Here's Where It Gets Interesting - Democracy Awakening with Heather Cox Richardson

Episode Date: September 25, 2023

Sharon welcomes back political historian, author, and professor Heather Cox Richardson, one of our most popular podcast guests of all time, who has a new book out: Democracy Awakening. Taking a different approach to this book from her previous work, Heather answers some of the big picture questions – once and for all – that readers have asked for years, relating directly to America’s current standing as a Democracy. When did the political parties change sides? Is America a Democracy, or a Constitutional Republic? How has America always managed to preserve Democracy as a global symbol, and how can we reclaim some of those Democratic principles?  Special thanks to our guest, Heather Cox Richardson, for joining us today. Host/Executive Producer: Sharon McMahon Guest: Heather Cox Richardson Audio Producer: Jenny Snyder Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. 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

Hello, friends. Welcome. Today's guest needs almost no introduction. Heather Cox Richardson is back today. She is one of our most popular guests of all time. My previous episode with her is among the top rated conversations I've ever had. And Heather has a new book out, Democracy Awakening. I can't wait for you to hear this conversation. So let's dive in. I'm Sharon McMahon, and here's where it gets interesting. I could not be more excited to welcome Heather Cox Richardson back to the show. Thank you for doing this a second time. Oh, I'm so pleased to be here. I absolutely loved chatting with you last. I feel like we could have regular episodes,

Heather, and they would be the things that everybody would want to listen to. The episode that we previously did is one of our top performing episodes of all time. Clearly, people who listen to the show are also huge fans of yours. Well, plus we just had so much fun last time. I know. I know. I know. Right before we started recording, we were talking about knitting and Heather was showing me her latest knitting project. It has lobsters on it and talking about living in extreme Northern climate. Sometimes you just extra enjoy talking. That's correct. That's exactly right. Yeah. Other people are great, but sometimes people are extra great.

Yes. So that's how I feel about you. You're extra great for a variety of reasons, including your work. Your personality is extra great, Heather, but so is your work. And I'm really excited to be chatting about your brand new book, Democracy Awakening, Notes on the State of America. A small concept. Just a little one, just like something that you cooked up just a little while ago,

typed up a couple notes on and here it is in a book form like two years later. You know, it's funny you say that because I like to write books that feel like I just rolled out of bed and wrote them. And of course, in order to look like a book is that easy a lift, it's an incredible amount of work. So I kind of like the idea. It might look like it was just, you know, a few notes. But the reality was, of course, that it was a pretty heavy lift writing the letters at night as well. Yeah, totally. Because you have an incredibly popular newsletter, like one of the top newsletters in the world. And it comes out usually every evening. I read it every day. And we can talk more about that another time. But I

know that that is not a small endeavor either. It's actually an incredible amount of work to create meaningful content on a daily basis. It is. And the thing that I love about it, though, is that first of all, it lets me do research. People say to me, like, how do you know this? I'm like, do you honestly think I know the inner workings of the treaties that we have had in the past with Vietnam? The answer to that would be a big fat no. However, I know where to do the research. And by the time I've dug into something, I just feel like I have a much better handle on the world. And so it is a ton of work, but it feels almost like I always joke, it's like the hologram on Star Trek, where you walk in and you start to fill it in. Every

day I get to fill in a hologram and then start again the next day to the holodeck, I guess not a hologram, fill in the holodeck, and the next day start all over again. Well, thanks for doing that. Because I know that as a historian, as political historian, that you are writing with an eye for future historians, for people who come after you. What will historians want to know about today? And that's very evident to me that you are writing on a daily basis with that in mind. Future historians will want to know this. That's exactly right. And there's a lot of what I call noise that I just don't pay any attention to. Because again, as a historian who's read huge numbers of newspapers, my first couple of books were based in newspapers, you recognize how much

simply falls away, the story that might be happening, some new discovery that might be important. One of my favorites of those was an article I found and read once about how by the 20th century, people would be living on the sun. That we really don't need to have a record. And there's a lot of stuff like that in our world nowadays as well, where you're like, do I really care what so and so was wearing? Or do I really care about the inner workings of somebody's life? And the answer is, well, maybe if I were writing a biography, but that's kind of a specialized group of people. So I look for the big patterns in the world and hope that I record them. I'm not necessarily approving of them. Some of them I don't know that much about, about how they'll work out and some I don't approve of. But you got to know what's happening or you can't make your own decisions about that. even from today, and you're looking back from the vantage point of modernity, looking back on the past, how amazing would it be to have somebody recording what the president is doing each and

every day, what their administration is focusing on, what kind of meetings they had. I'm not talking about like, oh, when they got a cat and the cat got declawed. Those are fun facts that somebody will dig up, of course. But the big picture of this is exactly what was happening in the United States politically, like it or not, it's going to be an incredible resource for people. It is today and it will be in the future. Well, and it's funny you say that. You're one of the only people who've picked that up. That is in fact what historians look look for is diaries are what they usually are, where somebody says this happened, this happened, this happened, and I

could list off a whole set of those for you. And there's nothing more frustrating than when you go to say, oh, I really want to know what so and so said about this event, and you go to the diary, and it's empty that day. And people always say to me, take a few nights off, all this doesn't matter. And I always think of that poor graduate student in 150 years going, oh, I got to see what Richardson says about this and then getting to it and finding, oh no, she didn't write today. So even on the nights that I take off, I try and fill in the gap the next day just so that that poor woman in 150 years won't be like, really? Really? You didn't feel like writing it down today of all days? So... The G20 summit, you missed it? How?

Well, and that's that is literally on a day that there's a ton of stuff going on. I literally say, let's do triage. What is somebody really going to need to know in 150 years? And the rest of the stuff I try and tuck in later. Well, I would love to hear more about how you began to conceptualize your new book, Democracy Awakening. You could write about anything in the world and people would read it. And I would love to know more about what was it about this topic that became so urgent that you felt I have to write it now and it needs to be me? My readers. I mean, this book was a little bit different for me in that I didn't go into it with an argument. I came out with an argument. I didn't go into it

with an argument. I went into it with the idea that I was going to once and for all answer the questions that everybody asks. You know, when did the political parties change sides? What was the Southern strategy? The sort of basic big picture questions that people literally ask me every day. But what happened was, as I wrote it, the book is arranged in three sections. Each section has 10 chapters. Each chapter is designed to be self-standing, easy to read before bed. And it's divided into three sections so that the first section is how we got here. The second section is where we are. And the third section is how we get out of here. And what I discovered is when I wrote these chapters, and literally just sort of, they

started to be chronological, they started to answer specific questions, what I realized was that I was actually making a pretty sweeping argument about how democracy is overthrown by authoritarianism. And what I was arguing, and what I came to argue is that it's by control of language and of history. And that made me realize that the way to get out was to reclaim both language and history. And that made me realize that the way to get out was to reclaim both language and history. And that's the final section. But what was interesting about the writing of it was I wrote these chapters, and of course, I'm writing every day as well. So I'm exhausted. And I wrote the bulk of it last year when my husband and I were getting married,

and there was just so much going on. I put the book aside, the first draft aside for three or four months. And when I went back to it, it was like it had had a conversation on its own without me being there. And I recognized that it had taken on a life of its own. And it was, it really, the book is dedicated to the people who read me and who have been on this journey with me, because it almost felt like they were having a conversation when I wasn't in the room. And when I went back to it, the argument leaped out, the structure of the book leaped out. And what I ended up doing was essentially throwing out about 80% of the original draft and rewriting it. And that's what you see in front of you there. So the urgency was just to answer people's questions. But then once I could see this argument about America,

and what the book ultimately argues is that the reason America has always managed to preserve democracy was because of the emphasis of marginalized people on the concept of equality before the law and the right to have a say in your government, both of which are outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Once I realized that, it felt like it was really important to have in people's hands before the 2024 election, because it is an optimistic view of the United States. It is an optimistic view of the future. And mostly it's a view of being empowered to create that vision of the world and the vision of America. So then the push became really strong to meet my deadlines and to get it out. I love in the foreword, you say, America is at a crossroads. A country that

once stood as the global symbol of democracy has been teetering on the brink of authoritarianism. How did this happen? Is the fall of democracy in the United States inevitable? And if not, how can we reclaim our democratic principles? Now, let me start with the word democracy, Heather. Maybe you're familiar with the constant and persistent pushback on this word democracy, that the word democracy itself has become politicized. There is actual guidance for newspaper writers to avoid using the word democracy because that word, it's skewed as a liberal left-leaning concept. Are you familiar with this? I was not aware of that now. Yes. The word democracy is partisan. Interesting. And this speaks still a little bit to what you've

been talking about in this book that we need to reclaim history and language. That if democracy itself is partisan, if democracy itself is like, oh, that's something liberals care about. What is it that the people on the right care about then? What are you trying to preserve over there? People tell me this all the time. And I'm curious if they tell you this too, that we don't have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic. And that democracy is mob rule. We don't have that. We have a republic. Well, so let's start with that. Heather is like, well, let's start there, shall we?

Do you know, I flirt with the idea of doing an Instagram feed called, well, actually, and simply writing back or clapping back and all these people saying, well, things like we don't have a democracy, we have a constitutional republic. Of course, when the founders were talking about those concepts, they use them pretty much interchangeably, but it was in a specific moment. So what they were, of course, talking about was pushing back against the idea of monarchy. That did not mean they had an all-inclusive democracy, but one of the things that I think has made the United States special is that it has had the capacity within that idea to continue to expand the idea of democracy. And let's just give

democracy a definition. And it's my definition, but it's one that I'm taking from the Declaration of Independence. And I've argued with a lot of people about whether this is enough. A lot of people say, no, it's not. We got to expand it this way. We got to do this. I'm perfectly happy to argue that. And I'm not at all suggesting you can't expand that idea. The idea of democracy is I'm going to define it. But what the Declaration of Independence says is that the founders wanted to create a government in which everybody was equal before the law and everybody had a say in their government. Now, everybody to them meant white men and usually white men of property. And there's some caveats to that. But that concept that government should be based on equality before the law, so that you can't have

situations like we currently have in Hungary, or Russia, or any of the countries where an authoritarian says, you know, you people are the good guys, and you people are the bad guys, and you're going to have to live under those circumstances. We're equal before the law. And crucially, our government depends on our consent. That's also in the Declaration of Independence. To me, that's a definition that carries forward. Now, the idea that we're not a democracy or a constitutional republic, while I don't like the principle behind that, I love when people say that because that came directly from the John Birch Society in the 1950s.

And it was their excuse for why Black Americans should not be able to vote. The United States was, in in fact calling itself a democracy. So they kept saying, well, we're not actually a democracy. We don't have to let black people vote. We can, in fact, continue to claim that we are exactly what we were from the beginning of Constitutional Republic, even while we are taking the vote away from black Americans, who were, of course, given that right under the 15th Amendment. So that harking back is a direct link to the white supremacist John Birch Society in the 1950s. And people who say that, I think, are telling on themselves. When people are telling on themselves, you know, when they bring up, we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic. 100% of the time, it's a talking point

they heard somewhere else. Somebody told them to say that they didn't like read the founding documents and arrive at that conclusion. They are just parroting something they have been told elsewhere. Yes, exactly. And that's the idea of having language and a false history that creates a false reality that people are reacting to. And the problem is you can't have a government that is based on people's votes if it's not based in reality. And that's actually something that political theorists in Russia were very good about doing was developing this idea of what they call political technology. That is, they create a false reality that people react to, and they

essentially vote away their democracy. I want to talk about Chapter 10, Heather, where you talk about an illegitimate democracy. And this is in the section where you're still sort of talking about America's past. I would love to hear you talk a little bit more about what illegitimate democracy means in the context of the United States. So one of the things that really jumps out when you follow modern American history is the degree to which the modern Republican Party, and I always like to make the distinction between the Republican Party as it is today, what's called the MAGA Republican Party, and the historic Republican Party, which of course has been around since the 1850s and has had a grand history as well as darker moments, the same way the Democratic Party has.

But the modern Republican Party really managed to gather power from the traditional Republican Party by demonizing opponents and by demonizing those they called liberals. And when they first started using that word as an epithet in 1954, they didn't just mean Democrats. They meant Democrats and Republicans both who wanted to use the federal government to regulate business and to provide a basic social safety net and to invest in infrastructure and protect civil rights. And that was called the liberal consensus. And people on both sides of the aisle believed in that. They disagreed about how to do it and how much one should, for example, regulate business, but they believed it should happen, which is how we get so many bipartisan votes, for example, on civil rights in the 1960s. The modern day Republicans got their power by saying those liberals, and they use a capital L to make it look as if they are

like the Communist Party, are destroying the United States. They are bringing socialism into the country. But what they mean by socialism, although they lap it over in the 1950s with the idea of communism, which everybody's concerned about in the 1950s, what they mean is a government in which people get to vote for the government that they are living under. You know, again, what's in the Declaration of Independence. So what they mean is they don't want African-Americans, for the most part, is who they're talking about, voting. Because they argue that they're going to vote for government policies that cost tax dollars. Those are going to require people who have property, in that case, mostly white men,

to pay taxes that then benefit actually all of society. But the way they talk about it is that they're going to benefit black people. Now, by the 1960s, the late 1960s, and early into the 1970s, as he's really on the ropes in his presidency, Richard Nixon expands that to be not just black Americans, but also indigenous Americans. Remember, he's got some issues in 1972 with the March on Washington by indigenous Americans, Hispanic Americans, and women. And he starts to define the world as good Americans and them. And he's very careful to create these straw people who are saying that, you know, they're tearing down America, they're asking for a handout. Now, if you read those speeches, he doesn't ever actually have examples of that. He's got these others. Well, one of the arguments of the book, but that really reflects the time is that after Nixon, and after Nixon managed to

nail together a coalition of a bunch of people by arguing that they were true America versus those feminists and the people of color and all the others, if you will, that Nixon is lining up, that ideology really becomes central to the Republican Party, not least because once Reagan is in office after 1981, his policies are not that popular. He actually loses, he wins in 84, but he loses pretty dramatically in the midterm elections of 86. So increasingly, to keep people behind them, the Republicans ramp up that language. And by 1986, they're already talking about Democrats winning by cheating, essentially, They keep talking about ballot integrity and implying that somehow Democratic votes are not fair votes. And we actually have a memo from somebody at the

time, a Republican operative at the time, who says straight up, this should keep Black people from the polls if we push these measures. And then in 1993, when Democrats pushed the Motor Voter Act, that language really ramps up. So by 94, you've got Republicans saying they're losing only because Democrats cheat. And of course, they don't have any evidence of this, but they continue to harp on that. And that idea that people voting for a Democrat is illegitimate, that those votes, even if they appear to be fairly cast, are not legitimate votes, is something we've seen before. We saw it during Reconstruction. But it's gone to a new level in the United States where, of course, we have ended up not only with a Republican president who tried to overcome his loss of more than 7 million votes

in the popular vote and by a significant amount, 232 to 306, I think it was, in the Electoral College, essentially by saying, so long as you got rid of the votes in black parts of the country, which is what he's really focusing on in Fulton County, Georgia, for example, or in Detroit, if you got rid of those, he would have won. And he keeps saying that. And that idea that people voting for a Democrat is illegitimate and needs to be overturned is fundamentally antithetical to democracy. And what's funny about it, or not laughable funny, but odd about it is it's really gotten stronger since I finished the last draft of this book. As you and I are meeting, the House

of Representatives is going back into session today, and they top on their agenda is impeaching Joe Biden. And they will say, listen, we don't really have anything. But they have literally been talking about impeaching him before he even took office. And that idea that if you are voting for a government that regulates business, provides a basic social safety net, promotes infrastructure or protects civil rights, you are illegitimate, that you are an illegitimate voter and therefore your candidates are illegitimate, is a striking example of how you get a one-party government that has no oversight and that at the end of the day does whatever it wants. This moment is so

fascinating because we're seeing a real struggle over what the country's government should look like. And it's not theoretical. We actually have examples in front of us of what those two different kinds of governments could look like. I'm Jenna Fisher, and I'm Angela Kinsey. We are best friends. And together we have the podcast Office Ladies, where we rewatched every single episode of The Office with insane behind the scenes stories, hilarious guests and lots of laughs. Guess who's sitting next to me? Steve! It's my girl in the studio. Every Wednesday, we'll be sharing even more exclusive stories from The Office and our friendship with brand new guests. And we'll be digging into our mailbag to answer your questions and comments.

So join us for brand new Office Ladies 6.0 episodes every Wednesday. Plus, on Mondays, we are taking a second drink. You can revisit all the Office Ladies rewatch episodes every Monday with new bonus tidbits before every episode. Well, we can't wait to see you there. Follow and listen to Office Ladies on the free Odyssey app and wherever you get your podcasts. To what extent do you see this voting for one party is illegitimate rhetoric as the one of the primary drivers of alt-right groups, of neo-Nazi groups, of people like Tim McVeigh, where they believe that they are not just correct in violently attempting to overthrow the government, but that the Declaration of Independence

makes it a moral imperative that they do so, that it is their job to throw off the shackles of this illegitimate government that they view the federal government is. And Tim McVeigh's motivation, hoping to start a violent uprising against, specifically against Bill Clinton, who had just signed this, you know, assault weapons ban. Is that the kind of rhetoric you're talking about, where people who regard anything that is outside of their extreme sort of far right view of what government

should be. Is that the type of rhetoric that you are as a historian, a political historian, that you're referring to and that you're seeing an increase of? Is it violent? So I'm going to be all historical here, both because I love your questions and I know your audience is not looking for easy answers. And I would say that Tim McVeigh is a great example of somebody who internalized that rhetoric, which of course was straight from the United States Civil War, when the Confederacy literally used the kind of language that McVeigh picks up, and he's actually wearing a reference to the Confederacy when he is picked up.

That language was very much a part of that era, and that idea that somebody had to take the country back from these socialists, which of course is what talk radio and the Fox News channel was talking about at the time. But I think we're in a different moment now in which that language is still incredibly important. But there's something that former President Donald Trump did that changed that rhetoric and the lone wolves, if you will, even though they were part of a larger ecosystem that involved, you know, talk radios, Alex Jones and people, you know, all the people that you can think of Rush Limbaugh and all those people. And that's that he took individuals

who are disaffected with American society, because they feel that they are have been left behind, that they're not important enough. And it's no accident that the vast majority of the people who are committing violence right now are young white men. He took them, he courted them with that rhetoric, but more than that, he then turned them into a movement. And that matters because by turning them into a movement, I mean that he nurtured that resentment and he backed it. He said, in fact, I can put you in charge of the government. And the reason that that matters and that change matters is because in the United States, and I always emphasize that I don't know anything about other countries, but in the United States, in the 1930s, there was a real attempt to bring a fascist coup

to the United States. And one of the things that the person that goes over to study France brings to America is the idea that rather than trying to convince people with arguments, which is a very top-down thing, if you will, which is what the period you're talking about was all about, the way to convince people to take over a government and the way to create a fascist uprising is to get people in the streets as gangs and to get them protesting simple stuff. Let's say potholes, although you could certainly put in masks here or, you know, little things that affect their lives. They may not be paying attention at all to what's happening at the head of government, but they're paying attention to whether or not there are potholes in their streets. And I'm

making up the potholes, but you get the point. Once you get them into the habit of protesting something, bonding with the people that they are protesting with, and creating violence, creating violence by screaming at police officers, by hitting people, by shoving people, by bonding over fighting, then it's very easy to convince them to adopt political extremism. So you start with potholes and you end up with a presidency, right? And that turning of the rhetoric and lone wolves into a movement in which those people have internalized that behavior, not necessarily originally the ideas, but the behavior and coming from that behavior to an ideology then makes it part of their identity so that you can't tear it i mean you can change

someone's ideas often not always but often but once it has become somebody's part of somebody's identity it's almost impossible to tear it out because they have to unwind so many things in order to get there. And the thing I always point to is Narcissa in Harry Potter, that the more that Voldemort requires of her and the worse he makes her behave and the worse he acts towards people she loves, the tighter she clings to him because she can't break loose without recognizing her own complicity and all that. And so, yes, that's how we got here. But where we are turned an ideology into a movement, if you will. And that's a very different thing. Yeah. It's no longer ideology. It's Yes. And it is impossible, next to impossible, to convince somebody to abandon their identity.

If they are going to abandon their identity, it's going to be their idea. And it is often a painful process to do that. Well, so one of the things, I mean, this isn't in the book, but one of the things that fascinates me right now is the National Rifle Association. You know, I've written a lot about the NRA. And people still talk as if the NRA is financially driving the decisions on the side of the Republican Party. But in fact, the NRA is in real trouble financially. And it had tons of money in 2016. And there are a lot of questions about where that money came from in 2016. It doesn't have a lot of

money now. And the idea that it's pouring money behind candidates, and I literally have not looked at where the money is coming from candidates, but it doesn't look to me any longer like the NRA is a big financial player. So why are people still wedded to the NRA? And that's a great example right there of the difference between ideology and a movement. I think right now, the Republicans who are still adamant that we shouldn't have something like background checks, which are crazy popular, by the way, among members of both parties, is that they're afraid of their followers. They're afraid that their followers

have taken on that identity of, I'm going to have a gun for anything I want, whenever I want it, and they don't dare to stand up to it. even though, as I say, the vast majority of Americans want common sense gun safety laws. And that shift there from, we're going to go along with this ideology because it's good financially, to we're scared of what we've created, is, I think, the difference between an ideology and an identity. I want to talk more about what you said, which is that so much of the current situation we find ourselves in is related to history and language, controlling history, rewriting history, and about the language that is used. And I want to hear you talk more about that. about that. So I'm glad you asked that, because I'm going to step back a little bit. One of the things that always jumps out to me when I read the news is how freaking depressing it is. You know, we're all going to hell in a handbasket. And the truth is, we have been in this position before. But what has always fascinated me about moments like this is that, yeah, that's true. I mean, I'm not going to downplay that. But it's also an incredibly

fertile time, a time when there's all sorts of new possibilities. And I think that is enormously exciting. So one of the points of the book, I think perhaps the smartest point of the book, is that if you look at our history, you look at people who are arguing for making America great again, or arguing or arguing about, we need to go back to this period in time, and you can pick whichever period you want, you know, I can make a case for a number of them. The larger picture that I'm trying to put out there is that the idea of the past being perfect serves authoritarian ends. That is, in order to get a following, an authoritarian will say, listen, we can go back

to a period when you, my followers were more important. And the way that we get there is we get rid of these people who are stopping you. And that's, as I say, I haven't put any specific identities on those people because it's somewhat a generic argument. The argument behind this comes from people who were studying the rise of totalitarianism, for example, in Asia and in Europe, but it's applicable anywhere. You know, I example, in Asia and in Europe. But it's applicable anywhere. As long as you follow me, I will make you more important because the way we're going to do that is we're going to get rid of those guys. But the trick to the United States and the reason that I care so passionately about American democracy is that we have a unique,

I think, approach to the concepts of governance, because we have always had marginalized populations who came in and looked at our Declaration of Independence and said, hey, what about me? You know, you've got all these great theories. Well, why aren't I part of them? And so one of the arguments in the book is that the way the United States has continually had a rebirth of democracy is thanks to the marginalized Americans who have said, what about me, and then have worked to make that real for all of us. and the idea of consent to your government repeatedly over our history from the very beginning. So that to me, the idea that democracy is continually being reborn, continually awakening, if you will, is to me, the idea of a democratic, small d, a democratic history, the idea that we are all constantly rebuilding it ourselves, that there is no magical past to go back to. The magical past is right now where we are building it.

And that to me is so exciting. I mean, while yes, there are terrible things going on, the idea that we have the ability to create whatever future we want seems to me to be a vision of self-determination, which I care so passionately about, but also of art and creativity and possibility that I find heady and exciting right now. I love that. What is something that somebody listening to this who cares deeply about American democracy, but feels a little overwhelmed, feels a little powerless to do anything about the current situation? What is something that an average, ordinary American can do to protect and uphold democracy? Talk. Talk to your neighbors, but not as in knock on your neighbor's door and say, you suck. Talk about things you care about. That doesn't work. That's right. It doesn't work, Heather. That's right. You're the worst. That's right. I love democracy.

That's right. Yeah. But you know, at the end of the day, democracy is about us cooperating as a community. That does not mean we're going to agree. But it does mean we are willing to protect each other's right to have a say in that democracy. And so what I always say to people is take up oxygen. And I hear this all the time. It's I'm only one person. It's like, then find someone else to talk with you. That again, worth remembering, most Americans on both sides of the political aisle agree on these things. One of my favorite statistics is the Republican Party right now is working to get rid of the piece of the Inflation Reduction Act that allows the government to negotiate drug prices with big pharmaceutical companies. And mind you, we're the only advanced

country that does not negotiate prices or have price caps. So you think about that and you hear in the news, oh, this is a terrible thing and the Republicans want to get rid of this because it's such a bad thing. Do you know how many people like the idea the government can negotiate with big pharmaceutical companies? 86%. Like you can't get 86% to agree on when to have lunch. And the idea that these things that are just common sense are unpopular, is what I mean when I say taking back our language. Because again, if we really were operating with reality, and who likes what, we would in fact have a very different government than we do right now because most of us agree on even hot button issues.

What do you hope the reader takes away from this book when they close Democracy Awakening? What are some of the things you hope they have hidden away in their heart? I hope that they feel empowered. This is going to sound funny to say, I don't necessarily care what they feel empowered to do. That's the whole point of democracy. And I feel certain I don't agree with my readers about everything. I know that's the case.

But I would like people to feel that they own this government and they have a right to have it represent them. I would also like for them to love American history and to recognize that it certainly has never been perfect. It's always been made up of flawed human beings, but they are flawed human beings who have on occasion accomplished miracles, and that there is no reason to think we can't do that again. So I would like to have people put it down and feel good about themselves, about our history, and also about the future of this country. Mm, I love that. Well, tell everybody where they can find and subscribe to your newsletter letters from an American. Okay, so that does appear on Facebook, Facebook hides it a lot. You can subscribe to it

at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com. And it will come to your home. It's free, you can pay for it, but you don't have to just ignore the whole credit card stuff. You can pay for it, but you don't have to. Just ignore the whole credit card stuff. You can also just read it online at heathercoxrichardsonatsubstack.com, which is what my best friend does. She says, I don't want all that crap in my email. So if you don't want to do that, that's fine too. But I do try there to round up what is, I think the story is worth watching in today's news, but also how it matters for American history. Thank you for being here today, as always, and please come back anytime. Thank you, Sharon. It's always such a pleasure.

If you'd like to read Heather Cox Richardson's new book, Democracy Awakening, you can grab it wherever you buy your books. And if you want to support independent bookstores, you can do that at bookshop.org. Thanks for being here today. The show is hosted and executive produced by me, Sharon McMahon. Our audio producer is Jenny Snyder. And if you enjoyed today's episode, please be sure to subscribe on your favorite podcast platform.

And if you could leave us a review or share this episode on social media, those things help podcasters out so much. Thanks for being here today.