The Fight to Save American Democracy — with Heather Cox Richardson | Prof G Conversations

The rights fascination with heritage

Americans, those whose roots go back to

the Civil War, seems to recast

patriotism as lineage. How do we trace

this shift from ideals, including

loyalty to the Constitution and the

Declaration, to something more ancestral

or exclusionary?

>> Lineage and land, that's the other piece

of what the people like JD Vance and the

other MAGA Republicans who are jumping

onto that train are talking about. And

that is, you know, really quite

explicitly the kind of language that the

German Nazis centered around. The idea

that being part of a society is about

the land and the heritage. The idea that

there was ever a United States of

America that was not multicultural

is simply a fantasy.

>> Uh, professor, where does this podcast

find you?

>> Cost of Maine.

>> Oh, nice as always. And

>> that's right. Uh, we were joking off mic

that I can't imagine how busy you must

be. It feels like this is sort of your

your sweet spot. I imagine um you're

getting a lot of requests for

interviews. So, very much appreciate

your time today.

>> Yeah, but you know, I was thinking about

this knowing I was going to talk to you

today. One of the things that I find

really interesting about this moment is

there is so much coming at us all the

time. It's kind of like being in a

really big crowd where everybody is

mumbling and you're trying to pick out

the story line and you can't quite tell

if you're getting it or not. And that's

that's really how I feel this morning

where there's been so much information

coming at us over the last three days

trying to make sense of for example the

extraordinary use of energy, the rise of

cryptocurrency, what's happening in

Venezuela, what's happening in Colombia,

what's happening in the Middle East,

what's happening in Washington DC,

what's happening streets all over the

country and trying to pick out a story.

I see why people get tired and why

people are just, you know, starting to

tune out. You just summarized our

editorial call for all the content we

push out. And the thing that gives me

comfort is I forget who said it, but

I've been trying to be be better at

practicing it. And that is not

everything demands your judgment. You

don't have to have an opinion on

everything. And I found myself over the

weekend. So this is your wheelhouse. I

would imagine people really want to know

what you thought about what happened

over the weekend. But I thought this

isn't my wheelhouse. And I don't need to

be online

24 by7 over the weekend trying to

provide insight or moments of

inspiration, maybe I should just let

this play out realizing that just as I

don't need my DJ to comment on AI

strategy. I'm not sure that I need to

comment on everything. So I I find some

solace in that. But you don't you you

don't get off the hook here because this

is your wheelhouse. So, we'll start

there.

Trying to find what with respect to the

protests over the weekend, 2,700

protests across the country, 7 million

people, about I think it's about 2% of

the population.

Um, any any observations or anything the

you think the media is getting wrong

about the protests this weekend?

>> Well, first of all, there hasn't been a

lot of coverage of the protests in a lot

of legacy media, which itself is

interesting. Um but so so missing that

is a big thing because of course this is

a huge deal if you remember when the tea

party protests which were organized in a

very different way first hit the news

you know the a lot of the then legacy

media thought that this was a huge

gamecher and of course the no kings

protests were even larger and they're

not getting that kind of attention which

I think is a reflection on the state of

the media in the United States for one

thing which is a much larger picture as

well but there's a couple of things that

I think really matter matter about the

no kings movements uh and the and the

protests o over the weekend. The first

was the degree to which they went back

into our history and championed our

historical traditions of democracy, free

speech, um separation church and state

and so on. I mean it's it's always

interesting when a movement goes to the

touchstones not just of the imagery of

our past but also of the ideas. But it

was also interesting that they were

joyful. That actually really matters

because that suggests they're charting a

course forward. They indicated the idea

of we the people coming together against

a cabal taking over the country as

opposed to us versus them, which is what

the radical right has been trying to do.

And crucially, I think it really matters

that they were older and they were very

visibly older and white. And that I

think both harks back to the fact that

it's those of us who are over 55 at this

point who can remember a democracy that

worked much more effectively than the

one we've had for the last 40 years. But

it also makes it extraordinarily

difficult for the radical right to look

at, you know, a a an 85year-old woman

using a walker and say this person is

posing an existential threat to your

democracy. And that all of those things

I think matter.

>> It's a really interesting observation. I

want to take it forward to a couple

thesis and you can push back or validate

them. And that is when I think about the

Women's March or or better yet maybe

more apt analogies for the comparison

would be Black Lives Matter or the Me

Too movement that I don't want to say

these were fueled by anger but there was

a sense of injustice and they attracted

a a greater non-white and younger

participation.

And I wonder if just in general this is

almost like a sentimental rally that we

remember how wonderful America is and

one out of two people our age feel good

about America. It's something like one

out of eight or one out of 10 younger

people. So this was and I'm you're

helping me connect the dots there. This

is more like a sentimental celebration

missing what America was and how

wonderful it is and recognizing that and

also it was peaceful. uh and maybe some

of the recent protests have been I don't

want to say call them anger, but do you

think this reflects that generally as

you go older people are maybe a little

bit less angry or more sentimental for

the old days of America?

>> No, actually I don't think that's what's

going on at all. I think that's one of

the reasons we can recognize the moment

that we're in. But this looks very much

and I can I can go through a whole bunch

of movements, but let's start with the

abolitionist movement. What really makes

the abolitionist movement take off in

the 1830s and the 1840s? um am you know

it's very very small. People forget how

small that movement is. Um, people sign

petitions and so on, but it really

doesn't get a lot of traction until John

Quincy Adams, who has gone from being in

the presidency to being back in the

House of Representatives, really hammers

on the idea that the abolitionists who

are making it impossible for people to

introduce petitions into Congress are

losing their rights because the the

elite southern enslavers said to the

House of Representatives, "We will not

entertain petitions of people who are

demanding abolition.

And of course we have the right to

petition from the first amendment and

and John Quincy Adams on petition day

Monday every day every Monday would try

and introduce those petitions and he

would be forbidden. And what that did is

it enabled the people who cared about

abolition to go back to districts and to

go back to their neighbors and say hey

you might not care about black Americans

but or or enslaved people at the time

but you do care about your right to

petition. And similarly, when elite

enslavers stopped allowing the mails to

be delivered in the American South if

they had abolition abolitionist

petitions in them, what the

abolitionists did is they went to their

neighbors and said, "Hey, now you're not

allowed to use the males." And I think

that when you see a movement that goes

from the reality that uh an ethnic or a

gender minority group is being

oppressed, that often tends to get

marginalized. But when you can turn that

movement into one that says, "Hey, you

know, this isn't really about, in the

case of the abolitionists, the enslaved

Americans in the South, this is about

your right to petition. This is about

your right to use the males. This is

about your right to have a senator not

getting beaten up on the floor of the

Senate. This is about, you know, getting

over that hurdle to say to people who

were not previously involved in

protests, especially those who thought

the world was going along pretty well,

hey, you need to pay attention because

this government's coming after you."

That's when you get a movement that

changes society.

>> And I I was sort of struck by I think um

the White House spokesperson saying that

this protest was made up of violent

criminals, illegal immigrants, and

Hamas. And by process of elimination,

that means I'm Hamas. Do you think how

would you describe the administration's

approach to this? We've seen some memes

of Trump dropping feces from an

aircraft. How do you think the

administration's response has been to

this? Has it been effective? And try and

provide some historical context for when

the the incumbents have responded to

this type of protest.

>> First of all, can you believe what you

just said?

>> Unfortunately, I can now.

>> But but that that conversation should

have ended right there, right? I mean,

again, this is a all the murmuring in

the room, right? There I think there's a

lot of things going on with the

administration. I don't I think it's a

real problem to think of it as

monolithic. I think that there are a

number of different forces going into

what comes out of the Oval Office and

they are not always working together.

So, one of the things I think you're

seeing with the social media accounts of

the White House and the people

associated with the White House is a

deliberate attempt to draw eyeballs no

matter what. And that we have certainly

heard that this is the goal of Susie

Wilds, the chief White House chief of

staff, and certainly of the the media

directors that what they care about is

essentially running a a reality TV show.

And of course, the the problem with

that, aside from all the principled

problems with that, is that you have to

continue to escalate your content or

people look away. And we're seeing that

constant escalation. But I think we're

also seeing the recognition that the

material that the White House is putting

out is not real, is increasingly

divorced from what people's lives look

like. So, I think that when they do

something like the videos that we saw,

not only the one to which you're

referring in which Trump goes into the

air in what appears to be a fighter jet,

uh, that says King Trump on the side

and, you know, the videos in which both

Trump and Vice President JD Vance are

wearing crowns and, you know, they're

putting their political opponents in

Mexican sombrero, you know, all of those

things. They're playing to a base. But

there is a difference, I think, between

the sort of noir films that the

Department of Homeland Security was

putting out early on portraying

undocumented immigrants as dangerous

criminals and videos about potty stuff.

You know, there's a difference between

those menacing,

dark films that look like, you know, a

horror, not a horror movie, a you know,

a crime movie and the president of the

United States making a visual poop joke,

which is so second grade. And I thought

that was a really interesting shift

because it's become almost cartoonish.

Certainly, it must appeal to part of

their base, but I don't think it appeals

to the middle part of the country that

is facing crazy prices at the grocery

store, their rising premiums of of their

their health care, um an increasing

sense that their businesses are going

off the rails, that the that the

president is a loose cannon. And I

thought that was a really interesting

shift over the weekend and one that I

often play with for fun. If I were

writing the president's speeches or if I

were writing articles, you know, priming

the president to look as if he is doing

great stuff, what would I do? And I

promise you, poop jokes were a thousand%

never going to make my list. So I

thought that was really interesting that

they did that. What common elements of

successful protests that result in some

sort of tangible change? What do they

have in common and compare that against

this protest?

>> Nonviolence key in America. Nonviolence

is so key in America. Um, and that was

really distinctive about these protests

and I think you got to give credit to

Indivisible and people like Ezra Lean

who's one of the leaders of Indivisible.

the degree to which they emphasized

nonviolence, joy, artistic expression,

and crucially made sure the protests

happened during daylight. If you think

about the other protests you talked

about, the times when they got violent

from the perspective of the people on

the streets who were not necessarily the

first protesters out there was

everything happened after dark and the

indivisible folks got people off onto

and off the streets before dark. And

that that that was really really

crucial. So that that is the first thing

that makes a difference. But as I said

before, what matters in uh protest is

that people can see themselves in it.

And and I I mean lots of people can see

themselves in it. And that's in this

case a reflection not only of the faces

that you saw there, but the art. So, one

of the things about protest movements

and one of the reasons I think that this

administration is in real trouble is

because you want to have a movement in

which everybody can see themselves. And

to some degree, the mega Republicans did

that as well. That was part of their

rise. Trump promised everything to

everyone. And so, you could say, "Well,

I don't like him on these 10 things, but

boy, I love him on these four." In this

case, the sort of amorphous nature of we

don't want a king and here's what we

care about enables virtually everybody

to see themselves in that or to have to

take a stand saying yeah I want a

dictator and that's not really an

American position. I mean one of the

things you can see is people taking it

as an LOL form you know haha yeah I want

a dictator but the truth is Americans

generally don't want dictators so that

ability to create a space in which many

many people could see themselves and

crucially demonstrate that there are a

lot of people who do not like this

administration that really matters

because that translates not necessarily

to the people who are currently in

office but to the people who are trying

to get into office and to people who are

trying to find their constituencies.

Well, there were, you know, about 7

million people on the streets waiting to

be a constituency on Saturday. And that

demonstrates not only to people going

into politics, but also to businesses

who in the past might have thought, hey,

maybe I really do need to cater to MAGA

Republicans because they're an important

um purchasing block, for example, an

important consumer block. You look at

that and you think, hey, on the other

hand, maybe I really shouldn't. And and

I actually would would date this protest

and the the momentum of the protest back

to Jimmy Kimmel and the getting Jimmy

Kimmel back on the air because that was

a case in which I've I think I said to

you before it seemed to me a lot of

important pillars of American society

were not necessarily cowtowing to Trump.

They were buying time. For example, you

know, they didn't fire Jimmy Kimmel.

they suspended his show and they were

kind of waiting to see what would

happen. And when what happened was there

was such extraordinary popular pressure

to get him back on the air that even the

Sinclair and I think it was um NextStar

systems put him back on. That is a real

message to people producing things that

the people who are standing against this

administration are stronger than the

people standing for it. And that

momentum seems at least for now to be

building. Now we'll see what happens

going forward.

>> Have you given any thought to the idea

of a national economic strike or and

there's different forms. What I think

was so powerful about Kimmel was it was

very specific against a specific

company. It was frictionless in terms of

your ability to cancel Disney Plus, take

a screenshot of it. It didn't ask

consumers to do a lot and it was

targeted with a specific required

action. any thoughts on the idea of some

sort of national economic strike or

strike against individual companies?

>> So, yeah, I have a take on that and it's

informed by American history and again,

we're in a new moment, so who knows it.

It is my understanding of American

strikes that targeting strikes work

incredibly well. Targeted boycott work

incredibly well. Exactly as you say.

Look at what happened to Tesla, Jimmy

Kimmel. But we could go on. I mean,

Target um you could go and versus what

happened with Costco where um because of

the way that they handled um diversity,

equity, and inclusion issues, their

stock has gone way up. People are all

shopping there. But um but general

strikes in the United States do not

historically tend to work well for the

simple reason that we are so

interconnected that when you start to

issue a general strike. That means that

people don't get their medicine or

people don't get food or whatever. And

it's really difficult, especially in

such a a a large country where people

have so many different interests, to say

to somebody whose kid needs an operation

or to somebody who needs food, well,

this is for the greater good. And so

when the country has tried national

strikes, weirdly, it has turned against

um it is had people turn against them

that you would think would have been on

their side. Uh, for example, um, in the

late 1890s, there was an attempt at, um,

a general strike. It wasn't really

called a general strike, but a lot of

stuff got shut down. The railroads

essentially got shut down. And one of

the people who came out against that was

Jada Adams, who was really strongly in

favor of workers rights. But she's like,

I'm watching kids not have food around

me. I can't be part of this. So, I tend

not to support the idea of a general

strike. people look at it and they say,

"Oh, you're going to show how important

we are to the economy." But you're also

going to show people who should be on

your side that you can't be trusted

because you don't care about, you know,

the their need for basic necessities.

So, I tend to be against that and for in

very much for targeted boycots, targeted

strikes because that enables people to

have a workaround for those sorts of

emergency situations. Now, like I say, I

am not a specialist in in where strikes

pressure people, but I know in our past,

general strikes have tended to split the

movement rather than to create um unity

behind it.

>> We'll be right back.

>> Support for the show comes from Adobe

Express. With social media, email, and a

growing variety of online ads, there are

more touch points than ever between your

business and its customers. Adobe

Express is here to make sure your

smallest touch point is as polished,

impactful, and onbrand as the biggest.

The brand kits in Express make following

design rules a breeze. Templates for

flyers, banners, emails, social posts,

and more have all the professional

quality Adobe is known for. And

generative AI that's safe for business

gives everyone the ability to make

images, rewrite texts, and produce

effects using simple text prompts. You

can create campaigns, resize ads with a

click, and even translate content

automatically. Work that used to take

weeks now takes minutes or even seconds.

Adobe Express also makes collaboration,

approval, and sharing easier, so any

team can become a welloiled content

machine. And if you're leading your

team, you can monitor it all from your

admin console. That means you have one

centralized place where you can ensure

that every asset is right and that

everyone is synced. Go from fragmented

to businessfriendly. Switch to the quick

and easy app to create onbrand content,

Adobe Express. Learn more at

adobe.com/express/business.

True story, I've actually used Adobe

Express and I was genuinely impressed

with how easy it is to create

professional content that you can

immediately push out.

[Music]

Support for the show comes from Brex.

These days, every business leader is

under pressure to save money, but you

can't crush the competition just by

cutting costs. To win, you need to spend

smarter and move faster. You need Brex.

Bre is the intelligent finance platform

that breaks the trade-off between

control and speed with smart corporate

cards, high yield banking, and AI

powered expense management. Join the

30,000 companies that spend smarter and

move faster with Brex. Learn more at

brex.com/grow.

[Music]

The last time we had you on the pod, you

struck sort of an optimistic tone and

said that look, America has faced while

this might feel dark, it's not the

darkest it's been. And that often times

the America, the America we know and

love has bounced back even stronger.

That its resilience, its elasticity has

has stood the test of time and that

we've been in darker moments and that we

should be hopeful and realize the power

of pushing back. Has your mood or your

optimism changed at all since we've last

since we last talked?

>> No. And I can I can tell you what's

wrong. I can tell you what's right. I I

do want to reiterate that my big

disappointment in all of this has been

the degree to which the lawmakers in

Congress, especially in the Senate, the

Republican lawmakers in Congress,

especially in the Senate, have abdicated

the prerogatives of the legislative

branch. They have walked away from the

separation of powers. And I every

morning I get up and think, really? Is

this really what you're going to do to

the Constitution and to the people who

elected you? That sense has only gotten

stronger. But no, I I'm I I don't want

to be Look, none of us wants to be in

this position, but I continue to have

faith in the American people and the

recovery of our democracy. What do you

think?

>> This is your trick. You did this to me

the last time you you asked me what I

think. Uh I have been well one flumxed

and disappointed by uh Republicans who

mean everything from the people that you

know the second amendment was meant to

guard against this type of thing. A

national guard being sent into cities to

violate people's rights. That's the

whole point that the fear of a

tyrannical government rising up against

uh citizens ignoring the co-equal

branches of government. The thing that

has been the most disappointing to me

and I want to get your take on this is

that I know many of the tech titans and

I asked myself what's the point of being

worth billions of dollars. These guys

are pretty bulletproof. Imagine the

worst. Imagine that the DOJ has weapon

against them. They can peace out to

Dubai or Milan and have a really nice

life. They they have very little

downside at this point. And it has just

been it is just shocking to me. The way

I would describe the Trump's

administration's tactics is shocking but

not surprising. Like what they they the

things they do really upset me and shock

me. But then I look at the pattern and I

think well it's not surprising. What has

been both shocking and surprising to me

is the lack of backbone, the cowardice,

the Neville Chamberlain and Kashmir

sweaters minus the dignity. It is our

S&P 500 business leaders who many of

whom I would argue 490 to 499 of them

wake up every morning look in the mirror

and say hello Mr. president. All of them

believe that they are natural-born

leaders who should probably someday be

president. And leadership in my view is

doing the right thing when it's really

hard. And none of them are doing that.

And I get text messages from some of

these people saying, "I hate myself."

And my general response is, "Well, boss,

that really doesn't do us any good." And

they're showing up to what could best be

described as these sickopantric

sickopantic bend the knee give you a

plaque from Apple. That has been the

most surprising to me that I I asked

myself what is the point of having all

this money and power if you don't show

any fidelity

to the very principles

the constitution free markets capitalism

that have given you this fortune and yet

you just absolutely ignore it you

desecrate it I I that to me has been the

most surprising thing is the and also I

think it's a commercial opportunity you

talked about Costco I think the first

company that weaponizes media and comes

comes out with, you don't even have to

say Trump. Nike comes out, talks about

the importance of immigrants, the

importance of competition, the

importance of free play in sports, and

we'll know what they're talking about.

And I think the majority of people who

have disposable income probably tend to

think more like us than the

administration. And I think it would be

an enormous boom. I think it's an

enormous commercial opportunity. So, I'm

shocked that there has been the silence

has been deafening from our corporate

leadership. What are your thoughts? So,

this is why I I like you say, it's my

trick to ask questions. I know what I

think and I don't think it's really very

interesting to listen to me talk, but

what you just said opens up whole, you

know, whole areas that nobody ever talks

to me about, nobody ever asks about. So,

this is these are two great directions

to go. Before I talk about the the tech

stuff and throw that back at you, I

think what you said about the Second

Amendment and that that was the whole

point, don't tread on me and so on, I

think now you have to look at that and

say, was it was that really the point or

were what they or or were they saying we

don't like the way that this country is

going in terms of multiculturalism, in

terms of its economy and so on. So,

we're going to say that what we really

care about is an overweening government.

But the truth is, now that we have an

overweing government that we think is

ours, hey, we're cool with it. So, for

what it's worth, if you think about the

philosophy of history, which a lot of

people don't necessarily, but if you

think of, you know, one of my favorite

books ever is Abselum Abselum, William

Faulner, because the whole point of that

book is that the present changes the

past. that is the way that you are in

the present makes you look back at what

happened in the past and re-evaluate it.

And in this case, I don't think you

could write a book about the Tea Party

and say, "Oh yeah, it was about taxes."

Not that you would have done that

anyway. I just pulled that out of my

head. But you know, the the idea of this

don't threat on me thing. But the thing

about the tech bros is really

interesting because I actually spent a

lot of time I don't know any of them,

but I spend a lot of time reading what

they write and what they talk about. And

what I see is not knowing any of them in

the modern era is the kind of ideology

that we saw in the late 19th century

with the rise of the robber barons. And

that is perhaps a natural human tendency

or perhaps a natural human tendency

among people who have been lucky enough

to make fortunes. The idea that you must

be better than everybody else. Not that

it was chance as we know it was because

of the eras in which they lived and the

ways in which the economy worked. So it

enabled somebody like Andrew Carnegie

who came over and you know as a as a as

a a a day laborer to amass these

extraordinary fortunes and they start to

think they're better than people,

they're smarter than people and they're

really the ones who should run

everything. And that's an idea that

translates into like you say, yeah, I

should be president. And it's

interesting. I would love to see the the

actual breakdown of those people who

have come from nothing and moved up who

think that way and those who don't in

the sense that it is also possible as

you say to wake up in the morning and

look in the mirror and say I have been

so blessed I must give back. And the

difference between the people who do the

one and who do the other, what is that?

>> The robber barons, my sense is they got

very very philanthropic and civic-

minded after they made their billions.

Right. About the point they thought, is

that not true? I see.

>> Well, well, yeah, they did except they

gave away fra not all of them did, but

they gave away fractions of what they

had made. But that's an interesting

question. What induces somebody in that

position to either give it away or to

amass power? And I would argue that's

the pressure of popular opinion. So in

the late 19th century, people like

Andrew Carnegie when he wrote uh what we

know as the gospel of wealth, which was

known as just wealth. What he was really

angry about was not just the workers who

wanted to have higher pay and better

living conditions. He was mad at the

other robber barons who weren't building

opera houses and libraries. He's like,

"You guys got to give this back." If you

think about the present era, how many of

our extraordinarily wealthy people

actually are pouring their fortunes into

making the world a better place? Some of

them certainly are, but I'm not seeing a

lot of Elon Musk universities. I think

back then

your

prestige, your relevance, your ability

to have a larger selection set of mates,

have more interesting friends, be

invited to more interesting things was

not only a function of what you had and

your money. It was a function of your

perceived character, your perceived

citizenship, your perceived strength

physically, your military service.

Whereas I think America's basically come

all of those things roll up to one

thing. how much you have or simply

put how rich you are. I don't even when

I was a kid my dad was we were squarely

middle class and we knew his boss and

his bot had his boss had a nicer house

but it was in the same neighborhood. We

were all members of the same country

club. The delta between the middle class

and sort of the wealthy was a foot. Now

it's a billion miles. The difference in

services

relationships power the life you lead.

It's like that Jerry Magcguire film, you

know, business class used to be a bigger

seat, now it's a better life. The

delta's become so enormous that America

really just evaluates someone's

character entirely on their wealth. And

so the temptation of these individuals

just to be focused on their wealth and

then use the excuse of, well, I'm a

fiduciary for all shareholders leads to

this incremental rationalization of just

terrible decisions. And I think a lot of

them are thinking, well, I just got to

get through the next three and a half

years of this and then I'll go back to

being a good American. We just have to

wait this guy out. Do you see a

difference in the way people are

rewarded with prestige and relevance and

a kind of citizenship award versus

versus those awards and that judgment

now?

>> 100%. And I would add more to that that

I think you and I talked about in July.

And that is one of the things that the

United States used to stand for was

working hard and prospering. That

anybody who came here got to work hard

and to build a better life for

themselves and their families. And that

idea of achieving things through hard

work has really, you know, as a cultural

value really, I think, has fallen by the

wayside since the 1980s. And I remember

strongly when Reagan started talking

about how you didn't really have to work

that hard in school cuz look at him. He

was a C student from Eureka College and

he was president of the United States

that it was really much more about if

you will and and I'm sorry this is a

cultural leap but I hope it makes sense.

You know so long as um the force was

talking to you were going to go very far

in the universe. And you know the same

area you also get a real doubling down

on the idea of evangelical Christianity

when which God's grace is freely given.

And one of the things that that that has

culturally turned into I think is this

idea of instant fame. The idea that you

don't have to actually put in any effort

so long as you are um successful in the

end. And and that I think has been

culturally a real problem for the United

States. It's been a problem politically,

but I think it's also been a problem for

individuals who, you know, don't value

the and this is a really broad brush,

but you know, as I keep saying, there is

joy in the work. You know, learning to

do something really well by hours and

hours and hours and hours of failure has

a human payoff as well as potentially a

a financial payoff. And that loss of

America is the land of hard work in our

cultural system because I think

individuals still 100% believe it. Many

of them I think that that's been um

that's been a real cultural loss and one

that I would certainly love to see

brought back. It kind of feeds into

what you write a lot about and that is

what is the idea of what it means to be

uh an American and the rights

fascination with heritage Americans

those whose roots go back to the civil

war seems to recast patriotism as

lineage.

How do we trace this shift from ideals

including loyalty to the constitution

and the declaration to something more

ancestral or exclusionary?

>> Lineage and land. That's the other piece

of what the people like JD Vance and the

other MAGAR Republicans who are jumping

onto that train are talking about. And

that is, you know, really quite

explicitly the kind of language that the

German Nazis centered around the idea

that being part of a society is about

the land and the heritage. And the

United States just simply was never

that. And this is really a deliberate

attempt to bring into our system this

other kind of idea. The place you might

have seen it to some degree is among the

elite southern enslavers in the American

South before the Civil War where they

were literally trying to take on

aristocratic names for example. But even

they knew it was pretentious because

that land was so recently um taken under

their control after the Trail of Tears

um in the 1830s. So you don't really see

that elsewhere in the United States. And

it it you know, one of the things I wish

I had more time to write always, but one

of the things that frustrates me to no

end is the idea that there was ever a

United States of America that was not

multicultural

is simply a fantasy. And you know, we

talk in history about how whiteness is a

constructed category and you know that

you know, you get all kinds of push back

on that. But it is worth remembering

that Irish immigrants to the United

States were not considered white.

Italian immigrants to the United States

were not considered white. So when you

think about whiteness as a category and

you look at some of the people with very

obviously Irish last names, insisting

that they belong to this white heritage,

uh, you know, I just sit there and

think, okay, we're just going to make it

up, right? we're just going to construct

our idea of what the past looked like

because the reality has always been that

the United States was about working

together as communities within a very

very broad range of people.

>> So you said that we're in a period where

partisanship matters more than country

and that politics right now is more

about parties and is about advancing

national interests. So I want to put

forward a concern or a thesis and then

an idea. And the thesis is that fascism,

you know, nationalism, refusal to

condemn violence against your enemies,

demonizing immigrants. But the juice of

fascism is convincing people that it's

the enemy within that the call is coming

from inside of the house. And it strikes

me that as we should be as worried, more

worried than ever about Russian soldiers

pouring over the border of Ukraine or

income inequality or the CCP and cyber

attacks that the majority of the juice

is trying to convince people that oh,

it's it's your neighbor that's the

problem. One, do you agree with that and

see the link with fascism? And then two,

is a potential solve for this a

medication a solution? I want to hear

your views on mandatory national inter

uh national service.

>> So yes, the idea of this administration

is to turn Americans against each other

and I think that was the real impetus

for the whole push against trans

athletes in high schools or in in K

through 12 schools because the number of

actual transameans is exceedingly small.

And one of the things that you want to

do is you want to make sure that the

people you're using as the enemy that

there just aren't that many of them. So

people can say, "Oh, you know, I those

people scare me." And the the problem

that they're having trying to convince

Americans that immigrants are a problem

is because we're all immigrants to this

country. Virtually all of us who are not

of indigenous heritage have been

immigrants and we are na traditionally a

nation of immigrants. So it's very hard

to convince people whose grandparents

came from somewhere that the immigrants

are the problem which is why they've

gone with what is it criminals rapists

murderers the worst of the worst and so

on but then you see these videos of

grandmothers being taken away and think

really the worst of the worst. So I'm

not entirely sure that that system of

trying to other people is working. I

think more what we are seeing is an

increasing recognition when that happens

that we really are we the people

um opposed to this group of of this

cabal that's trying to take things over.

I'm 100% in favor and and I'm going to

be pull a Donald Trump here. I am 1,500%

in favor of national service for

everybody after college and and I would

say two year I not not after college I'm

sorry after high school and here's why

not only because I think that national

service mixes up the pool and you get to

know people from elsewhere and you

recognize that they're not you know some

monster that you're being told but also

because having been a college professor

I know that students coming out of high

school are really not prepared to settle

down into college for a two or a

four-year term. They need a break,

>> especially boys.

>> Yeah. And you know, quietly, I was I I

always used to think you're not allowed

to, of course, but I always sort of

thought we should be allowed as

professors to have private conversations

with parents, which you're absolutely

not allowed to do, and of course for a

year,

>> and say, you know, you're wasting your

money. your kid is coming to class at

9:00 in the morning drunk. You know, get

him a keg of beer and an apartment

>> and let him get it out of him system and

then when I get him back I can teach him

something. But you're paying an awful

lot of money for me to babysit this kid.

>> I showed up to UCLA at 17. I came of age

during the space race and the moment he

showed any aptitude, me and Debbie

Brewbaker were sent to the fifth grade

when we're in the third grade for

English and math and they wanted to skip

me two grades and my mom refused and

only let them skip me one grade and I

got to UCLA at 17 and there was one of

my fraternity brothers was 16. It was

insane that we were put in an

uncontrolled environment with alcohol

and the opposite sex and trying to

figure out mating and getting along with

people and going to school and taking

tests

came so close to failing out my first

year. It I love what you said. I just

think it would be I mean well let me let

me put forward this. I've always thought

in the 50s and 60s we had this really

productive era of national unity and

great legislation. one because we kind

of had an economic monopoly on the world

and we could afford a home and two cars

with one person working because of our

advantage because other other economic

infrastructures have been leveled. But

even more than that, people had served

our leaders had served in the same

uniform and we need to figure out a way

such that at some point most of us have

served in the same uniform. Would you

agree with that? I would, but I'm going

to alter it a little bit in that the 50s

were not great times for all Americans

by any stretch of the imagination. But

what you are identifying, I think, um, I

saw around me growing up, I was born in

' 62.

Everybody in our in our in our all of

the parents and and not just the

fathers, but often the mothers had

served in the war in one capacity or

another. And there was a very different

sense of what it meant to be a man in

the United States of America and a woman

in the United States of America in the

1950s in that what was privileged was

not the kind of thing you and I were

just talking about. How much money can I

make, but rather how do I take care of

my town? And you know, one of the World

War II vets um was a patent in Europe.

It's a guy who taught me how to shingle

a roof and how to do electricity and how

to fix my car. Wasn't my father, by the

way, who taught me other things. But

there was this sense that you stepped in

because the goal was the community, not

just yourself. And I see that, by the

way, in the people my age who were in

service. Um, I don't necessarily see it

so much among the younger people who

have served. And this is not entirely

across the board, but once we started

contracting out to um to military

contractors, things like fixing the

trucks and uh cooking the meals and all

that, you lost sort of that sense of

there being a closed community in which

everybody needed to do their their part.

And that idea of going back to a system

in which people understood that, yeah,

it really matters if you clean the

bathrooms as much as it matters if you

shout the orders. Um, that's not a bad

thing for a society as a whole to

recognize. And I think, by the way, it's

something that the this current

administration is doing its damnedest to

erase from our history. The idea that in

our country, the idea that caregivers

matter, that elder care matters, that,

you know, making sure that people who

are differently aabled can still

participate in our society. It's not

about them, it's about us. And I I think

that's a really important thing to

reclaim. and public service would do

that.

>> We'll be right back after a quick break.

>> Support for the show comes from Gruns.

They used to say that an apple a day

keeps the doctor away. Well, that's a

nice thought, but even so, you still

won't get all the nutrients you need

that way. Here's a tip. Add Gruns to the

mix. Gruns isn't a multivitamin, a green

gummy, or a prebiotic. It's all of those

things and then some at a fraction of

the price. And bonus, it tastes great.

All Grun's Daily Gummy Snack Packs are

packed with more than 20 vitamins and

minerals made with more than 60

nutrient-dense ingredients and whole

foods. And for a limited time, you can

try their Gruni Smith apple flavor just

in time for fall. It's got the same

snackable, packable, full body benefits

you come to expect, but this time these

taste like you're walking through an

apple orchard in a cable knit sweater,

warm apple cider in hands. I've tried

Gruns. I find it very convenient and in

general just super easy to get kind of

that health boost if you will. Grab your

limited edition Grunie Smith apple

groons available only through October.

Stock up because they will sell out. Get

up to 52% off when you go to gruns.co

and use the code propg.

Support for the show comes from Indeed.

Here's a hiring tip straight from

Indeed's data. 83% of tech professionals

say career development opportunities are

a must-have in a job offer, outranking

stock options, sign on bonuses, and

unlimited paytime off. That means if you

want to win talent, lead with growth

paths, not just perks. In today's

market, hiring tech professionals isn't

just about filling roles. It's about

outpacing competitors. But with niche

skills, hybrid preferences, and high

salary expectations, it's never been

more challenging to cut through the

noise and connect with the right people.

That's where Indeed comes in. That's the

number one site where tech talent

applies to jobs. Indeed gives you direct

access to over 3 million US tech

professionals. 86% of whom have applied

through the platform. Indeed isn't just

a job board. It's your tech hiring

partner. More quality applicants, less

time to hire, and targeted tools that

align with what tech candidates want,

like flexible work options, career

growth, and salary transparency. Post

your first job and get $75 off at

indeed.com/tealent.

That's indeed.com/tealent

to claim this offer. Indeed, both for

what's now and what's next in tech

hiring.

[Music]

Support for the show comes from

Vanguard. The lineup includes over 80

bond funds. To all the financial

adviserss listening, let's talk about

bonds for a minute. Capturing value in

fixed income is not easy. Bond markets

can be massive, murky, and let's be

real, a lot of firms throw a couple

flashy funds your way and call it a day.

But not Vanguard. Vanguard bonds are

institutional quality. They're actively

managed by a 200 person global squad of

sector specialists, analysts, and

traders. Lots of firms love to highlight

their star portfolio managers, like it's

all about that one brilliant mind making

that magic happen. Vanguard's philosophy

is a little different. They believe the

best active strategy should be shared

across the team. That way, every client

benefits from the collective brain

power, not just one individual's take.

So, if you're looking to give your

clients consistent results year in and

year out, go see the record for yourself

at vanguard.com/propg.

That's vanguard.com/provg.

All investing is subject to risk.

Vanguard Marketing Corporation

distributor.

We're back with more from Heather Cox

Richardson.

He said something, a couple questions.

one,

how would you assess the difference

between how people or what people

believe it is to be American when we

were growing up versus how young people

probably perceive or just the general

population, how they perceive

uh what it is to be American today. And

then you threw out something and I can't

resist and I one of the things I really

appreciate you is you're willing to say

that's not my that's not my area of

expertise, but you said what it meant to

be a man in America and what it meant to

be a woman. I would love to know any

thoughts you might have around how that

has evolved over the last several

decades.

>> I kind of threw that out because I know

you'd like it

>> 100%.

>> So, um, so listen, I can't speak for

young people in this country because I'm

not one of them. Um, I can tell you what

I read, but you know that it's not the

same when you when you don't have the

references. Um, and my great example of

this is always, um, those of us of a

certain age, when you see a red

telephone on a desk in a a television

show or a movie, you know what it means?

It's the hotline.

And it's the hotline between a leader

and um, either Russia or something. To

to people who are below a certain age,

it it simply has no meaning because they

don't understand the Cuban missile

crisis. they don't understand why we got

the hot phone and all that sort of thing

which was never a telephone by the way

and so on. So um the one thing I would

say though from my observations at my

age about where the country has been is

that for those of us who are over 55, we

do remember a period in which politics

was really about negotiation and making

sure that the government was doing the

best it could for the most people. Now,

you could disagree with what one

president or another was doing, and

certainly I suspect both of us did at

times, but that was the idea. And

beginning at least by the 1990s and I

think it was at least partly tied into

the collapse of the Soviet Union and the

idea that America was top dog and wasn't

going to have to worry any further about

uh standing off against another country.

There was an increasingly powerful drive

on the part of the movement

conservatives that faction that took

over the Republican party simply to

destroy the Democrats simply to destroy

their political opposition. And the

Democrats by the way and those

Republicans that people like N. Gingrich

who was speaker of the house in the 90s

called rhinos Republicans in name only.

And by that the people who embraced that

idea put into the same basket anybody

who believed that the government had a

role in regulating the economy or

providing a basic social safety net,

promoting infrastructure, protecting

civil rights or protecting a rules-based

international order. And by doing that

and by trying to destroy those people

who thought that way, gradually that

faction of the party as it took over the

Republican party began to treat its

opponents as illegitimate. So after the

Motor Voter Act in 1993, you start to

see in 1994 the argument on the part of

those movement conservative Republicans

that Democrats are only winning by

cheating, by ballot uh fraud, by voter

fraud. And you know, there's never any

evidence of that, but they hammer on

this idea again and again and again. And

they, you know, they impeach uh Bill

Clinton thinking that this is going to

be the end. We'll get rid of all

Democratic presidents, you know, from

now and forever. Amen. In in uh 20 in

the year 2000, you see the Miami Dade

recount in Florida stop to guarantee

that um it comes out the way that the

Republicans want. And then voters elect

Barack Obama in 2008. And in 2010, we

get Operation Red Map, which is the

Republican operative attempt to

dramatically gerrymander states, the

Republican dominated states across the

nation. So, we get these extreme

gerrymanders. We get Citizens United,

which opens up the floodgates for dark

money to come into our political system

in 2013. We get the gutting of the

Voting Rights Act, which is only going

to get worse. and you get right to the

fact that you get to January 6, 20 um

2021 where a Republican president

literally refuses to leave office with

the argument that the election of a

Democratic opponent has been

illegitimate. And I think you're seeing

that now with the Trump administration,

the attempt to delegitimize the idea of

Democratic opposition and Democratic

loyal opposition to what Republicans are

doing. So, they're not seating Adelita

Grahalva, the person who was elected on

September 23rd to represent Arizona.

They're not talking to the Democrats

about ending the shutdown. They're

simply saying, "Your complaints are

illegitimate." And that is something

entirely new in our political system,

and it utterly negates what that system

should be. Um, and and it makes it un

unable to function as a democracy. Part

of that and part of the way I think that

the Republicans got that kind of power

was through the leveraging of that idea

of the cowboy image. The idea that a

real American was a cowboy.

>> And that cowboy image has enormous um

roots or has its roots in the

reconstruction era when

>> to stand off against the idea of a

federal government that protected black

rights in the American South. uh former

Confederates especially and people

living in the West began to champion the

cowboy as the true American hero who

wanted nothing from the government

except to work hard and rise which was

completely a myth. The West depended

more on the federal government than any

other region of the country did. The

cowboys were actually uh analogous to

workers in the mills back east. I mean

you could go on and on about why that

was never true. But that idea that to be

an American means taking your gun and

protecting your woman folk and working

hard without the government really

embedded itself among the a certain

group of right-wing Americans. And I

think you can see it still. CNN had an

article yesterday about the rise again

of cowboy imagery and cowboy clothing

because it's a certain kind of way of

thinking about what it means to be a man

in America and a woman because this is

the same period. By 74, you're going to

have um Laura Engles Wilders's um Little

Town on the Prairie becoming a smash hit

on television and the idea of prairie

dresses and women being taken care of in

this system in which in that particular

show uh literally the cowboy little Joe

becomes pa right so you've got that on

the one hand and I would argue that that

ideology the idea that you can create

your own future is a crucially important

aspect of American society. But in terms

of surv and I started well that's a

rabbit hole in but in order for a

society to survive the other form of

what it means to be a man and a woman in

the United States is one that I think is

exemplified as I was saying by those

people coming out of World War II in

which they did what they did for the

good of everybody. And that I think you

saw in our presidents who had been in

the war or who had been close to the war

after it and that you know you really

got away from that when you got away

from political leaders who hadn't been

in the war and who didn't have that idea

that we have to make sacrifices for the

greater good. And that goes as far back

in our history as the other image does

and even farther that idea that we are

here as a community trying to do the

best for the most people. That's as

deeply rooted as as the cowboy image or

even more because it goes back further.

>> Uh I want to highlight a couple recent

occurrences and see if you have any

historical references and what it what

it might mean about these actions moving

forward. one, the lethal campaign

against drug smuggling boats coming from

Latin America, and two, the refusal or

the limiting of press access to the

Pentagon.

>> I'm so glad you mentioned that because I

actually wanted to ask you about that,

too. This is one of the things and why I

Well, this is why I was thinking about

the murmuring voices because let's look

at that attack on alleged drug smuggling

boats. Just want to point out that if

you want to stop a small boat with an

outport engine, you shoot the freaking

engine. This is not rocket science,

right? Yeah, drugs are a problem. The

majority of drugs that are a problem are

fentanyl, illegal fentanyl, um coming

over the border from Mexico. Uh not the

border, uh coming into airports

primarily, but coming from Mexico. So

theoretically, we're going after

Venezuelan drug boats, small boats that

are looking to go more than a thousand

boat a thousand miles. And and now it

appears we've hit somebody in from

Colombia. So who are we really at war

with? And we're not really at war. It's

just that the administration says we're

at war. And

let me just throw that together with

some other stuff. And I'm just going to

sort of freeassociate here and see what

you think about it.

1990s, I think it was, when James Comey

was the director of the FBI, he gave a

speech about how organized crime was

different now. Um and threats to

national security were different now

because they were a combination of

businesses, world leaders, sometimes

religious figures who were essentially

no longer ideological but were just out

for the money. Okay. So we also seem to

be making more on Venezuela which has a

lot of oil.

We seem to need a whole lot of oil both

for AI and for the data centers that

also support cryptocurrency mining. We

know that there are fortunes being made

from cryptocurrency.

We also know that when Trump first got

into office, he began to embrace the

argument that Vladimir Putin had been

making about dividing the world into

spheres. an Asian sphere, a European

sphere dominated by Putin, and an

American sphere dominated by uh the

United States of America. And that's why

he's talking about taking over Canada

and Greenland and so on. I don't know

what's really going on in our attacks on

small boats coming out of apparently

uh South American countries. What I do

think is that this is not really about

drugs at all. And the reason for that is

because among other things, the recent

reporting out of the New York Times that

Secretary of State Marco Rubio um

destroyed an agreement that the United

States had with members of MS13 who were

going to go on trial in the US who were

going to testify against Naib Boule

um about his connections to that gang.

you know, we turned them over to Bouquet

in order to send undocumented immigrants

to El Salvador. Like, that's not about

drugs. What's that really about? So, I

guess my my what I'm thinking about that

is I don't know what to think about it,

except it looks to me like what we're

really up to is not stopping drugs so

much as trying to exert American

influence in the Caribbean in an

extraction of resources that looks a lot

to me like uh Vladimir Putin's concepts

of imperialism and colonialism. What do

you think?

>> Yeah, I think you're on to something. I

if you look at the supply chain of

drugs, there's the demand side, people

in the US who who consume drugs. There's

the supply chain or the supply side,

that's Peru, Bolivia, Colombia,

Venezuela, and then there's the

distribution side. And probably the

least effective part of the supply chain

to go after to reduce uh the drug supply

chain is the transportation side. We

can't keep drugs out of prisons because

the demand is there and the supply is

there. to the notion that we're going to

keep drugs out of the United States by

going after the distribution system

here, it just makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not going to do anything for the

drug uh to to decrease drugs or fentanyl

use in the United States. So, it's one,

it's either performative. It's either

like secretary of war, me being big

strong man. I do think there's a lot

around I'm a bit of conspiracy theorists

that I think the country is being run by

a dead man. I think the country largely

a lot of its activities in the White

House are being driven out of an

AIdriven communication strategy that

every 74 hours they put something into

the ecosystem into the atmosphere that

distracts from one word Epstein

regardless of how crazy it is regardless

of how damaging it is just we sense

Epstein starting to creep back into the

news 100% tariff on China just anything

anything just to keep him out of the

news the more

Mcavelian and intellig igent move would

be we've decided that the best way to

end the war in Ukraine would be to take

oil down to $40 a barrel and to secure

new supply lines through Venezuela that

has a lot of oil but more important

establish strong alliances with Guyana

that has light sweet crude

and potentially take oil if if you want

to end the war in Ukraine take the 17%

of Russia's oil infrastructure that's

been damaged give them tomahawks and

take it up a half a percent a week the

Russian economy is 50% of GDP is energy.

If oil crashes or their ability to

refine oil goes down, all of a sudden

Putin starts talking about a real deal.

So, I don't know whether this is

performative. I don't know whether it's

wildly strategic to secure additional

supplies of oil and crash the price of

oil and bring Putin to the table uh or,

you know, doors. But what I do know is

that, you know, these folks are strange.

They're not democratic. They have

fascist tendencies, but I don't think

they're stupid. I don't think they

genuinely believe this is going to solve

the drug problem. Any reaction to any of

that?

>> No.

>> Yes. Um I I will put behind doors C the

fact that the Trump uh family was in

hard shape financially before the second

term and we know that the fortune that

it is sitting on now is largely thanks

to cryptocurrency which depends on huge

amounts of energy. But just to go back

to Epstein and again I'm just playing

with these ideas which is always why I

like talking to you is because we get to

play with ideas. I don't think that

Epstein is a sex scandal

as much as it is a business scandal.

That is it is truly horrible what

happened to the survivors of Epstein and

what they what the men did to those

girls and so on. But the reason that

they're covering it up, I think, is

partly to defend Donald Trump, but I

think when you peel back the layers,

you're going to see exactly what James

Comey was identifying back there

whenever he gave that speech that this

was a business that was uh multinational

and was worth billions of dollars. And

if you start to peel back the layers of

that business, you will see that there

are a lot of business ties like that.

And that I think will probably end up

being the defining feature of this era

in world history. This sort of

multinational

um these multinational criminal

enterprises that involve a number of

extraordinarily powerful people and that

include increasingly we will discover

also involved Russian money which we

know the Epstein files did. So, this is

going to be a hard pivot, but we're

running out of time. And I can't imagine

how many,

it's not what networks or news outlets

want you on today, it's which ones

don't. I imagine you are literally the

most in demand professor in America

right now. But I wanted to just, we have

a lot of young people who listen to the

show, men and women, who are trying to

get their career started. And I think

they look at someone such as yourself,

and they think, I would love to be

Professor Heather Cox Richardson.

Because my sense is you're doing

something you love. you have relevance.

There's a big big vein of patriotism

that runs through it in civic

responsibility, but also you're

commercially really successful. We're

trying to do the Substack strategy and

everyone keeps bringing up your name as

someone who has just nailed it and is

doing really well. I would love could

you provide advice to someone who says I

would like to be in academia or I'd like

to be in thought leadership but I'm

looking for new channels to have

relevance and also to be commercially

viable like what for you has worked

really well because when whenever anyone

talks specifically about a Substack

strategy they reference just how

extraordinarily successful you've been

advice to young entrepreneurs who want

to find new channels for relevance and

commercial opportunity. I'm laughing

because I don't have a strategy and and

it's working and I can tell you

>> your non strategy is working.

>> Well, maybe it is. Maybe it is because

that's the that's the the my answer. And

this, by the way, is um individual to

me. And it's advice I got from my

parents. And what I what my parents did

is they left careers to do something

they loved and took a real hit for it.

and they were my examples as I got

older. I everything that I have done I

have done because it interested me and I

loved it. And that meant I made really

unusual choices. The most important

deciding to write for a children's

magazine while I was a person trying to

get tenure and everybody said you are

crazy and I'm like but it's interesting

and that's where I started writing for

the public and so on and ended up where

I am. I I just want to point out though

that once again absum absilum right it

looks like I'm a great success remember

I was denied tenure at my first job my

career was over so this idea that you

know that you you hit a great idea and

you have smooth sailing it is absolutely

belied by my career and the number of

things that I have done that didn't work

um the through line is enormous the

through line is simply that I I it's not

even that I made conscious choices. I

have zero patience for things that bore

me. I can't do it. It's not that I'm

unwilling to do it. I can't do it. And

so that meant that I always seem to be

on a track to do things that were

important to me. And what was important

to me was writing, teaching, and

history. And so that's what I've done.

And I would suggest that because each

individual is unique, there are people

out there who are going to do this so

much better than I ever did it because

you're seeing the world in a completely

different way. And again, my strategy is

not to have a strategy. I do what I love

and I'm thrilled that people want to do

it with me. But I think the minute you

start to try and guess what other people

want, you've lost what it is that makes

you unique and makes you able to

communicate with people from a really

raw authentic place. So I I guess just

do what you love and don't tell your

parents that I said that cuz until I was

about 55, it didn't pay.

>> Well, I you you sort of embody one of my

favorite sayings and that is after

working my ass off for 30 years, I'm an

overnight success.

>> Exactly. And but there is some I won't

call it strategy. There's some tactical

discipline here. My understanding is you

put out about a thousand words a day.

You have No,

>> it's at least 1,200.

>> I'm sorry. At least 1,200 words.

>> That's that matters. It's a lot.

>> Yeah. A lot. I I put out 1500 words a

week in my newsletter and come Thursday

morning at 3:00 a.m. I am hating myself

every week. I think to write to put out

something fact checked and credible is

really difficult. And the fact that you

do that every day one just because I do

want to extract something a little bit

more tactical from you trying to put out

1,200 words a day. Do you have any hacks

in terms of timing or how you go about

it? And also my understanding is

professor is that you are making an

exceptional living on Substack that you

have

extraordinary amount of subscribers who

see your content as so valuable they're

willing to do what few will do and that

is pull out their credit card.

specifically when do you write? How how

do you how do you manage to put out

1,200 words? I I don't think that's easy

for anybody. I don't care how prolific

you are and and any thoughts on building

um a content strategy, a subscription

content strategy.

>> Yeah. Okay. So, first of all, um it's

very difficult to write as much as I do.

And one of the ways you get there is by

habit. Like like even the nights when I

don't write, I actually write because

it's like being an athlete. you you got

to get in the habit. And if you look

back at my early stuff, it was not like

it is now. Now, it is incredibly

carefully fact checked. And that's what

takes the longest amount of time to find

out. And I made a big mistake the other

day. I said that um a grand jury had

indicted um uh Bolton, John Bolton, and

it wasn't. It was the prosecutors. And I

had checked that, but I'd taken it from

a legacy media post, and that was

incorrect. Um but, you know, just

chasing that crap down. That's what

takes all the time. When I write about

history, often that's pretty quick

because I know it really well. But there

too that it's the factchecking that

really does me in. So at this point,

I've written more than 3 million words

and that means I'm a pretty good writer.

And that that helps a lot because in

your head you could hear it. You can

hear it sing. So partly it's put your

sorry put your ass in the chair and

work. Now there's a difference between

that and writing a book. I'm supposed to

be writing a book right now and I have

all the habits of bookw writers like I

sit down to write the book and I'm like,

you know, I haven't cleaned the

refrigerator in a while, you know, and

and that's a really different thing. So,

if you have several million people

waiting to see you write, you do it

because, you know, you can't go to bed

without doing it because you're not

going to be able to sleep if you have,

you know, millions of people waiting for

you to write. So, partly it's habit and

I would say if you're trying to build a

following, you must post every day. I

don't like a lot of things. So, I I only

post once a day. Some people have a

different um method. But if you think

about the the people like um Liza

Donnelly who posts every day and Joyce

White Vance who posts every day, you you

expect it. You don't you don't

necessarily read it, but you like that

it's there. So, one of the things for

me, I write every day because I need to

understand. You can't miss a day because

then you're like, who was that? What

really happened there? Um, you can tell

I've already read about the bouquet

issue in MS13, even though that happened

yesterday and I wrote something

different yesterday. So, be there every

day. Now, in terms of strategy and the

financing, that's really interesting

because everything I do is free. I would

do what I do for nothing. You do not

have to pay me for anything that I do.

And yet, people choose to pay. And what

I love about that is that that I have a

much lower, by the way, conversion of

subscribers to paid subscribers. That

average is about 10%. Mine's

significantly lower than that, which is

fine. I don't care. As I say, I'm not

here for the money. But what it has

enabled me to do is something that we

don't really talk about a lot. and

that's that I'm actually running these

history videos as well and building out

that side of the teaching stuff which

again all free um you have to take money

on YouTube which we've just started to

do um because otherwise they put their

own ads on and you can change what you

you have control over it if you say

you'll take it. We've just started to do

that but we're building that out as

well. So, I see it in a really funny way

as being about sort of crowdsourcing our

country's politics and history. And

again, it's never been a strategy. And

not only do I not ask for money, I tell

people I will not ask for money because

that's not the point. It's really

missiondriven. I don't know how

replicable that is. But

I do think that I was extremely lucky in

that at a time when everybody was

saying, "Look here. Look here. Look

here. Look here. My take has always

been, hey, listen. I'm here if you're

interested. But you don't have to look

here. I don't dress well. I don't I

don't, you know, say glitzy stuff. I

don't ever do clickbait. I'm just really

interested in the world. And what that

has enabled people to do is build a

community of people like us who are just

interested in the world. So again, I'm

not sure it's a strategy, but um but

it's really for me just about

understanding myself, and that's, you

know, understanding the world, and that

seems to have an audience.

>> Heather Cox Richardson is a professor of

history at Boston College and an expert

on American political and economic

history. She's the author of seven

award-winning books, including her

latest, Democracy Awakening: Notes on

the State of America. Her widely read

newsletter, Letters from an American,

synthesizes history and modern political

issues. She joins us from the coast of

Maine where she continues to write the

story of America in real time.

Professor, love our conversations.

Thanks so much for your time.

>> It's always a pleasure. Thanks for

having me.

[Music]