Mind of a Serial Killer - Introducing: Government That Doesn’t Suck

Episode Date: July 19, 2026

The government gets a bad rap. But the roads under your feet, the forecast on your phone, and the letter in your mailbox are all government too. Hosted by Professors Greg Jackson and Lindsey Cormack, Government That Doesn't Suck brings together the sharpest thinkers to reveal the real-world impact of American government, one episode at a time. Follow ⁠Government That Doesn’t Suck⁠ for a new episode every other Monday. Government That Doesn’t Suck is a Rewind Studios original powered by PAVE Studios.

Hi listeners, it's Vanessa. Before today's episode, I want to tell you about another show I think you'll love. Crime House and A&E are teaming up on the podcast version of the famous true crime series, The First 48. Each week, Carter Roy takes you inside a landmark homicide case, the interrogations, the dead ends, and the breakthroughs in the critical first 48 hours. Listen to and follow the First 48 every Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Hi, listeners, it's Vanessa.

I've got a bonus episode for you today. If you're enjoying serial killers and murderous minds, then I think you'll love this new podcast from Rewind Studios. It's called Government That Doesn't Suck, hosted by Professor Lindsay Cormack and Greg Jackson from the hit podcast History That Doesn't Suck. You probably don't think of the roads under your feet, the weather forecast on your phone,

or the letter in your mailbox as part of the government, but they are, and most of us have no idea where any of it came from. Each episode of Government That Doesn't Suck tells the surprising story of an American institution that actually worked, from the origins of the Internet to the National Park Service to the GI Bill. You'll hear the story behind the institution, plus a conversation with an expert who knows it inside and out. This is the real history of how we built the country still standing under your feet. I have an episode for you to listen to right now. If you like what you hear, follow Government That Doesn't Suck on Apple Podcasts and Spotify or subscribe on YouTube for full video episodes. There's also a link to the show in this episode's description. New episodes release every other Monday. This is Rewind.

If we want to keep liberty, we're going to have to have some way of figuring out how we navigate those differences of opinion instead of saying no liberty for. anyone. Founding Father Mike Drop. Welcome to government that doesn't suck. I'm your professor, Greg Jackson. And I'm your professor, Lindsay Cormack. And today is episode one of our new podcast. Before we go any further, maybe we should actually explain who we are to new listeners. I'm Greg Jackson. I am best known as the creator, head writer, and host of the podcast history that doesn't suck. I am the author of Been There, Done That, How Our History Shows What We Can Overcome, and I also teach at Utah Valley University, where I'm the America 250 professor in the Center for Constitutional Studies. So I am a complete nerd. That is, I think that's pretty much why I just said.

Well, I guess I'm, I'm equally nerdy. I'm Lindsay Cormack. I have a PhD in government from NYU. And I'd say I'm best known for a little database that I've been running since 2010 called DC Inbox, which is every email that every member of Congress sends in their official capacity to their constituents' e-newsletters. But more recently, I wrote a book called How to Raise a Citizen and Why It's Up to You to Do It. And I met Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey. Yeah, yeah, we're nerds. It's February 11th, 1972. We're in Elkins, West Virginia. where a college student Ella Mae Thompson is waiting for her ride.

Outside, the thermometer is hovering around freezing, and a few inches of snow still cover the ground. In other words, it's a pretty typical winter's day around this mountainous part of the country. But hey, it's Friday and the start of the weekend, and for Ella, this particular day promises to be anything but typical. The freshman is on her way to the county courthouse. No, she's not in trouble. In fact, she's about to experience her recently guaranteed constitutional right.

While she waits, let me catch you up on what's going on. Earlier this morning, the Nixon White House gave the US Senator from West Virginia, Jennings Randolph, the honor of securing the nation's first 18-year-old to register to vote. See, ever since World War II, 18-year-olds have been of age to be drafted, and Jennings has been one of the leaders

of the old enough to fight, old enough to vote, debate. Over the course of three decades, decades, he introduced legislation to lower the voting age 11 times. Now, at last, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution has been ratified. The legal voting age has been lowered from 21 to 18. The question is, who will be first? The well-connected senator knew exactly where to find a next-generation voter, nearby Davis and Elkins College, where he had once been a member both of the faculty and board of trustees. When the phone call came into the office, 18-year-old work-study student Ella accepted the historic invitation. And look, here comes the senator now. He picks Ella up, and as they

drive along the icy road, the two strike up a conversation. Ella shares that her brother, Robert, was drafted and began service the month before his 21st birthday when he would have been eligible to vote. Less than two years later, he was killed in action in Vietnam. Only one day before he was to return home. The sad irony on so many levels. Specifically, the 26th Amendment Jennings had fought so long to pass had come too late for Robert. He was old enough to fight and die for his country,

but not old enough to vote. Then another revelation. Ella tells the Senator she's planning to register as a Republican. After all, her family are Republicans. Jennings is a lifelong Democrat, She worries this might embarrass him. The evuncular senator smiles back and tells her that's beside the point. Exercising her constitutional right in whatever way she sees fit, that's important.

That's exactly the point. With that disclosure out of way, the short drive to the courthouse comes to a blustery end. The 70 years younger senator and 18-year-old Ella hold on to each other as they cross the slick pavement. Now inside the county clerk's office, Ella May signs the registration papers. She's the first of 11 million U.S. citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 to register to vote. But for Ella, the registration isn't about politics. She'll later recall.

I was honored to do it because my brother had been killed in Vietnam and he had not been able to register to vote. So I feel like it was something that I did for him too. I love that story. It's a relatively recent event in U.S. history that illustrates how we the people can make our union more perfect. It reminds me that every generation has the opportunity to be a founder because the work of building our nation is always unfinished business. And since the passage of the 26th Amendment, the youngest generation can assert its right to vote and participate in the construction rather than the destruction. Right, Lindsay? Well, I think in a time in which everyone's hearing that government sucks and everything's bad and it's just going to get worse, we are offering a little bit of a different way to approach this sort of subject.

You know how strongly I feel about, look, and I say this without any dismissal of the very real issues and concerns that people are feeling across the political spectrum, right? But what we have is actually a pretty special thing and it works a lot better, both at its peaks and at its lows, than we sometimes realize. The way I come at it is government's going to happen to us whether we like it or not. Politics is going to happen to us whether we like it or not. But we are way better to navigate it and bend the ends to our will if we understand what's happening. And so part of that is just figuring out the rules. But another part of that is looking back on when government has worked in the past and kind of seeing, ooh, how can we get something that feels functional that we like the outcome of by looking at how we've done it before?

You know, obviously you're speaking my language there. You're tapping into history. I mean, this is America 250 this year, right? And the Constitution isn't that old, but it sure is fairly close. We're just going to go ahead and lean into that whole 250 thing. We've gotten a lot right. And, you know, the framers, they embraced that this wasn't a perfect union. They called it a more perfect union.

They realized that they were upgrading that the Constitution was the 2.0 version of their union from the Articles of Confederation. That sucked. Okay. And we've continued to improve it from there. One of the most brilliant things about that document and about what America is, the American experiment, is this idea of government by the people. We say that and that trite phrase just gets lost, I think. You know, it loses its specialness because it just rolls off of our tongue from kindergarten and on. But, you know, one of the things I love the most about reading the founder's words is how much they talk about the right.

of a generation to alter or abolish. And, you know, that isn't to say that radical answers are always required. But the understanding that it is incumbent upon every generation, if you're going to have government by the people, that they continue to hold that right. And I think it really says something about how special this is that for over two centuries, the American people have only chosen to alter. And we have, right? We've amended the Constitution. And now, I'm getting ahead of myself. I realize that, Lindsay. We're going to actually get into a full-on episode here. But I'm just very excited about the concept of what we're doing. And I'm very open-eyed, warts and all excited and patriotic about this country and the ideas that it's built on.

So both in terms of this episode and this podcast as a whole, I'm just thrilled to be doing this with you. I'm very happy to be doing this with you as well. And I think there is something truly worth celebrating as we get to the 250th Declaration of Independence Birthday. And I kind of think about this, not so much as cheerleading for the United States government, but as a way to reflect on when it gets things right and celebrating them. When we think about the stories that are children here that we see on the media, it's usually when something goes wrong, when there's a failure, when there's something that shouldn't have happened.

But there's so many things that we get right and we just don't focus on those stories. It's sort of like Yelp reviews where you're far more likely to leave a Yelp review if it's like, oh, I had a horrible time versus like, oh, this was pretty good. The food was nice and now I have sustenance for the rest of the day. That's what I see this as is fivitting and focusing on the times in which it does go right. Or there is a benefit or it even goes great. So, Lindsay, I guess you could say we are here to give, not exclusively, but among the things we're going to do is we're going to give some much needed five-star Yelp reviews to those oft-forgotten restaurants that are agencies and institutions within our government. Or at least some four stars.

You have mentioned before, and I'm going to book. So you're going to explain it properly after I completely massacre your idea. You've basically framed people today, citizens, as founders themselves, right? Yes. Yes. I think about this a lot. So in the work that I've been doing in the last few years is I've been around a lot of middle school children, a lot of elementary school children, high school children. And oftentimes they are taught about the founders. And they hear, you know, there were these very few men who had elite ideas. They came together and they built this thing. isn't that great. And I understand that that's a story we should care about. And it's a story we

should tell. But it casts us as sort of spectators in a historical theater play, whereas I like to think of us as all founders. And so when I'm working with children, after we talk about who the founders were, I point to them and I say, what kind of founder are you? Honestly, I mean, that jives so much with everything that the founding fathers talked about. I mean, Jefferson could kind of run his mouth a little bit on some of his ideas, things that some of the other founders were probably a little more inclined to say, okay, okay, Tommy, chill out there. But, you know, he did articulate the idea that the revolution should effectively be renewed every generation. That's what I mean, right, like the idea that, well, basically a little blood's got to be spilled. Calm down, Tom. I don't know if we

need to go quite there. But the real sentiment, what I feel like T.J. is getting at isn't that we we necessarily have to spill blood, but perhaps that we should have our blood, our skin in the game, right? And I think we do have to have our skin in the game. And I think we kind of all have skin in the game, but we're not realizing the benefits. We're just not.

If we, like, think someone else is taking care of it, then we aren't being in it in the way that I think our OG founders wanted us to be. I feel like people want this perfect guarantee. of a safety rail, that government's going to work out and be okay without them being the safety rail. There has to be this recognition that we, the people, we are that safety rail. You just don't get government by the people unless the people are doing it. Look, we do government at the end of the day, at least from the American framework, I'd say, in the pursuit of happiness. That's the point here,

is that we believe that we have this unalienable, right, self-evident right, to be able to pursue our own happiness, whatever that means for us as individuals. Craig, I have a question for you. Oh, let's go. When is the first time you remember reading the Constitution? Oh, my gosh.

It was as a kid. So I, my mom flirted with homeschooling off and on. I was in public school from sixth grade on continuously, but my elementary school years were back and forth as she, well, as she went back and forth on this idea. And mom was really good about covering civics government. And I remember, I was growing up in Southern California. We, yeah, I remember sitting in my room. reading the Constitution because mom said to do so. I think that's really lucky.

I think most of us can get to our 18th birthday, be fully eligible to participate in the American experiment, but not really know the rulebook at all, having never cracked it. And that's something that I think makes me a little bit sad when I get to interact with new undergrads every year because I know that no one likes playing a game they don't know the rules to,

whether it's like a hard game, a born game, or politics. And I'm like, guys, this game can't feel that good. If you haven't read the rules, you have to have that if you want it to be something that you can have a better chance of winning. If you run with that analogy even more, I mean, imagine you're on a baseball team, but for some reason you've gotten the idea that you are such an unvaluble player that you're just going to go sit in the stands and you don't know the rules. So not only is your team missing you on the field, and then you're not realizing the damage that that's doing, right? As an easy pop fly is just thudding to the ground and the outfield because you're not there to catch it.

I'm not trying to make people feel guilty. Maybe a little guilty, not super guilty, the right guilty. And at the same time, you don't even know the rules to understand when a call is made. you might get the impression that the ump is being unfair when in fact there are three strikes and you don't understand that. Or perhaps the ump is being unfair and you don't know to call it out, right? It cuts both ways. I think this is this is sort of the point of shared governance is that you have to have people who understand oversight and accountability. And if we all want to play like, oh, that's not for me to know or, oh, I never learned that, then we're never going to have something that feels accountable. We have to

understand what it is that they can be held account for. And so that's one of the reasons I'm happy that you got to read the Constitution early on. I didn't do this until the very end of high school. And I will say I probably didn't understand it until the very end of a PhD. And I still learn things. I read it once a year. I get to do it in class. And I learn things every time I do it. But I really think we sort of undergear our citizens to understand the world that they're stepping into because we don't have most of them read it. I feel the need right now to say, thank you,

Mom. So let's fix this a little bit. And I, again, I love your premise. The declaration, I'll throw one more analogy out there. We could think of this like a business. We live in an entrepreneurial society. And perhaps, you know,

we're thinking about this as a company that's been established 250 years ago, but maybe it'd be better if we think, thought of every generation is having to be the new entrepreneur. Yeah, you've got stake. You own shares in this company. Like any great enterprise of yesterday, it could easily become not so great tomorrow. Right. I think that's right. The things shift under your feet. The economy shifts, new inventions. You've got to adapt. Government also has to adapt. There might be these broad principles like separation of powers, checks and balances. Sure, that's your, your basis,

but we've got to be ready to adapt. That's why we need a living, you know, breathing Congress that can pass new laws. And I think if we're talking about this like a business, we're obviously the shareholders. And instead of like a set annual meeting, we actually get tons of annual meetings and tons of places for like customer feedback in the form of elections. And part of that is knowing, you know, like, who am I electing? What are these positions? When does it have to happen? Like you could not convince a business to listen to you if you didn't show up to the annual meeting. Same is true for government. If you don't agree to show up, if you don't agree to understand the rules, probably not going to listen to you. I'm a total fanboy nerd for representative government. Okay. That's what I think makes America so exciting today. You think about how much this nation has improved over our more than two centuries. It used to be a very limited number of people who could hold stock, shall we say, right? typically a state right out the gate was saying that you had to be white, male, and a landowner. That is a very narrow little piece. But today, every American citizen of voting age, 18 and older, right?

As established in the cold open to this episode, 18 and older, yeah, they've got their share and they're able to participate. Yeah, each successive generation, we do sort of expand the franchise a little bit further to a few more people. that we can have a more representative, more perfect union. Something else that I think about is, if America is this startup, we probably sort of failed the first time we did it, and that's okay. In the sense that we had 12 or 13 years where we're sort of like under the articles of confederation, and then we learned and said, you know what, I think we can do better. And that's kind of how I think about government is, yes, there's things that I like to complain about. But inheriting a government is not like inheriting something that you can just point out the flaws. It's something

where you have to see yourself as a part of it to be able to change it. And one of the reasons I think it's important to talk about the upsides or the positives is if I was on a team that was losing or if I was in a company that wasn't doing well, I don't think I would motivate everyone else by being like, sorry, you guys are losers and this system is rigged and it's always just going to suck. Instead, I'd say like, what can we do to make this better? And that's where I think as U.S. citizens, we have an ability to change our destiny. It's one of the most beautiful parts of being in a representative democracy in that each of us gets to have a say on how we go. An ability and even a duty, if I may.

Absolutely. And it's something where when I, when people, someone asked me a question recently, they said, Lindsay, do you think the founders would be proud of America today? And I was on a panel with other people. And the other people who answered it had a lot of negativity around like, you know, there's partisan infighting and there's people who are not getting their needs met and there's problems internationally. And I totally took it a different way where I was like, I believe what America is today is beyond the wildest imaginings of what the OG founders would have thought we could have been.

Because they're bringing together tiny little powers against the global hegemon of the time. And now we are sort of, not even sort of. We are the country that the most people want to come to. If you look around, if you travel, you can find other beautiful places, but you can't find an upgrade. Can I just pause you for a second there? I mean, think about that for all that's going on. And I don't mean this in some sort of polyana sort of way, right? Again, I'm not dismissing the things that people are worried about in this present moment.

And yet, yet we still have people longing to come to the United States. Absolutely. We always have. We probably always will. One of the things that I think is really attractive about being here is this equality in inputs for voting. So we know that people have different levers of power to pull on based on wealth or connections or industry, but at the end of the day, everyone's vote counts as one. And so I think that's really attractive, especially if you come from a place where you're not permitted to

contribute to who's going to be in your government or you're not permitted to say, I have a problem with this. Let's have a referendum. It's awesome to be in a place that allows you to do those things. And, Lindsay, I mean this as like the ultimate pep talk right now for Americans. Okay. But think about this. For us today in this environment with the vote so accessible, as accessible as it is, right? Go ahead and know all of the limiting factors. But as accessible as it is, could you imagine being in this situation and going back in time? You know, you just talked about being on this panel where the founders are, you know, you're answering hypothetically how the founders might look at today.

Well, let's flip that around. If you were to go back and try and tell the founders about how hard and awful is and why you should just give up because, you know, you're not sure your vote counts much. I just see them scratching their heads and saying, you know, we're fighting a war against one of the world's greatest superpowers. Like the idea that you get a choice at all is sort of a miracle. Yes, right? This is amazing. Or imagine, you know, going back to so many of the civil rights champions. Alice Paul, Frederick Douglass.

take your pick and saying, you know, yeah, it's just too hard for, in my situation, that our present is too hard. I just think that, you know, they would, they'd be a little stunned to say, you know, are you not aware of what our situation is? And yet we fight without the vote. Absolutely. And I think it's something where if we think about the founders, I sometimes believe that we have this impression that they all got along in the first place, and that's not really true at all. And so the idea that we have friction in the system or the idea that we see things differently, or we fight about things, or we want different ends, that's sort of baked into the whole process of liberty.

I mean, is that how you see it? 100%. Look, I mean, I know you've heard me say this elsewhere, but when I read Federalist 51, James Madison, and he makes the comment that men are not angels. Look, this is the premise for government. And what James Madison just said is people suck. That's it. They can.

Yes, they can. Not always. Well, you know, men are not angels. That's a pretty definitive statement. And what I see is that they build a structure on the premise that it needs to be able to endure people who suck. Yes. Yes. And yes, they hoped for public virtue at the same time.

So the hope is that the best of us will come to bear. And the republic needs that. Desperately, it needs that. It can't endure if everyone to return to the many analogies we've made, right? People have to be rowing. People have to be playing. People have to be participating. That is crucial.

And at the same time, they tried to build a republic that could endure people being checked out, people being power hungry, people putting their own. interests above that of America as a whole. That is why we've endured it as long as we have. And they saw it right out the gate themselves. To get back to your original point, I'm sorry, I kind of, I guess, tirated there a little bit on Federalist 51, but oh my gosh, when I want to talk about ugly partisanship, I talk about the founders. And, you know, once King George was out of the picture, you know, it was really easy to agree on who the external enemy was. But now you've got to govern?

You brought up my favorite president, which is James Madison. And one of the reasons I, oh, totally, absolutely. Sure, problematic figure in some ways, but my favorite. No, no, no, no. Dude's brilliant. You know I cite him left, right, and center in my book. But I don't just like him for who he is. I really like him for who he chose as a spouse and for who chose him back.

Because I think when we tell this story of America, when we get wrapped up and, like, there were these white property-owned landed men who got to make. make the choices, there is so much that happened, that Dolly Madison, that all the other women in the houses of presidents changed. And when we think about that governing question that you just brought up, at the early republic, a lot of founders or a lot of early governors or a lot of people who are nominated to Congress and end up showing up, think that they can't hang out with each other because it'll look like they're corroborating behind the scenes or they're trying to, like, figure things out in a way that's unbecoming of a Republican man who, like, has his own sort of

ideas on things. And the women look around and say like, well, these antisocial loners are not going to do that well if we can't sort of like grease the wheels. And so someone like Dolly steps in and says, let's have some parties. Let's let these people know each other. Let's get together outside of the halls of government. And that too is part of the founding story. It's not just we passed these laws and we made these decisions. It's all the sort of like, what does it mean to be in a Republic and it's more of a family than it is someone who's just like you're elected, you're in, and everyone else is out. Absolutely. And look, with all my respect for James Madison, the dude married up. And I don't just say that because he was five foot four. He was tiny. I know that might be also why I like

him. That's probably also why I'm the coxin, I think, because they're all really small. And I'm one inch, I'm one inch taller than James was. Okay, you know a lot more about rowing than idea. Did you row? Is that a thing? No. No. Okay. It's It's bigger in the east. I'm going to lay it to that. You're east coast. I'm west. I mean, I'm of the heartland. I'm the first, yeah, the first 22 years of my life. Lindsay, we're learning more. My goodness. Yeah. Yep. Yep. The first 22 years are Michigan and Texas and Illinois and Kansas. Okay. Yeah, running up and down. I had another question for you because as I, you know, I'm like very happy to learn that you got to read the Constitution in a dutiful home with a mother who cared about this. What do you think Americans misunderstand about the founding? Like what is it that you think people believe is correct, but actually probably isn't historically accurate?

Can I tell you a personal story? Yeah. So a number of years ago serving in a position in my hometown on the planning commission, we're having a meeting and those can get pretty heated. Planning Commission is sometimes the warm-up, if you will, for city council on. I'm on my local community board. Yeah, I know what these meetings feel like. Yes, yes. For our listeners who aren't familiar, right? Yeah, some of the most intense debates you get are in these sorts of meetings. And fair. I mean, these are the decisions that impact your life deeply in another episode. I'd love to talk about why I'm such a huge fan of municipal government.

And why I might even go so far as to argue, if you're going to be passionate about government, you are better to first let that passion come out at home and forget Washington, D.C. even exists if you're going to throw energy into this. You know, this is the government that impacts your life the most, even if we like to talk more about what happens in D.C. Anyhow, I digress. And in this meeting, a elected official of some sort, I will leave it at that level. of vagueness, but an elected official got up and spoke about a zone change. So we're talking about what structures can be built in a certain part of the city and there's a proposed zone

change that had come before the planning commission. And it was up to us to vote whether or not we were in favor or against that. And this elected official, to be fair, recently elected, said that the Constitution has endured since the beginning, and the Constitution doesn't change, and there's no need to change the plan of the city. And in that moment, all eyes on the commission, they all fell on me, because they all knew I was going to have thoughts. And I'm told, like, I have a terrible poker face.

I really do. Oh, me too. Yeah. Okay, well, great. that we can never play poker together. It'll be great. Yeah, I would never, I would never play the game because I just cannot hide what's going through my head.

And I remember one of the other commissioners, he said, oh, Greg, I could just see like your, the things that were, you know, brooding within you. And so, of course, as we get to comment, you know, I explained, well, it has been changed. It's literally been changed 27 times. specifically, not just an interpretation, but as in the words that are a part of the Constitution. One of those changes was literally to say we change our mind about one of the other changes.

It's a very changing document. Yes. And furthermore, there is one article dedicated to nothing but explaining this is how you change the document. And you know why we have that is because the Articles of Confederation were so hard to change that they were like, hey, we got to figure out a way to do. this that is workable because we originally said like you all have to agree and any change has winners and losers and so this is like no we'll just do a super majority yeah that night is just etched into my head uh and i i really don't mean that with disrespect i don't but i think it's noteworthy to point out that we have good people and i'm going to say that about you know the about the individuals speaking that that evening good intending people who even run for office who get elected by

their fellow citizens. And that means they've done right according to our system. And yet have not taken the time to understand the very constitution that they've then taken oath to uphold. And I don't think that they ever did it intentionally. But there's just a lot of assumption that we understand the rules of the game when we don't, both by candidates. And we, the people are not holding them accountable. Clearly, there weren't questions in the, in the election process that drilled this newly elected official on constitutional principles enough to expose that and lead them, not to necessarily even drop out, right, but just pause, reflect, and go, holy crap, maybe I should read this thing. Well, we don't have that requirement, right? If you're in office,

it's usually like, are you this old? Do you live in this place? Okay, you can go ahead and run it if you want. But and you know what, Lindsay, I'm not even necessarily saying that there's got to be, right, because I think, and I'm not saying that you're suggesting that. I think we'd get into a lot of trouble fast if we were like litmus test. We know nasty things have been done with that, right? I'm not calling for a test per se to be given to potential candidates, but the test has to come from us. This gets back to what are we the people, if we want government by the people, well, if we don't ensure that our candidates even understand the rules, how on earth do we expect that they're going to hold to them?

So I have two sorts of thoughts on this. One is the Constitution isn't that long. Like if you were to print it out on eight and a half by 11 page paper, it's like 17 pages, like 15 if you make it smaller font, 19 if you make it bigger. It's not that long. But the other thing is when you just said like bringing it back to we the people, I think that both the founders trusted we the people as in we want to do this, but they also feared the people. And we sort of see both of these things. And it's not necessarily bad to have both of those. It's like, yes, we trust if multiple people are thinking about it, we'll get to a better outcome. But we also should fear the people in that we are going to be held to account if we do something that the people don't like. And I think having both of those is important. It is. And look, we see that so many times. Ben Franklin, apocryphal tale. We always got a, you know, I'm a historical.

Let me put my little asterisk there, but allegedly asked after the convention, what have you rot? What have you done in there? He says, a republic if you can keep it. Keep it. Yep, yep, yep. Yeah. And more than that, I found this so interesting. Go back to our boy, little jemmy, James Madison.

He says in the federalist papers that the Senate, he's explaining, right, why did they do the things? that they did. And he's explaining the check and balance between the two houses of Congress. So Congress, our legislature, has two houses. And fair enough, people sometimes ask, well, why? Why bother? And he's explaining that it's a check against corruption. And one of the ways to ensure that check really holds is to try and make these two bodies that are clearly, you know, two halves of one thing, nonetheless as different as possible. So the house will elect a Congress persons every other year, right? And that's meant to intentionally make sure that representatives are dancing to

this, to whatever tune the people call. You want to hold on to your seat. You will do whatever is popular, period. But he says the exact opposite for the senators. And he even says that it is their duty to protect the people against their own delusions on occasion. Right. So here is a document.

Here's a government that's about. government by the people. And yet here he's introducing even a check against the people on a short-term basis. I'm sorry. I got excited and kept talking. You're please. No, there's no need to apologize. Something else that I like about and I love teaching about the distinction between the House and the Senate is they didn't just invent these. They looked to their closest historical relatives and said, hey, over in England, we've got a House of Commons and a House of Lords. We certainly don't want to have a House of Lords, which is no family nobility. You get into it because of who you are, because someone elected you. But we do want to have these sorts of polls, which is like that

dance to the tune, turnover every other year, you're a public servant through and through, versus someone who can build up a little bit more institutional knowledge in a six-year Senate term. And the idea that they're staggering the Senate, so a third of the people are elected in every midterm election versus the House where you could have the entire House flip over. There's sort of like lessons in history that the founders take and say, we're going to like change this. We're going to make it a little bit better and suit our needs. And I think that's sort of like the work of self-governance is figuring out what you can learn from the past and say like, how can I change this and make it suit my needs a little bit better. Lindsay, I feel the need

you just know that there is an Alexander Hamilton jab to be made there if Thomas Jefferson and little Jimmy we're here, right? Well, you know, you say we don't want a house of lords, but I think, I think Tommy would be going, huh, Alex wants a house of lords. Yeah, maybe, maybe which is interesting given the like lowborn status of his own background but the idea that he'd be an imperialist or a monarchist or a yeah right so James I want to stick with the checks and balances thing but I'm going to go ahead and make this little this little segue this little aside since you know we're talking about comparing comparisonhip then to today a little bit right we've touched on that here and there let me just insert I mean Thomas Jefferson

and James Madison called Alexander Hamilton a monocrat. That was their blended slam of a monarchical aristocrat. Because they believed he wanted to end the American experiment and introduce, if not a king in name, at least in reality. That was their perception. I think that they were super wrong. There are some to this day who go, oh, you know, Tom and Little Gemmy super nailed it. that was Alex. I think that is an insane position to hold.

But they did, and that was their partisan divide. And you had those Federalists and those Jeffersonian Republicans each convinced that the other party wanted to destroy the country. Which sounds a lot like how people talk about this today, where every election is the only one that matters and the other side is going to ruin the country or drive us into death or take what we want and throw it all away. I something. So I don't know if everyone. knows this, but you do have a new book where you kind of go through a lot of times in which partisanship got to much worse places than we are today. Do you feel okay talking about any of those parts and examples? Sure. Well, I'll tell you right now that example I just gave straight out

in chapter one where the very first two national newspapers established within the Washington administration. So we can't even get through our first president without having a national media, two papers, each supporting the two instantly developed parties and just slamming each other. And they're using pseudonyms, something we don't do in the press today. But I might say that's not all that different from getting on social media and you're dealing with, say, bots or, you know, people who are putting ideas out there under fake names, not using real images, right? So right out the gate, you've got disinformation, you've got bad assumptions about the opposite party. Lindsay, we couldn't make it hardly a second without doing that. I do think there's something about one of the reasons that it

feels hard or uncomfortable to talk about politics is because of partisanship. And the way that I sort of like to think about things is think like a patriot, not like a partisan. Being a citizen is different than being a partisan. But partisanship is a feature. It's a feature. It's a is a reality. It is not a mere bug. It is what's going to happen when you have any sort of government that's competing for control. And so something that I like about the way that you've written your book is saying partisanship has happened and it's been pretty bad in a bunch of different ways that many of us just don't know about. Stop. Stop. It is. Like, we're not tarring and feathering each other. We're not doing that. We're not dueling each other when we think that you've like affronted our

sense of honor. Partisanship has gotten really ugly in the past. And now we might like tear each other down on online forums, but it's usually not political violence. If I may, Lindsay, and I'm going to, I'm going to pull the book from the shelf just to really drive home the point. And it's a real background. That's always worth showing. The Federalist Papers, right? Your point about partisanship being a feature. So James Madison, Federalist number 10. he says that and I quote wait hold on I think I'm going to follow along because I'll just go to my bookshelf

let's do it do it here we go I was like I'm sure I got this up here too okay I love that none of this was scripted or planned but that we both have the Federalist papers within arm's reach oh and I was on 51 that's where mine was open to okay oh I love well 51 I mean solid but yeah we'll go to 10 basically we're doing little jemmy's

greatest hits today. That's what that's happening. I mean, he is the author of the Constitution. He's the father of the Constitution. It makes sense. It sure does, which is where it's real fun to think of him and Alexander Hamilton in 1793 getting into a print war under pseudonyms in which they're yelling and screaming at each other over what the Constitution means. But of course, if anyone is also qualified to yell back at Little Gemmy, it's Alex who wrote 51 of these Federalist Papers. But before I go into this, Lindsay, can we just pause and point out if the very two men that we might say, you know, I'm maybe you could take some contest with Alex perhaps, but follow me on this. If we look at them as authors of the Federal's papers and of course it's the framer right behind the Virginia plan,

James Madison specifically as like the two guys behind the Constitution and they get into a full on screaming fest in the papers over what the Constitution means. Why are we surprised that We don't always agree on what the Constitution means. Okay. Yeah, yeah, I hear you. And I also think it's something where, like, we want it to be like, this is the black and white right answer wrong. And that's just not how it is.

And you're going to show us how it's never been that way. Absolutely. Okay. So after his super long opening paragraph that some teacher somewhere today would be like, you can't write an essay like that, James. We jump down two more. The paragraph that starts with, it could never be more true. You're there?

You with me? Okay. It could never be more truly said that, you know what? Actually, I'm going to back this up just one paragraph. He's going to make a point here about liberty and how you've got to embrace the fact that partisanship exists if you're going to have liberty. All right. So he says, dang it, now I feel the need to back up even more.

To buy a faction. Yeah. By a faction. Yeah. By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction, the one by removing its causes, the other by controlling its effects. Okay? Easy enough so far, right? This isn't super deep. We can all follow this. There are, again, two methods of removing the cause of faction. the one by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence

the other by giving to every citizen the same opinions the same passions and the same interests okay so this should be super obvious to all of us but going into this next paragraph it's right great thoughts are in my opinion a mark of greatness is that when you hear it it feels obvious right so and that for me is what federal number 10 does on this point it could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish

the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. Yes. Yes, yes, yes, which is, right. If it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is, Right. If we're going to have liberty, we're going to have differences of opinion. And if we want to keep liberty, we're going to have to have some way of figuring out how we navigate those differences of opinion instead of saying no liberty for anyone. Founding Father Mike drop. Like that stuff, Lindsay, I mean, that is why 250 years later, right? And again, Gemmy wrote it after 250, but embracing the semi-quincennial that we are.

And I have practiced that word, by the way. I just want you to know that. That was not a first try. I've been saying it for like a year. Yeah, I'm with you. Yeah, yeah. It needed it. But it's the brilliance of these ideas.

It's not just some happy accident that the United States has endured, that this republic has endured. And it's not because we're revering out of a de facto need to revere these dead white dudes. These ideas are brilliant. They have withstood the test of time. They have held against the vicissitude of challenges that this nation has faced. Even carrying us through the existential crisis and bloody civil war that killed some upwards of 2% or so of the nation, these things have held. And they're worth trusting today. And they were created in a time in which day-to-day life sucked a lot more.

Like you couldn't drink the water. You had to have a lot of beer around or a lot of ales around. Life expectancy is something like 40 years old. So you have a 40 year runway to say like, what am I going to do? Kids are dying in their first year of life at rates we would never think about today. And so it's just everything was much harder. And yet we still got a pretty good thing out of it. Lindsay, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you understand what I mean when I say you have died of dysentery.

I played the Oregon Trail. Absolutely, right? Yeah. Well, Lindsay, we've kind of been a little bit all over the map here, but I think perhaps long and short, some things that we've really hammered on as we've gone into unexpected weeds and come back out are that, what, one, we've got to participate. Two, we've got to know the rules of the game in order to participate. Three, this isn't the scariest time. politics are simply scary.

That's part of it. That's okay. I don't know. I might leave the list there, but what am I missing? What would you have? I'd add in at least one more, which is we have to see ourselves as founders in this process. We can't think that it's done. We can't think that we have nothing more to do.

But if we're going to contribute to it, maybe it's better to recast ourselves as modern day founders. Bingo. Thank you. Yes. I felt the absence. And that was absolutely it, of course. So moving forward, I will do as I do on History That Doesn't Suck. I'm going to tell stories.

And you'll be by and large having some great interviews. I will, of course, come in and disrupt those from time to time. And yeah, we look forward to telling you the story of government. Yeah, and figuring out when it does and when it doesn't suck. So we'll see you every other Monday for a new episode of Government That Doesn't suck. Thanks for listening to this episode of Government That Doesn't Suck. Follow the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or subscribe on YouTube for video episodes. New episodes drop every other Monday.

Hi listeners, it's Vanessa. Before today's episode, I want to tell you about another show I think you'll love. Crime House and A&E are teaming up on the podcast version of the famous true crime series, The First 48. Each week, Carter Roy takes you inside a landmark homicide case, the interrogations, the dead ends, and the breakthroughs in the critical first 48 hours. Listen to and follow the first 48 every Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you listen to podcasts.