Here's Where It Gets Interesting - America’s Rising Sun Moment, Why You’re More Powerful Than You Think, And Memorable Moments of White House Holidays

Episode Date: December 1, 2025

Even the Founding Fathers had their doubts about the future of the country, but Benjamin Franklin chose to see its promise. We’ll explain how one chair gave him the answer he was searching for.  Plus, Sharon talks with philosopher Alex Madva, co-author of ⁠Somebody Should Do Something⁠, about why so many of us feel powerless, but there’s more common ground in America than we think. So what can we do about it? He’ll tell us.  And the history of White House holiday traditions, from Adams to Eisenhower, complete with snow ball fights, Christmas trees with actual lit candles on them, and a terrifying Christmas Eve fire in the West Wing. If you’d like to submit a question for Sharon to answer, head to ⁠ThePreamble.com/podcast⁠ – we’d love to hear from you there. And be sure to read our weekly magazine at ⁠ThePreamble.com⁠ – it’s free! Join the 350,000 people who still believe understanding is an act of hope. Credits: Host and Executive Producer: Sharon McMahon Supervising Producer: Melanie Buck Parks Audio Producer: Craig Thompson To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get no frills, delivered. Shop the same in-store prices online and enjoy unlimited delivery with PC Express Pass. Get your first year for $2.50 a month. Learn more at pceexpress.ca. When you're flying Emirates business class, enjoying a good night's rest in your lie flat seat, you'll see that your vacation isn't really over

until your flight is over. Fly Emirates, fly better. During the summer of 1787, in which men in wool and wigs sat in a hot room arguing about their volunteer group project, which, you know, sounds great right. George Washington sat upon a stately chair. It wasn't just a chair, by the way, it was a symbol. And I'll share the rest of that story in a moment. But first, welcome to the preamble podcast. Each week, you'll hear some of the most interesting stories from our weekly magazine, also called The Preample.

This week, we're bringing back some of the most popular newsletters we've ever written. Plus, y'all are always asking me for gift suggestions for those hard to shop for people who have everything, and I have so many ideas for you. In today's episode of the Preample podcast, I'm talking with Alex Madva about his new book, Somebody Do Something. This book is perfect for anyone who has asked, what can one person do to make a difference? Systemic change is hard, but Alex and his co-authors say the individual choices we make can have the biggest impact. I'm Sharon McMahon, and this is the preamble podcast. Now back to our story. The chair had sturdy, simple legs and a handsome leather seat as its foundation.

Two arms provided support for Washington's lengthy appendages. The back of the chair is reminiscent of flying. buttresses in Gothic architecture, pieces of carved mahogany, intertwining delicately, confidently, directing the eye up to the ornament that sat behind Washington's head. Carved into the chair by Philadelphia cabinetmaker John Falwell was half of a sun, its eyes and nose visible above the horizon. The beams of light that shine from it are confident and strong. Perched above the sun are a liberty pole and a liberty cap, two symbols of freedom throughout

history. Sheaves of wheat adorn its edges. The chair was carved from wood harvested under appalling conditions by enslaved labor in the Caribbean. Benjamin Franklin, the oldest member of the Constitutional Convention and certainly one of its most wealthy, respected, and famous, had much time to consider Washington's chair that summer. Franklin's gout was flaring up and there was little relief from the heat. People were abandoning this volunteer group project left and right.

One of the things Franklin pondered as his eyes searched for anything interesting to entertain him, there was no one to text, no status to update, no sales to shop, no billionaire's tweets to roll his eyes at no candy crush to sneaking a few rounds of. What Franklin pondered was, what is that son doing? Do you suppose Franklin thought to himself that the sun on Washington's chair is rising? Or is it setting? The chair became, in Franklin's mind, emblematic of the entire American experiment they were undertaking. Many days, he was discouraged by what was unfolding at the Constitutional Convention.

The entire endeavor seemed. to be fraught with peril. Rhode Island was refusing to participate. Many men were saying things like, I won't sign it unless it contains a provision specific to my needs. Whether it was going to remain permissible to enslave other humans and what role they might play in things like proportional representation created a constant undercurrent of tension. Some men insisted on talking far too much, thinking themselves wiser than the rest. And still, Washington sat upon his mahogany chair, presiding over the convention, but participating little. Washington would later go on to direct the people he enslaved to plant mahogany trees at Mount Vernon.

The trees all died. In September of 1787, when the Constitution had been drafted and it was now time to convince people that signing it was the right move, Franklin wrote a speech that he was not able to deliver. Instead, he handed it to James Wilson, who read his sentiments aloud. Franklin said that he didn't entirely approve of the Constitution at present, but he wasn't sure if he ever would. He realized he was old, and he had experienced many instances of being forced to change his opinion once he had better information.

Opinions, he said, even on important subjects, which I would. once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment and to pay more respect to the judgment of others, he said. Most men think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Strange, Franklin quipped, that he had met no one, but himself who was always in the right. Franklin is remembered kindly in history, despite his foibles and flaws, in part because of his humility and willingness to change his mind when presented with new and better information,

for his constant desire not to show off his intellectual prowess, which was great, but to engage in self-reflection in an effort to improve. He encouraged people to doubt a little in their own infallibility. At the end of the convention, after serious soul-searching, Franklin reflected on the mahogany chair that represented the American experiment itself. The simple base that soared into an intricate, interwoven design topped with the golden cap of liberty, the entire of which was made possible by the labor of the enslaved. But now, Franklin said, said, I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun. That was America's rising sun moment, born of travail and conquest, the rays of a faraway star,

smiling on what would become one of the flawed but greatest experiments in humankind. We too have the opportunity to look at the challenge. we face of which there are many with two lenses. Is this America's setting sun moment? Is it lights out for American democracy? Or is this our rising sun moment? Is this the moment that future historians will point to on the timeline and say, that was it. That was when Americans decided to move forward with courage, when they decided to step into the role that democracy demands that of active participant, not of passive bystander. I believe it is the latter that Americans can and will turn and face the rising sun

to let its warmth shine upon their faces. This can be another sunrise in American history if we choose to make it so. We'll be back in just a moment with Alex Madva to talk about his new book, Somebody Do Something. Hi, I'm Dr. Mary Claire Haver, a board certified OBGYN and menopause specialist. My new podcast, Unpaused, is the place for bold, unfiltered conversations about what it really takes for women to thrive in the second half of life. Every week, I sit down with medical experts, cultural icons, and powerhouse women to talk about

what really matters, your health, your power, and your future. We're covering hormones, identity, finances, relationships, and so much more. New episodes drop every Tuesday. Listen to and follow Unpaused with me, Dr. Mary Claire Haver, available now wherever you get your podcasts. Alex, thank you so much for joining me today. I'm very excited to chat. I'm really grateful to be here.

When I first saw your book, it's very aptly titled. I know you have a couple of co-authors. that you've worked with as well. But it's very aptly titled in terms of, I think, the national moot. I think we're all kind of looking around and being like, well, somebody needs to do something. Someone needs to do something. And we all have firmly come to believe that somebody should do something, but it can't be me because I don't know what to do. Right.

I don't know what to do. And if I do something, what difference is it even going to make? Right. So we've all had that experience of you're watching the news. you turn to the person next to you and say somebody should do something, but then it's totally opaque what to do. And so our book was an attempt to help put people on a path towards thinking about that. You know, there's a variety of reasons why people feel this way. And I want to hear more from you about what you have come to conclude about why people feel this way. But isn't it

fair for people to feel like, what am I supposed to do about ice? How am I supposed to fix the fact that the military is blowing up boats in the Caribbean. Isn't it reasonable to feel like I can't do anything? Certainly, that's the way of thinking about these things that we've been conditioned into by news media and politicians who often persuade us that the only thing we can do is donate to their political campaigns. Rush $10 now. Yeah, right. Exactly. That's how you can save democracy. But when we're thinking about these huge problems that are out there in the world, it's easy to feel very distant from them. But of course, the decisions that our government makes about these things are going to be shaped by the will of the people.

And I know one topic you've talked about, for example, is Americans' attitudes about guns and how much we don't know about how much common ground there is. And there are lots of other issues that are like that. So if you ask Americans, you know, what percentage of other Americans think we should be doing more to fight against climate change? They'll estimate that a third of other Americans think that that's a priority. In fact, two-thirds of Americans think that that's a priority. And so what we have here is the problem of pluralistic ignorance, where there actually is a great deal of support for a particular set of policies or an approach, but we don't know that it's there. And so the first thing we need to do is start having those conversations, talking to people. The reason we don't know is because we're still afraid of having those difficult conversations.

And so even when we're thinking about something that's distant and out there, if we start talking about it with people, that's one important step towards trying to build collective momentum and a social moment. movement towards changing them. You know who the attorney Brian Stevenson is? He wrote Just Mercy, and he works extensively with people who have been wrongfully convicted or not had proper representation in court, et cetera. And that's another example of where people feel like it's not okay that we're putting 14 year olds with no lawyer in prison for the rest of their life. Like, but what am I supposed to do about that? And, you know, I asked him this question, like, what are we supposed to do? And he said, first thing that people need to do is learn about the issue. Like learning about it, whether that

comes from having conversations with people in the know, whether that comes from taking a class, talking to your neighbor who has had an encounter with ICE, you know, whatever it is. We underestimate the importance of attempting to understand an issue. What are your thoughts on that? I 100% agree. And one of the central shortcomings that we're focused on in the book is a kind of arrogance where people assume that they know what the solutions are to really difficult problems. And so we really try to stress that folks adopt a more humble attitude where they can recognize that something's a problem, but it's not totally obvious how to solve it. And if we're thinking about, for example, the criminal justice and employment context, one of the examples we talk about in the book is efforts to make it. easier for folks who have a criminal record to get a job. And one of the factors that folks have looked at is the fact that people have to check a box to say whether they were previously incarcerated

or not. And checking that box can be devastating for any job candidates' prospects, but it's particularly devastating for men of color. And so a natural thought was, hey, let's just ban the box. And so a number of states have prevented employers from asking that question or delayed the part of the process where you can ask that question. And it seems like a simple fix. We don't have to change any hearts and minds. We just make this little structural tweak and then we're going to help improve outcomes. But actually what they found is that although it does slightly improve the odds for black men with criminal records of making it to the next round in the interview, it actually hurts black men's chances overall. Because when you can't even ask about

that information and there's just a blank spot on the resume, people's stereotypes and prejudices might come into play. And so employers might just assume that many of the black male applicants have criminal records. And so this is an example where people thought there was a simple fix. But because we didn't really do the work to understand what was going on underlying the problem, then we might have actually made the problem worse. That's a really great point. And I love the way you put that, that we should all have the intellectual humility to be willing to admit that, like, this is a complicated problem in a large, diverse, pluralistic society and the idea that my brain quickly arrived at a solution and that's the only thing available. It's almost a form of

narcissism that my brain came up with all the answers and I'm going to tell you that's not going to work. That'll never work out. Or I know how to fix it. Or I alone can fix it. Yeah, narcissism is not in any way a huge problem in politics right now. No, there's definitely not an excess number of people with what they call in psychology, the dark triad of personality characteristics. Right. There's definitely very few narcissists. So, you know, one of the things that I really like it about your book is that you give people concrete things that they can engage in. And you make a case for actually why these things are important, why individual actions are important, even in the face of big systemic problems. And it's not just a matter of calling your

Congressperson. So many people are like, stop telling me to call my Congressperson. Do you think I didn't think of that? I already did that 22 times. And they ignored me every single time. So I love that this is not just more, not to say there's no value in contacting your representatives, but it's more than just make phone calls to your lawmaker. Absolutely. Although, I do think it's important for folks who are chronically online and for the governors, I think you could have the perception that everybody is calling their congressperson, but I do think the fundamental problem is still the problem that it, you know, it was yesterday and the day before that, which is passive bystanding. People are not getting engaged. People are not getting

involved. And so there is a huge problem still of political hobbyism where folks are spending up to two hours a day, consuming news, scrolling through social media and feeling all the rage and doing literally nothing about it. So I think a first primary shift is just towards, you know, doing something rather than nothing. So calling the congressperson would be just one thing on the list of things that we could do. And it's easy to feel like I've done that a million times and I haven't changed any outcomes and that's not the most important thing. But even in that case, It's important to bear in mind that the downstream effects of our actions are never transparent to us. So it's never obvious to us that what we did in a particular situation led to the outcomes that we were hoping for.

Or it's very rarely obvious to us. And so many times if you, for example, try to talk to someone who sees the world differently from you and the conversation goes very badly and blows up in your face, you might think, oh, man, I just made it worse or I'm not helping. but in actual fact, it could be that that person, even though in the moment they got defensive and reactive, that they then went on to change their behavior after the fact. So some of those things are really important to bear in mind. I love that idea, too, that like, actually, you don't know. Right. You don't have the arrogance to think that you have been able to accurately ascertain all of the downstream effects of your choices. Exactly. Because you can't actually even measure them on your own. Right.

And I love some of the really specific things that you say, that it's not just like step one, call your congressperson, step two, write a letter. These are more behaviors or postures of ways of existing in the world that can help influence others. We all have more influence than we think we do. And I'd love to have you tell us about just a couple of them, a couple of the sort of suggestions that you make for how individuals actually are impacting society around them. So in terms of one small reorientation that folks could adopt, it has to do with the idea of a growth mindset, right? So a classic distinction in social psychology from research from Carol Dweck and colleagues is the distinction between people who have a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset. People who have a fixed mindset about, say, intelligence or musical skill or athletic skill think, you just have it or you don't. Whereas with a growth mindset, people are thinking, this is something I can work at, I can become smarter, I can become better at playing the guitar.

over time and so on. And a couple important developments have happened in that research that not enough people are aware of. First of all, in some of the meta-analyses of those studies, sometimes they find that the effects of trying to cultivate growth mindsets, for example, in our students or our kids can have limited effects. But what researchers have found is that part of what shapes whether a growth mindset intervention works is whether it's a seed that's being planted in the right kind of soil. And in this case, they've found that teachers who actually have growth mindsets, the students in their classes are more responsive to growth mindset interventions. And so when teachers are designing their classes so that students can

actually develop and show that they can grow over time, their students have the opportunity to prove them right. But the further wrinkle here is that usually when we're thinking about growth mindsets, we're only thinking about, you know, can I change as an individual? Can this person change as an individual? But it's also possible to have growth mindsets about our institutions themselves. And people who believe that the system can change are more likely to get involved and change the system. And so part of the reason why the work you do is so important is because you're making it salient to folks all the different individuals at different points in history who have taken actions that led to larger downstream consequences in system change. So that's

one example of a shift in orientation that can be really, really valuable. I love that because nothing good grows from a posture of cynicism. Right. If you are excessively cynical about, you know, like, this whole organization is full of Yahoo's and it's corrupted beyond repair. Do you think that you're going to be out there working day after day to try to improve it? No, your cynicism is not improving things. Sometimes people feel like cynicism is a morally superior position. Like, I'm in possession of the secret knowledge that only I had.

a handful of people can have, this is all terrible. But nothing good comes from engaging in that excessively cynical viewpoint. We can't change things if we don't believe they can be changed. Absolutely. So one of the striking case studies that we explore in the book is folks who are protesting in full-blown authoritarian regimes. You know, what is their mindset? And traditionally in social scientific research, the assumption is that like the main reason, people go out to protest in the streets is that they're angry about injustice and then the simple belief that their actions can make a difference. But one of the striking things that researchers have found when they're looking specifically at folks who are in these hardcore authoritarian contexts

is that they're not necessarily more likely to think that they individually can make all the difference or even that their movement will necessarily be successful. So what is it that drives them to go out and protest in the streets? And it turns out, this probably won't surprise you or your audience, that they turn up for each other. So even if they don't think that their movement can make all the difference, they think they can make a difference to the movement. And so what helps them avoid cynicism is knowing that they're showing up for the person next to them who's also showing up for them. And standing shoulder to shoulder with each other is part of what motivates them and keeps them going.

Are you familiar with Benjamin Nathens? I'm not sure off the top of my head. Okay. He wrote a book that perfectly encapsulates what you're talking about, which one the Pulitzer Prize this year. And it is about the Soviet dissident movement. And the book is called To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause. And it shows on the cover, it's almost like a glass of overturned spilled vodka. Like that's the impression, you know, but what you're saying makes complete sense. What would make them want to risk the lives of their loved ones to try to protest? And I think what you're saying is absolutely correct. It's not that they think that these

dictators are going to see them standing on the street corner and have a change of heart. But they know that what they're doing is important. It's a long-term investment and it's important to the rest of the people in their community. Absolutely. Yeah. And I think, as you would say, it's a sense of like this is the next needed thing and what is something that I can do for the person that's right here right now and understanding that what it means to be part of a society is that we're all interconnected.

And so the things that I can do for the people near me are. connected to these larger structural changes. I love that. I also want to talk a little bit about this concept that you explore in the book, which is making the invisible visible. Can you talk a little bit more about what that means? Yeah. Have you had Suzanne Metler on? Oh, you got to, yeah. So she's one of our heroes in political science. So she wrote an awesome book about 15 years ago called The Submerged State, which is all about how so much of what the government is doing for us is hidden. It's not something that people know about, and there are different reasons for how some of those things turned out that way. In some cases, it's a product now of our new media environment. So when FDR was doing the fireside chats, you probably know better than me. I don't know. Two-thirds of Americans, I think, would tune in. By the time Obama was giving his State of the Union addresses, it was a much smaller percentage then. And of course, even now, it's a smaller percentage still. So in this new media environment, it can be that much harder to know what kinds of things.

things the government is doing. But another problem is that as part of an understandable compromise that has nevertheless had problematic consequences, a lot of Democratic administrations in order to get things done and sort of find a way to compromise about them would do it through the tax code. So they would find ways to make it easier for working families by reducing their taxes and offering different kinds of benefits in that way. And that was something that Republicans could sign on to, but it has the effect of making it the case that people aren't necessarily aware of the things that the government is doing for them. So in one of Metler's studies, they asked people if they had ever used a government program, and large majority said that they never had. But then she listed

off 19 different government programs, and it turned out that the average person had used four, right? And so, but the problem was that they didn't realize that those were government programs. So this was crystallized, of course, in the Obamacare debates when someone got up at a town hall meeting and said, keep your government hands off my Medicare, where they didn't realize that Medicare was a government program, right? Yeah. You know, for all we know, their Medicare could have been channeled through a private insurance company. So there might have been ways that it really was not salient to them. So one of the fundamental jobs we have is, as we say, surfacing the state is, again, talking to people about all the different things that our government is doing. And

According to some measures, the U.S. government, you know, is on par with a lot of other countries in terms of redistributing resources. Too much of it in the U.S. is upwardly redistributive. So it's helping people who are already better off. You had Matthew Desmond on talking about the difficulties of poverty, for example. But the U.S. is still doing a lot, but a lot of that stuff is just not salient. And so, again, it's, again, the problem of pluralistic ignorance and the problem of we're not talking about these things. And so there's a huge role to play in just having these conversations. or, you know, getting a million followers on Instagram and talking about all the different things the government can do. What do you hope that the average reader, when they close the last page of the book and they, you know, want to take something with them and tuck it into their pocket, what do you hope the reader takes with them?

That's an excellent question. I think the first takeaway is just for folks to have a sense of their own power and to realize that they have a lot more power than they realize. We try to inject a lot of humor in the book, and so we're also trying to fight against the perception that people who are invested in social change are joyless. But the last section of the book before the conclusion is called Happy Warrior. And there we talk about research on job crafting, where we can look at studies that look at people who have the very same job, and some

of them draw meaning from the job, and some of them don't. And for example, studies on hospital cleaning staff find that many of them see their jobs as very dreary and flattening, but others find it empowering. And what they found the differences between the two cases is that the folks who find meaning in that work understand themselves as part of the community in the hospital that is there to support patients. And so, for example, someone who cleaned the ceiling in the patient's rooms, because they were imagining the perspective of the patient looking up at the ceiling and thinking, what if that was my mother or my father or my sister or my brother, how would they feel in this space? and being there for the patients, understanding themselves as being there for each other, made what could otherwise be, you know, a dreary job more empowering.

And so I think that's also something for us to take forward as we're thinking about what can I do to change the system is that if we understand ourselves as being there for each other, it's not just a sacrifice. It's not just a cost. It's not just a downer. It's not just a drag. It can actually be motivating and a source of happiness and meaning. Thank you so much for your time today. I loved reading the book. I was really pleased to have a chance to talk to you. Thanks so much for having me on. Just another small person who might be a little bit mighty, too. Next, we are heading to the White House to follow how Christmas trees were absent for nearly the first 90 years of its history. The story begins with John Adams and ends with Mamie Eisenhower's abundant decor.

She had 26 trees broadcast in real time around the country. This Giving Tuesday, Cam H is counting on your support. Together, we can forge a better path for mental health by creating a future where Canadians can get the help they need, when they need it, no matter who or where they are. From November 25th to December 2nd, your donation will be doubled. That means every dollar goes twice as far

to help build a future where no one's seeking help is left behind. Donate today at camh.ca.ca. Tuesday. Welcome back. As the holidays roll in and the White House prepares to welcome this year's Christmas tree, it's a good moment to look back at how that tradition even took root. Today, the tree in the blue room feels like a fixed part of American life, something as familiar as the turkey pardon or the Easter egg roll. But for much of our early history, there were no twinkling lights, no towering evergreens, and certainly no official tree lighting ceremony on the White House calendar. Instead, story of how Christmas trees made their way into the executive mansion winds through changing

religious attitudes, the arrival of electricity, a few nervous butlers, and presidents who understood that the simple act of lighting a tree could carry a great deal of meaning. So today, we're going to trace that from the years when Christmas was barely acknowledged in New England all the way to the Eisenhower era when the Holiday Day Corps finally began to resemble what we think of as White House Christmas today. Early in White House history, there were no Christmas trees. And to understand some of the reasons why we need to start in a place that shaped the first occupants of the White House's world, Massachusetts, where John and Abigail Adams were raised. In 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law that find anyone caught

observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing. of labor, feasting, or any other way. The fine was five shillings, which was actually a meaningful sum at the time. The Puritan leadership of the colony there believed Christmas encouraged disorder and had no clear basis in scripture, so they treated it as a suspicious holiday rather than a holy one. That law stayed on the books until it was repealed in 1681, but historians of early New England note that the habit of treating December 25th as an ordinary workday persisted in many communities long after the legal ban ended. This was John Adams' world, and by 1800, when he moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Christmas still was not a major public celebration in

most of Massachusetts. There is no evidence that the Adams family put up a Christmas tree in the White House, but they did host the first White House Christmas party. In December of 1800, John and Abigail Adams held a gathering in honor of their four-year-old granddaughter, Susanna, who was actually living with them. They invited government officials and their children to the president's house for the occasion. It wasn't an official national ceremony, and there was no glowing tree in the corner. It was a family-focused gathering in an unfinished building held by New Englanders whose culture had taught them to be cautious about Christmas in the first place. And that's the atmosphere into which later more elaborate White House Christmas traditions would slowly be introduced. By the time Andrew Jackson was in office in the 1830s, holiday gatherings at the White House were beginning to take on a livelier spirit in part because Andrew Jackson was just a more spirited kind of guy.

And in December 1835, he hosted a celebration that stands out. The White House Historical Association describes it as, quote, one of the most elaborate parties ever held at the White House, and it was a children's party held in the East Room with music, games, and a full dinner designed especially for Jackson's young guests. Descriptions paint the East Room that evening as a kind of winter fantasy. The room was decorated for the season and the tables were covered with pastries and molded sugar. Sculptures. One account describes winter scenes with animals carved from sugar and icing, along with cakes shaped like apples, pears, and ears of corn. Displays that were obviously meant to delight children at a time when confectionary treats like those were rare and very expensive. And then came the part that everyone remembered. At the end of the evening, each child received

what appeared to be a giant snowball. And of course, this wasn't really. snow, they were tightly packed balls of cotton. When the children threw them, the cotton burst open and spilled candy across the floor, which touched off this wild indoor snowball fight. Children raced around the East Room, laughing and scrambling for the treats. And according to later accounts, Jackson stood by watching and cheering, thrilled by the children's joy. For all that spectacle, though, the Christmas tree itself was still missing from the story. It wasn't until 1889 that we saw another shift. The first known Christmas tree was placed in the White House.

It stood on the second floor oval room, which was used as a family parlor and library, and it was decorated with candles and toys, especially for the grandchildren of Benjamin Harrison. What makes this moment particularly significant is how it bridges personal family tradition and public symbolism. Benjamin Harrison conferred with his gardener and the White House staff to create what one contemporary described as the most beautiful and perfect tree that could be found in all the country. Gifts were placed beneath the branches for both children and domestic staff. And while that tree was still modest by modern standards, it was confined to this private

sitting room rather than in a public part of the White House, it marked the beginning of what we now recognize as the White House Christmas tree tradition. During the Harrison administration, actually, electric lighting was installed in the White House for the first time. And the early electrical system made the Harrison so nervous that they refused to touch the switches themselves. They worried that they might get shocked. And so White House staff handled every switch in the building. But electricity opened the door to something that had never been possible before. A safely illuminated tree that didn't rely on open flames. And that moment came soon afterward in 1894 under President Grover Cleveland. Cleveland's family Christmas tree was decorated with multicolored electric bulbs,

an innovation that amazed the children invited to see it and served as a public display of cutting-edge technology. Newspapers at the time picked up the story describing this spectacle of electric lights wrapped around an evergreen tree inside the executive mansion. Using electric bulbs for a Christmas tree was highly unusual an American home since early tree lights were expensive and usually required professional installation. So Cleveland's tree helped popularize the idea and showed the country what an electrically lit holiday would actually look like. As the country moved into the new 20th century, the Christmas tree was beginning to appear more regularly. in American homes, especially among families with German heritage. But inside the White House, the story took a slightly different path during the presidency of Teddy

Roosevelt. You may have heard the story that Roosevelt, who was a noted conservationist, banned Christmas trees. It's a tale that has circulated for generations. But according to the White House Historical Association, it simply is not true. Roosevelt never issued a ban. His family just didn't have a tradition of keeping an indoor tree, and that absence seems to have sprouted this myth. But while Teddy Roosevelt may not have brought a Christmas tree into the White House, his eight-year-old son Archie most certainly did, and he did it in a way that has become part of White House holiday lore. In 1902, Archie secretly arranged for a small tree to be set up in a closet in the White House. He decorated it himself with help from one of the White House

electricians, adding little presents for each member of the Roosevelt family, including gifts for the household pets, which were, of course, many. When Christmas morning came, Archie proudly revealed the tree to his parents and the tree became one of the most charming moments of the Roosevelt family's holiday history. It was small, hidden away, and lit electrically, but it also showed how the Christmas tree had become a powerful symbol of family celebration. By now, the Christmas tree was firmly established inside the White House, but the country was still learning how to live with the newest marvel of modern life electricity. Early wiring was unreliable and insulation standards were inconsistent. And even in the president's home, the electrical system could be

unpredictable. That tension between new technology and old traditions set the stage for one of the most dramatic holiday nights in White House history. It was Christmas Eve 1929, during the president. of Herbert Hoover. And a fire broke out in the West Wing, possibly because of wiring that short-circuited, maybe a problem with a chimney. At the same time that the fire broke out, a holiday party for children was underway in the East Room. And staff quickly evacuated all of the young guests as firefighters rushed in. This was not a small fire. It took more than 100 firefighters to contain the blaze. And the West Wing suffered heavy down. They had to poke holes in the roof. Firefighters were injured. And of course, the party was over

for the night, but it took months to repair the damage. The following year, though, Hoover invited the same children back to the White House and gave each one of them a toy fire engine modeled after the fire trucks that had responded to the emergency the year prior. When Franklin Roosevelt came into office a few years later, he brought with him a deep sense of tradition. And one of those traditions was a preference for old-fashioned Christmas trees lit with wax candles. While electrical lights were now readily available to the president, FDR insisted on using real candles on at least one of their family trees. For the White House staff, it was a nerve-wracking choice. Alonzo Fields, who was a longtime White House Butler, wrote in his memoir, My 21 Years in the White House, that the

staff was on edge every holiday season because of those candles. They stood by with fire extinguishers and buckets of sand hoping the tree wouldn't ignite while the Roosevelt family admired it. Alonzo Fields wrote that the candles were lit only on Christmas Eve and only briefly, long enough for the family to gather and enjoy the moment, and then they would quickly put them out. FDR's candlelit tree brought a warm, nostalgic glow to the family quarters, but outside the White House, another tradition had taken root, one that had begun 20 years earlier under President Calvin Coolidge. In 1923, Coolidge stepped onto the ellipse, which is a park near the White House that's open to the public, and lit the first national Christmas tree, which was a huge balsam fur, covered in thousands

of electric bulbs. According to the National Park Service, the idea was actually proposed by the Society for Electrical Development, and Coolidge adopted it, turning a simple lighting ceremony into a national moment of celebration. For almost two decades after Coolidge's first ceremony, the lighting of the national Christmas tree became a symbol of the holiday season. But after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, wartime blackout regulations required cities around the country to dim their lights to protect against possible air raids. And the White House, even with its traditions, was no exception.

Beginning in 1942, President Roosevelt kept the National Christmas Tree. completely unlit for the duration of America's involvement in World War II. Crowds still gathered on the ellipse standing before a dark, silent tree as the president delivered his remarks. The unlit branches became a symbol of shared sacrifice and a visual reminder that the nation was at war. When peace finally came, the return of light carried profound meaning and in 1945, President Harry Truman presided over the first post-war lighting of the national Christmas tree. By the time Dwight Eisenhower entered the White House in 1953, Christmas decor had grown far beyond a single tree tucked into the family quarters.

The Eisenhower years saw not just multiple Christmas trees placed throughout the residence and in public spaces. Now thousands of visitors who came through the executive mansion got to see Mamie Eisenhower's fondness for holiday decor. By 1959, newspapers were reported that the White House had 26 Christmas trees and that the executive mansion was filled with poinsettias, greenery, nativity displays. All of this was being broadcast in real time for Americans to see. For the first time, Christmas at the White House wasn't simply a private family tradition or a moment of national symbolism. It was becoming a cultural touchstone. Newsreels and televised footage brought holiday images from the White House into the

living rooms across the country. Americans could now see how the president's home looked during the season, and many families drew inspiration from what they saw. The Eisenhower's didn't invent the idea of the White House as a visual holiday experience, but they helped set the stage for what came next. And what came next would remake the holiday season at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In 1961, a young first lady, Jackie Kennedy, introduced the the first official White House Christmas theme, transforming the blue room tree into a curated work of art. That moment marks the beginning of the modern era of White House holiday decor, themed trees, public tours, televised specials, and the idea that the people's house

should tell a story through its decorations. That, however, is a story for one of our future December episodes. Thank you for joining us this week on the preamble podcast. podcast. Be sure to read our weekly magazine at the preamble.com. It's free. And here is your personal invitation to join 350,000 people who still believe understanding is an act of hope. I'm your host and executive producer, Sharon McMahon. If you enjoyed this show, please like, share, and subscribe these things, help podcasters out so much. Our supervising producer is Melanie Buck Parks and our audio producer is Craig Thompson. I'll see you again soon.

Thank you.