most of American history is pretty violent. Um, you know, some of the violence in the late 18th century among the elite was kind of formalized, and that takes you into the world of dueling.

But, um, violence throughout American history pretty much ebbs and flows. Um, it doesn’t continually get better or continually get worse, but, um, we have always been. in one way or another, a violent country. And, you know, the fact that we were created by a war, I suppose you could say helped start us off on that foot.

Um, also, you know, as, uh, colonies, one of the interesting things about being a colony is you’re given some kind of a, a statement, you know, in the case of the British government, you, you were given, Some kind of a statement about precisely what the colony was, precisely what the rules are going to be, a pact that equaled the government.

And what that means is that from the very beginning, from colonial times, Americans had a very concrete sense of what their government was, their colonial government was. And colonies were small, there were not too many people. huge numbers of people. So most colonists had a sense of who their leaders were.

And so from the very beginning, even before the revolution talked about in that poem, American colonists had a pretty strong sense of what they were due as British subjects. They still saw themselves very much as British subjects, but as colonists, they had a pretty strong sense of what they felt were their rights.

[00:06:29] Jeremi: And why did that express itself in violence? We often teach, I think, unfortunately, that a society built around Natural rights is a society that should be more peaceful. You seems to me, you’re implying something different.

[00:06:44] Joanne: Well, you know, I wouldn’t say necessarily at the very beginning, despite a lot of the rhetoric and a lot of the language that the colonists, as they found their way into war, would say they were fighting for natural rights.

They probably would have told you they were fighting for their rights as British subjects. And what’s interesting about what they did before coming to war They did everything they could possibly do within the system itself to remedy their complaints. They sent petitions, they sent agents to speak to parliament, to speak to the king.

They tried in, tried in true formal ways. To get the British government to hear them when they said we think that some of what you’re doing here as far as new kinds of taxes and Other sorts of punishments because of new kinds of taxes not being paid We don’t think that’s fair and we don’t have a way to formally protest because we’re not represented So they did what they were supposed to do.

And really it was when their petitions went unheard, when their pleas went unheard, that they began to feel as though the system itself wasn’t serving them. And that is part of what moved the country to war. And I’m going to bet that in our conversation today, we are going to come up against other moments when people feel that in one way or another, the system isn’t serving them.

And they turn to violence.

[00:08:11] Zachary: Right. Zachary? To what extent do you think, uh, this central role of violence in American political life, uh, from the beginning as, as you discuss, um, is uniquely, is unique to the American colonies, uh, in that moment and thereafter? Uh, and to what extent do you think it’s a reflection of uh, European political culture uh, itself?

[00:08:33] Joanne: Well, I wouldn’t say that America or the colonies and then the United States were necessarily uniquely violent. There’s unfortunately violence the world over. I would say one of the things about American violence in these early years is that on the one hand, as you just suggested, um, European culture shaped it, but Americans didn’t.

tweaked that in some way. So, and a great example of that actually takes us back to dueling, because in Europe in the late 18th century, they were dueling, for the most part, with swords. American colonists were not necessarily people who are skilled at fencing. They were dealing with guns. Guns are a much more democratic way to duel.

So, you know, even from the very beginning, the colonists sort of tweaked some European habits to fit them within a colonial culture and climate.

[00:09:28] Jeremi: One thing that I think might have been similar and that I really loved in your first book, Affairs of Honor, Is the connection between violence and honor and I think that’s one of the reasons you focus on on Hamilton to some extent, right?

How how is violence connected to honor in the 18th and even in this comes up in your second book in the 19th century as well?

[00:09:51] Joanne: Yeah, definitely in both periods, but particularly in the early period, and that’s because, um, Nowadays, we consider politician a job and it’s assumed in one way or another, or at least we hope it’s assumed in one way or another that you’re qualified for it in some way, in some concrete way in the late 18th century.

Um, it was assumed if you were an elite gentleman that probably in one way or another, you would have a role. In public life and, uh, that meant that your character had to be of the right standing for you to qualify for that people didn’t look at you and say, Oh, I think he has great experience in economics.

He will be great secretary of the Treasury. They would say, Well, He seems an honorable man. We can trust him. So for any gentlemen in the period, but particularly for public minded gentlemen who wanted to serve in some office of leadership, really, it was their honor and reputation was what they ran on it represented who they were.

And your honor was like a real possession, like a concrete profession. So, you know, there’s a reason why the worst thing you could call someone in that time period was liar. Actually, coward was pretty bad too, but liar, because then that’s suggesting you’re not a person who can be trusted. You’re not a person to really allow into the mix because no one will trust you.

You’re not a gentleman, really. And those words, that idea was so dire that for dualists, at least, they were worth risking your life over.

[00:11:23] Zachary: What role did the frontier and continued violence, uh, with Native American groups, uh, play in the United States during this period play in shaping American political culture, and particularly, uh, the role of violence.

[00:11:36] Joanne: Well, definitely it’s another way in which violence is ingrained in American culture. And in that case, you know, there’s, there’s a sense or at least many, um, white, uh, colonists and then Americans had a very righteous sense that the land belonged to them in one way or another. And all they had to do was figure out how to take it.

And maybe that was by force and maybe that was by trickery, but that’s another way in which, and actually in your poem, you talked about ideals. Versus violent realities and talking about the West and Native Americans is a great way to talk about both of those things at the same time because on the one hand, Americans at the time would have said, Ah, yes, you know, we’re meant to spread across North America.

It’s ours. It represents the future of America. You could fill that kind of talk with a lot of ideals. But That was grounded on violence, absolutely grounded on violence. Now, to people at the time, they would have felt justified, they would have felt that they were superior, they would have felt that this was part of what American victory represented, but there’s no denying that those ideals rested on the violent killing, the violent submission.

of others. You could say the same thing about, you know, the role of slavery in the United States as well, right? It’s fundamental. The nation was built around it. It’s there from the beginning. You end up with a civil war over it, but it’s part of what the nation was built on in this period was that kind of a cruel, violent practice.

And,

[00:13:15] Jeremi: and your second book, Joanne, really, I think takes this into the halls of Congress, right? I think just it sort of builds on what you just said right now. And And shows us how even our most, what we’d like to think is our most high minded politics is deeply infected with violence, uh, even when we have these larger than life threats.

Orators and figures who we review. Is that a fair reading of this?

[00:13:37] Joanne: Oh for sure. I mean, I think people if they ever think about congress in the 19th century They think about people wearing black suits standing around looking noble speaking great thoughts in one way or another and there was certainly some of that going on but um Congress was a violent place.

Um, it was not a bunch of people sitting around carefully listening to each other It represented in some ways. It was really representative because american Society was violent at the time. But what my book talks about is that violence was deployed by Southerners in Congress as a deliberate strategy to silence Northerners who wanted to do anything really to fight against slavery, whether they were abolitionist or whether they were just standing up to protest against one thing or another that would defend or benefit slavery.

These Southerners, they were armed, they had knives and guns, and they would deliberately display their weapons or deliberately offer It’s the hint of a duel to try to encourage Northerners to silence themselves, to basically intimidate them into silence or compliance. And for a while, it worked really well.

[00:14:52] Jeremi: And I guess that’s the core point for our discussion today to some extent, right? The politics of violence, right? We want to talk about violence when we talk about it. As something that’s a product of insanity, of mental illness, and, and, and of course, there is some of that too, uh, but what I see you saying is that there’s a long history, which this history is relevant for today, of course, of violence being used for political ends and being used successfully for political ends.

Is that accurate?

[00:15:23] Joanne: Absolutely. It’s, it’s tempting to think that you have on the one hand violence and on the other hand like conventional politics and as, as you just said, what, what these people were doing in Congress in the 1840s and 1830s, 40s and 50s actually, these Southerners were using it as a deliberate political tool.

weapon. It was a political strategy. They would stand up and say something, or they would, in a committee meeting, they would say something threatening so that someone wouldn’t testify. They would find a variety of different ways to scare people into shutting up and sitting down. And it was, it was palpable.

It was, it was visual. There’s an Ohio congressman who comes into Congress, I think in the 1840s, and in his diary, He says he’s, he’s stunned at how timid the Northerners are in comparison with the Southerners, that the Southerners, um, constantly threatened in one way or another, the Northerners and the Northerners just sit down and, and shut up.

So in the case that he’s talking about in this one case, I gather there was a Southerner who wanted to be compensated for travel that he wasn’t, eligible to be compensated for, and these Northerners that this Ohio congressman was talking to, they said, yeah, well, we know he’s not entitled to that, but this guy’s a dueling man, so I’m not going to stand up and say anything to him, we’ll just let him ask, you know, ask for it and get for it, no matter how unfair it is, and this particular, um, Congressman Joshua Giddings from Ohio, he came into Congress saying I’m going to be silent the first year because I don’t know this place and he comes out of his entry into Congress saying, okay, well, that’s someone’s got to stand up to these guys.

So I guess I’m going to do it. And he was attacked over seven times physically in Congress. So Southerners are really deliberately scaring Northerners into compliance to protect the institution of slavery.

[00:17:17] Jeremi: And for you, this is part of the story, obviously, of the lead up to the, to the civil war. Um, you, you’ve excavated and described this period so well, better than anyone else.

Um, how do we think about that then in, in today’s context, right? How do we bring that history into today? That’s the, that’s the point of our podcast each week, right? How this history matters. Do you see that in some ways as partially an explanation for what we’re seeing today?

[00:17:47] Joanne: Well, I think we’ve seen, um, and even not just today, today, but, but semi recently in politics, particularly with Donald Trump and his supporters, bullying as a strategy, being Intimidating, being threatening, so that people are afraid to work at polling places, so that people are afraid to stand up at school board meetings, so that people are afraid about books that they teach in the classroom, that, that bullying, even though the person doing the bullying might not actually do anything physically violent.

Still, that’s a form of being violently forced into compliance in some way, and it can be really powerful. The only thing you have to have to be an effective bully is you need to have people believe that you could be violent. If you want it to, and that’s really powerful. And that was the power behind the South and Congress for those decades.

And very, very often in modern times, what we’re seeing is another form of that is people being threatening in one way or another, sometimes acting out, but more often than not just making threats that feel real enough that people feel threatened. And often. They back down and that’s being done as a political strategy.

[00:19:07] Zachary: Uh, are there particular institutional or structural elements of the American political system that you think make us vulnerable to this kind of violence and political intimidation, especially in this moment?

[00:19:19] Joanne: Well, in this moment, um, I think. You know, let me back up for a minute here. There are a handful of moments in American history when things get really violent, particularly violent, and they have something in common.

And this current moment fits into that pattern. And I would say the 1850s and the lead up to the Civil War and the 1960s and the Civil Rights era and the current day. The thing about all of these moments is that there’s something really fundamental at stake. And Americans know that. And there’s a feeling that the political system is somehow or other not up to grappling with it.

So in the 1850s, the institution of slavery is finally getting to the point where it’s going to have to be dealt with in one way or another. And it, the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854 says, Okay, you know what? Kansas, Nebraska, they can decide whether they want to be slave or free, which unleashes all of this violence on the frontier, in Kansas particularly, by people who support slavery and go rushing in there to try and grab the state to be a slave state.

That’s when you get the caning of Charles Sumner, as we started out with. Um, there are all kinds of things happening in that period around slavery, and it’s clear that the system can’t resolve that problem. And Southerners are so They feel so entitled to preserving the system of slavery that they become increasingly violent to protect it, and ultimately, they declare war against the Union, right?

So, there’s a case in which the system isn’t able to fix a problem. In the 1960s, you had, I suppose you could say the, some aspects of the entrenched, white population that were not really excited about extending civil rights out to more people, to larger groups of people, to people who, people attempted to marginalize.

So what are these people who are used to having power do? They fight back with violence. And television, in that case, enabled people to see that violence happening, which made a big difference. difference. And I think now we’re in another one of these moments. So if you have slavery and then you have civil rights being two big causes, I would say right now, democracy is the big cause is the big issue at stake.

And we see some people on the right Um, who are, um, feeling that their right to unchallenged power, that they’re entitled to have as much power as they want for as long as they want, challenges to that are driving them to be threatening, to threaten violence. They’re doing almost whatever it takes to preserve their status quo in this moment.

And, uh, You know, our system of government is being undermined often. National institutions have been undermined for several years. And, you know, you can see all over the media, and I suppose you can see on social media, there’s a constant discussion about, is democracy in danger? Is democracy in danger?

Well, it is. In danger. It is. So that’s our moment. And the question is, how is this argument? How is this going to play out? We already know that violence is going to be part of this discussion. It already has been. The question is, what happens in this confrontation? And how do the American people react?

respond to this moment? Do they stand up for democracy? Do they come together to defend democracy? People understand now, as they never have before, that it’s more fragile than they thought. So this could be, and this is, I want to be careful how I say this. I don’t want to say that what we’re going through now is a good thing, but a good aspect of it is that people understand, probably for Many of them for the first time that government doesn’t go of itself and that democracy doesn’t go of itself and that you need to step forward and speak for it and defend it.

And, you know, if that’s part of what comes out of this moment, that’s a positive thing.

[00:23:26] Jeremi: That’s so well said and also so you dissect this moment so well, Joanne. Um, couple of things I have kind of asked one. How do you respond to those, especially after the, um, attempted assassination attempt against, um, former president Donald Trump?

Those who say, well, you see, the violence is actually not coming only from the right. Um, and there are people now saying that perhaps criticisms of Trump have encouraged violence. How do you respond to that?

[00:24:02] Joanne: Well, I would say that criticism saying that one person is a threat or another person is a threat to democracy is very different.

From encouraging people at your rally, for example, to be violent. I think that some of what people are pointing to and saying that this caused it, this caused it, is people criticizing Trump and his cause. That it does not represent the kind of violent rhetoric that typically pushes people To really step forward and, and be violent, that is more, you know, of a top down moment when people literally are supportive of, or expressing enthusiasm for, or echoing cries for violence.

And yes, you know, you can say that there have been people on the left, um, using, I suppose you could say extreme rhetoric, but. It’s people on the right who, um, have been really, in one way or another, weaving violent threats within their rhetoric, but also their behavior in a way that makes it very clear what they’re doing and that they’re willing to and want to fight.

For what they want. And by fight, they mean that in a literal kind of a way, you know, our, our system of government is supposed to be enough to prevent that from happening, right? That’s when I talk about the founding, one of the things I say is that yes, the constitution, the framers of the constitution were creating a system of government, but what they also thought that they were, was, were doing was creating a method.

For dealing with problems to come, creating a process that you could go back to so that that process would be able to get you out of bad moments. And a great example of this is actually 1800, the very first really contested presidential election, which almost resulted in violence when some Jeffersonian Republicans were willing to use violence to take the government for him if the Federalists managed to take it away.

And after this whole thing ended. When someone asked Jefferson, what would you have done if things had gone that badly? What would you have done? And Jefferson said, Oh, well, we’d have a convention and we would tweak the constitution in whatever way it needed to be tweaked. And we would go ahead. The constitution is how you deal with.

those moments. So in this current moment, the fact that there are people stepping away from the constitution, sometimes rather assertively, that’s a really bad sign, right? That, that does not suggest someone looking for solutions. That suggests someone looking for power.

[00:26:42] Jeremi: Right. And, and of course, uh, Jefferson’s inaugural address in 1801, one of the great inaugural addresses, right?

We are all Republicans. We are all federalists, right? That you’re trying to bring Americans together and unity in a, in a serious, in a serious way. That, that sort of leads to my, my other question, Joanne, what within our process should be the responses to violence that, uh, you’ve made the point so well that often violence works.

And of course, we had to fight a civil war in response to some of the violence surrounding slavery and surrounding southern, um, southern activities that you described earlier. So, so within the process, within the constitutional system, what is supposed to be done? Well,

[00:27:26] Joanne: within the system, the sorts of things that usually help the nation pull out of violent moments are things like elections, legislation, Supreme Court decisions, right?

The sorts of things that represent defining moments, sometimes hearings, that are formal moments in which a decision is made, and at least in the past, people, or at least the majority of the people have said, Okay, the system has spoken, and now we will. comply with it. In the current moment, when things are really so scrambled, I would say one really important thing to do is for people to come together and speak out against the kinds of threats that they’re seeing, the kind of intimidation that they’re seeing to, you know, if, if people come together, here’s the thing about the American government, it was created in a world of monarchies.

And unlike monarchies, the framers knew that they were creating a government grounded on public opinion to a supreme degree. And what that means is, for better and worse, when the public comes together in its might to say something, it matters. And I think Americans, particularly those who are not happy with the threats and are not happy with stepping away from democracy, maybe feel as though their voice doesn’t matter.

But it does. And just think about, you know, in the semi recent past, when people have come together to protest attacks on health care, or, you know, there have been any number of moments when people have spoken out and suddenly there’s been hasty backpedaling. Public opinion matters. And so one of the things that can happen now, and should happen now, is that Americans should get together, should organize, and should speak out against this.

These anti democratic threats of violence, they need to come together and show that together they want to defend democracy, that they stand behind democracy, that democracy is where America should be, and that the threats and the violence that are lurking out there in the world are not the norm, they’re abnormal and should not be taken as the norm.

[00:29:36] Jeremi: It’s so well said. Um, and it’s part of how I at least would describe the reaction to the civil rights movement. I think the strategy that civil rights activists had in 1960s was to show the violence and then to get the public to reject the violence. And I think that’s what happened.

[00:29:55] Joanne: No, absolutely. But of course, here you see the, the complications of technology, right?

Because the television enabled people to see it and had an impact. And technology has a huge impact on democracy. Because democracy is a conversation between power holders and the people who give that power. And any form of technology that changes that conversation between people with power and people giving it, fundamentally changes democracy.

And that happened with the Telegraph, that happened with the radio and television. And we’re still in the middle of the social media moment when we’re living and discovering, you know, first with a tweeting president, but now, you know, what does it mean that people are saying things or not saying things or spreading information or spreading misinformation?

And nobody knows, but everybody knows the degree to which if you’re on social media now and everyone or no one is saying something, well, you know, And that even if you’re informed and thoughtful, it can become really hard to know what’s happening or what people are saying that that’s, you know, that’s where we are.

And given that a democratic government relies on an informed populist. The fact that that’s where we are and it can happen within a nanosecond that everybody gets given the wrong information, you know, we, we don’t fully know yet how to fully grapple with that kind of a moment.

[00:31:18] Jeremi: It strikes me that the speed is one of the big changes, right?

I mean, I spent a lot of time reading newspapers and Zachary helped me with this in the 1870s, 1860s seeing The amount of propaganda and misinformation in newspapers, they kind of look like Facebook pages today. Um, so how did people work through that? How did, how did it work then? And what can we learn for today?

[00:31:42] Joanne: Well, the telegraph, it starts in the late 1840s, really being widely used. So in the 1850s, a decade before the civil war, and it scrambled things just along the lines of what you’re saying. It scrambled things because it used to be that you could say or do something stupid in Washington. And there’d be some wiggle room, or you could go to the newspaper office and maybe tweak how it would appear before the public, but with the telegraph, there are strangers sitting in the galleries in the House and Senate, and then they go off and they say whatever the heck they want to say to the country.

And so when you look at, I suspect this might be some of what you saw in the 1860s and 70s, when you look at the 1850s, when people are just so excited, because in 45 minutes, The whole nation knows something. What you see in newspapers is, um, a column that at the top will say, Like Mr. Smith, Congressman Smith killed Congressman Jones in a duel.

Oh, and at the top, it’ll say telegraphic in capital. Wow. Telegraphic. So it’ll start out with the like, wow, this happened. And then you’ll see a little further down the page. Well, maybe, maybe he didn’t die. And a little further down the page. Well, actually it might not have actually happened. The fact that it’s telegraphic is everything, and there’s a, there’s a fight in Congress in 1850 that shows this, shows congressmen realizing this in action, and it, it takes place, um, not surprisingly, uh, debating a compromise over slavery in 1850, um, and there ends up, um, two southern congressmen, um, Henry Foote and Thomas Hart Benton end up being in a clash.

Henry Foote brings a gun into the Senate. and points it at Thomas Hart Benton and Thomas Hart Benton jumps out of his chair and pulls his jacket open and says, let the assassin fire. And it’s this grand dramatic moment and people run from the galleries and there’s a stampede in the Senate and people stand on desks to get a good look, which is what they always did when there was a fight of some kind.

And the gun is taken away from foot and everybody sits down and they’re going to go back to work, which is what typically happened after those moments. But, uh, a New Hampshire Congressman, Senator, stands up and he says, wait a minute, do you all realize in this room that in 45 minutes, the nation is going to be reading that we’re slaughtering each other in this chamber and there’s absolutely nothing any of us can do about it.

So we better do something right now to show that we’ve taken this under control. And they decide to have a formal investigation. To show the nation, okay, whatever you’re claiming telegraphic has happened. Actually look, we know it’s wrong. We’re saying it’s wrong by having an investigation and we’ve got it under control.

But there’s a moment that, you know, maybe wasn’t unheard of for that kind of violent moment to break out. But there’s a moment when you can almost hear the room processing the fact and that, well, yeah, the country is going to know about this within 45 minutes or so. Uh, Oh. Like, what does that mean? You know, what do we do with that fact?

So that, that really complicates matters. And in a sense, we kind of are grappling with some of the same things today.

[00:34:53] Jeremi: That’s such a revealing story. I’ve read your writing on it, but it’s wonderful to hear you describe it also. I mean, it’s really. Really powerful. Zachary, does this, is this compelling to you?

Do you see this as a way of both explaining the moment we’re in and especially for young people like yourself who are, you know, I think struggling with this as you not only think about American politics, but think about Middle East politics and various other issues. Is this a helpful way to think, think forward?

[00:35:24] Zachary: I think so. I think what’s most powerful about Professor Freeman’s description, uh, is the sense that violence, while perhaps. endemic to our country is not inevitable, uh, and that we have to be aware of and not, uh, Pollyannish about, uh, the sort of constant presence of violence in our democracy. Um, we also need to be aware of the steps that we can take to prevent and limit that violence.

And it’s not a hopeless narrative. It’s a hopeful narrative. It’s saying that there’s actually a lot of steps that we can take and we must take that can help build a stronger democracy and that maybe the violence is more symptomatic than simply. Definitive of our moment.

[00:36:04] Joanne: That is really well put. I have to say.

[00:36:08] Zachary: Thank

[00:36:08] Jeremi: you. And this was the last question I was going to ask you, Joanne, but I’m going to ask both of you, Zachary and Joanne. I mean, what are some steps that our listeners can take? I think you’ve already referred to some of this, both of you, but, you know, we always like to try to show where this history can be useful.

What would you suggest our listeners do?

[00:36:28] Joanne: Well, certainly, as I’ve already suggested, coming together with others, speaking out, asking questions, debating what’s happening with others, who You know, are able to sit in a room with you and have a civil discussion, asking questions of what you’re seeing, working out what you think or don’t think.

Um, on Friday mornings, um, I think we’ve been doing it for four years now. I’ve had a webcast, a live webcast every Friday morning to talk about history and politics. It’s called History Matters and So Does Coffee because I desperately need coffee in the morning. But it has people from all over the world come together And have been.

I think we just did our 240th episode or something like that. At any rate. And we talk about something having to do with history and the politics of the moment. Not everybody agrees. We have a conversation. I talk for about a half hour about the history of something and the implications of it. And then we just open things up.

And it’s that kind of thing. The fact that a hundred, two hundred, three hundred random people can come together weekly. for having me. And talk about what’s happening and try and figure out what they think about it. That’s really healthy. Like that’s, you know, I say at the end of every episode, thank you for taking part in the conversation of democracy this morning, because that’s what helps democracy is people working things through together.

So yes, we should all be taking action. You know, we should be doing whatever we can do. I don’t know whether that means knocking on doors or sending out postcards, but I think speaking up and speaking out and engaging and joining with others to figure this moment out, I think that matters a lot.

[00:38:08] Zachary: Zachary, last words for you?

I echo everything that Professor Freeman said, and I think also having forums like this podcast where we can have sort of honest, open, but also very, uh, sort of one on one, compassionate discussions of these issues, uh, where we’re not sort of being polemic, but where we’re trying to investigate and interrogate these questions in a serious and honest way, I think that can also be a critical part.

[00:38:32] Joanne: Absolutely. And if I could have one last word here, just because I want to, I want to, I want to leave things sort of where we’re headed, which is with hope. I think in this kind of moment of extreme contingency, it’s easy to assume and, um, endemic but not inevitable, Zachary, is what you said, which is what I was sort of cheering in private here when you said it.

It’s easy to assume. That, you know, we’re going to hell in a handbasket, and everything is going to be bad, and we’re inevitably going to fall, and horrible, horrible things will happen. And there’s no denying that bad things might happen. But it’s harder to remember and important to realize, in this kind of moment of extreme contingency where we honestly don’t know what comes next.

And basic things are up in the air. Those can be moments of real democratic creativity, activism. There can be moments when people come forward and help push us towards a better place, a more inclusive place. And I, I just want people to. have in their mind the fact that we shouldn’t be surrendering because we think things are going badly.

We should be remembering that we can push to make things better.

[00:39:43] Jeremi: That is so well said. And you have now effectively made me completely superfluous because that is exactly the point of our podcast. I’m sorry, sub stack. No, it’s wonderful. Uh, we we’ve created a perfect choir here. Go on another, but I think it’s so true and it’s really the only pathway we have forward and, and, and history really gives us reason to believe that, that just as you said, Joanne, so well, that by, by talking and embracing and leading into democracy at these moments, there is a chance to make, to make things better, to turn the darkness into light.

And, uh, I, I so appreciate. Uh, Joanne Freeman, your, your scholarship and, uh, your, your, uh, commitment and action around, around all of these issues, uh, it means so much to us and we really appreciate your being with us today. So thank you so much.

[00:40:33] Joanne: Thank you so much for having me. And Zachary, I gather I’m going to see you in one of my classes in the fall.

[00:40:38] Jeremi: Yes,

[00:40:39] Zachary: you are.

[00:40:40] Joanne: I look forward to it.

[00:40:41] Jeremi: You can. I do as well. You can continue the conversation there. Thank you for your wonderful poem as always, Zachary, and for your contributions. And thank you most of all to our loyal listeners and our loyal readers of our Substack as well for joining us for this episode of This is Democracy.

[00:41:06] Outro: This podcast is produced by the Liberal Arts ITS Development Studio and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and recorded by Harris Codini. Stay tuned for a new episode every week. You can find this is Democracy on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher. See you next time.