The Bulwark Podcast - Heather Cox Richardson: An Attack on Our System of Government

Episode Date: October 15, 2025

Republicans in Congress know that what they’re doing is deeply unpopular—on healthcare, supporting troops in the streets, and on redistricting. That’s why they’re basically in hiding, plotting new ways to try to shift the narrative. But because they’ve given their Constitutional power away to Trump & company, unelected officials in the administration are now making the taxing and spending decisions. Meanwhile, Trump has another monument in the works. Plus, Democrats and the Senate race in Maine, another military strike in the Caribbean, and MTG may be a bellwether of MAGA’s future. Heather Cox Richardson joins Tim Miller. show notes Heather on Trump's proposed arch that would disrupt the Lincoln Memorial Heather on how Congressional Republicans have abdicated their power

Hello and welcome to the Bullwark podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. Delighted to welcome back to the show, Professor of History of Boston College, where she teaches 19th century American history. That's seemingly relevant. She also writes a newsletter you may have heard of letters from an American on Substack. Her books include Democracy, Awakening, Notes on the State of America.

published last year at Sather Cox Richardson. How you doing? I'm good, and it's always a pleasure to be here, Tim. Thanks for having me. Appreciate you so much and the work you're doing. We've got a bunch to get to. And you kind of wrote a newsletter because it was yesterday on the abdication of Congress across a bunch of different verticals. The House has been out now for weeks. The House has barely been in over the past few months. Josh Dawsey reported in the Wall Street Journal, I guess it was over the weekend, that the Trump administration officials, are joking about ruling Congress with an iron fist that Steve Bannon's compared Congress to

Russians, largely ceremonial Duma. It is pretty shocking, you know, just how little they're trying to exercise their powers down there. I want to get your take on that. It is more than just a little shocking. It is truly shocking because the whole concept of the American government, as it was laid out in the Constitution was that the people's house was Congress. We talk about the three branches of government, but the first article of the Constitution covers the legislative branch, which is the two houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. And that is where the power of the government resides. And that is where legislation is supposed to happen. That's where public spending is supposed to happen and so on. And the Republicans in Congress,

I think that's an important distinction to make between the Republicans and the Democrats, have essentially given up their control over spending, over legislation, over even things like this government shutdown and inferring to Donald Trump. So it's a profound attack on the setup of our government. It's also really astonishing because the idea behind the Constitution was that the legislators and the different members of the government would be so protective of their own power. They would not cowtow to a different branch. And in that case, they've given that up. It's also really interesting in this particular moment because Donald Trump is not a strong president. So I think there is a real sense of kicking the can down the road, hoping that at the end of the day, when everything falls apart in whatever way it's going to, those people who stood back are going to be able to come back in and pick up the pieces.

And that has never been the case. We do have parallels in our past to times when this has happened. And what emerges is a very different system. In what way do you think that he's not a strong president and talk about some of those parallels? Well, those are two separate things. The way in which he is not a strong president is I think it is hard to disagree with the fact that he is crumbling mentally. And I am not a medical doctor in any stretch of the imagination, but I have watched this man now for decades. And, you know, he can't put a sentence together. He doesn't seem to know if he's a foot or horseback. And as that's happened, the power in the government has devolved to other people.

and you watch that and you recognize that the reason that he has stayed in the position of power that he has is because he could commandeer the MAGA voters. And a lot of Republicans stayed on board with him because he could deliver these voters. Now, if something happens to him, where do those voters go? Do they stay committed to the Republican Party? You know, you look at the splits in Congress, you look at the splits in MAGA across the country. It's a little hard to imagine that anybody coming after Trump is going to be able to deliver those voters. So if that's not the case, what happens? And this is, you know, we don't know what's going to happen in the future, but I think you can look at somebody like Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and her backing away from her much more strident MAGA positions to positions that are

much more in keeping with what appears to be the interest of the American people right now on, for example, health care, and think it's not clear that MAGA is going to stick together. And if MAGA doesn't stick together, what does that mean for those people who can the can down the road? Are they able to say, oh, I never believed that stuff anyway? You should come back and vote for me. Or are they so tarred with that after things, for example, like the young Republicans group chat being leaked yesterday, that their moment is over. And, you know, I don't predict the future. I predict the past. But it's, I think it's a really vulnerable moment for the president. And then, you know, we can talk about what's happening with his actual policies and so on.

But just in the terms of the structure of the government, I always like to think about power as its own bucket, if you will. Who's got power? And the idea that power is inherent in certain positions in the government is actually not true. Power slashes around, who grabs it, who takes control of it, who uses it, who walks away from it. And in this moment, there's a lot of power that is sloshing around right now seemingly picked up by Russell Vode at the Office of of management and budget and by Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff. But will they continue to hold it, those two unelected officials? Will Congress take it back?

Or will the American people finally say, hey, wait a minute. We have this little thing called the Constitution that we were real fond of for 248 years. Let's take a look at that baby again. It's hard to predict what Donald Trump's mental faculties are going to be in 2027, et cetera. At this moment, I think there's no doubt that Russell Vote and Stephen Miller have taken a lot of power. it's pretty noteworthy how little Congress has taken. And I think that kind of cuts against this idea that Trump is weak right now. I mean, there are a number of areas where Trump's put forth policies that ostensibly people in Congress would be against either for their own pro quo political interests or for their past ideological views, whether that be Ukraine or tariffs or various issues like that. And you see now between the tariffs, which he's just doing unilaterally. I don't know. We bombed another boat in Venezuela yesterday. People don't even notice this anymore. And, you know, there's been no. declaration of war, we bound to the vote in the Caribbean of Venezuelans. So across economics, funding the government, foreign policy, congressional Republicans have just totally abdicated all power

to the president, at least for now. I think that's right. And on those two things, especially, it's really glaring because the Constitution gives to Congress and to nobody else the power to regulate tariffs. And this is one of the eight emergencies that I think it's that the president has declared since taking office in January so that he can work outside the constitutional system. And that's, of course, really tied to the political theories of Karl Schmidt, the German political theorist who became a Nazi with the idea that if you operate according to exceptions, that really shows you who has the sovereignty in a system. And there is, I think, absolutely no doubt that the president is trying to become a dictator.

But it would be easier, I think, if he were actually able to control himself, his underlings, and power. Now, the thing about the striking of the boats, which really important to remember that we have no information about those except what the White House says. There has been no information about those at all. So we assume they are Venezuelan boats. But the idea that they are narco-terrorists importing drugs into the United States that are going to kill tens of thousands of people, as the president said, is solely on Trump's word, which is not how our system is supposed to work. And it overlaps pretty strongly with their idea that undocumented migrants in the United States are members of transnational narco-terrorist gangs, which is what they are talking about. And in both of those cases, really dramatically now in the case of striking those boats, they are trying to make the case that we are, in fact, the equivalent of at war. And legal analysts just say that that simply does not fly.

But it seems pretty clear that's the analogy they are trying to bring to the United States. Whether or not that's going to work, I think depends a lot on the pushback in the courts, but also the pushback of the American people doing things like showing up in frog costumes and going, do I look like a narco-terrorism? which is actually really effective. I do want to point out with those boats, just to be clear, the United States has always intercepted boats that seem to be up to no good, but they do it in a really simple way. They shoot the engines. This is not rocket science. And then they take them to law enforcement officials.

These are deliberate strikes that at this point have killed 27 people, that people who are observers who understand international law are simply calling mass. murder. That really, really matters. Whether or not these people or drug traffickers or not, at least one of the alleged widows of them has said he was a fisherman. And the Colombian president has said that one of the victims was Colombian, or thought to be Colombian, which I guess it's possible that it could have been a Colombian working with the Venezuelan Trentharagua or whatever. But like, to your point, we don't know. No evidence has been both forth. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that there was within the White House of the DOD legal review of

any of this or that there are lawyers that are okay. There has been no issue of any kind of legal justification for this except this general idea that they are putting out there that we are the equivalent of in a war, which again is not, according to our constitution, something that is supposed to be determined by the president. It is literally supposed to come from the Congress, although that's, of course, been really wiggled around a lot since World War II. You know, when catastrophizing starts around the bulwark, that leads you to start thinking about other things, other possible catastrophes in your life. And that's where one of our sponsors comes in, trust and will.

Trust and will turns estate planning from a when I have time task into a quick, straightforward process, ensuring you're protecting your family's future today. Go to trust and will.com slash bulwark to get 20% off their simple secure and expert-back estate planning services. You know, I'm not really a planner. I'm living like 24 hours at a time these days. People have texts of me about what I'm trying to get me to do something in December. I'm like when is fucking December?

So thinking about the big picture is a challenge for me. And that's why I needed to turn to a product that made it easy for me. Let's just be honest, made it easy for my husband to do the work on it. And trust and will was right there for us. They're easy to use. Website is simple to navigate. Plus all your information and documents are securely stored with bank. level encryption. Easily share all your estate planning documents with trusted friends and family

with the new shared document access features. So loved ones know their role in your future. Add some peace of mind to your future with trust and will. Go to trust and will.com slash bulwark for 20% off. That's 20% off at trust and will.com slash bulwark. I'm just curious, I just sort of open ended on this, like whether like the historical precedents or lessons or risks that are associated with this. I mean, I do think it kind of would have been unimaginable. One of maybe the founder's naivetees, I was reading through some of the old federalist papers for a different project I'm working on the other day. It's like this notion that people wouldn't want power for themselves.

Like there was this kind of belief that like everybody would be selfish in that sense, right? And that that that would be a check, right? That whoever the speaker of the house is would have their own interests that they would, you know, care about. And the absence of that, right, ends up being kind of a weakness in the system, it turns out. And I'm wondering what you think about that. If there are any precedents to that that called the mind? I actually think what the framers missed was partisanship. Remember, they did not expect there to be political parties in the United States.

And when they talk about factions in those early papers in Federalist Number 10, for example, they are talking about partisan politics. And until the 1990s, I think, in the United States, there was always the sense that above all, and not entirely. I mean, you can certainly find exceptions of this, and the 1850s is a glaring exception, but that was less about partisanship so much as partisanship being a reflection of financial interest. But until the 1990s, there was always the sense that you were certainly willing to use your party to turn out voters at the polls and to articulate your vision of the country, but the country still

mattered, that America came first, that country came before party. And I think with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, there was a really concerted effort on the part of that faction of Republicans who wanted to roll back the New Deal back to the 1920s, people who were represented by individuals like House Speaker Newt Gingrich from Georgia, they began to insist that partisanship mattered more than country and then began to believe, I think, in those years since then, that those who stood against the, in politics stood against the United States. So we've gotten to the point where a legitimate election in 2020, a legitimate presidential election seemed to be considered by the president's supporters as illegitimate simply because their guy had lost. And that understanding that the way you get ahead in American politics is by adhering to political extremism or a position of partisanship,

rather than by advancing the interests of the nation, I think we're seeing right now really in a very pointed way when you have the president saying, I'm going to cut Democrat, as he says, programs and keep Republican programs. Well, of course, they're not partisan programs. And in fact, it's red states that are being hit hardest by cuts to education, for example, cuts to research, cuts to universities. But this idea that somehow they're going to keep the good Republicans on board and push away. the bad Democrats really reflects, as I say, that kind of political philosophy of people like Carl Schmidt. We're friends and enemies. And one of the things that people like me are trying to make the case for that, in fact, in a moment like this, we are we the people against a would-be autocrat. And that's simply a different reordering of society. But the framers, I think, would be much more on my side, the idea that we're supposed to be protecting a system from a dictator rather than saying, I'm a monkey party as opposed to your kitty cat party. I just think there's obviously a tangible example that's happening right now,

which is the National Guard being deployed into blue states and cities. I had Governor Pritzker on yesterday. I'm kind of interested in how you see what is happening there. Because on the one hand, obviously there's some people out there stoking, you know, this is civil war type discourse. And obviously it's very serious. Like on the other hand, Pritzker was on yesterday talking about how they've been fighting and winning in the courts, you know, at this point. The National Guard from the other states

have been, have limited to federal buildings in the state. We'll kind of see how that shakes out over the coming week. So I'm wondering kind of how you see what's happening now and any past parallels we could learn from. Can I just start by saying to people, it's, this stuff is really complicated. And I get when people are like, I can't even tell what's happening. Because there are so many layers and so many different events that, you know, I'm overwhelmed and I sit here doing this 24-7s. So I get it if people are like, oh, just make it all go away. And the reason I prefaced this, what I'm going to say with that, is because I think there are many layers to what is going on with the deployment of National Guard troops in the various places that they have

been deployed in this moment. Let's start with Pritzker. And what Pritzker is doing, because there's a number layers to Pritzker as well, but it is important to remember, first of all, that deploying the National Guard is unbelievably expensive. There is no more expensive way to make things happen than to deploy the National Guard. So governors don't like to deploy the National Guard if they can possibly avoid it unless they can get the feds to pay for it. And that's a really important caveat. So if you look, for example, at Operation Lone Star in Texas, which has been underway for years now, I don't remember when, been caused a huge problem among the Texas National Guard because they're like, you have ripped us away from our families for absolutely nothing. It does not appear to have had the effects that

the governor, Greg Abbott, says it has. But I believe the price tag on that baby so far is $12 billion. And the Texas government is hoping that the federal government is going to pay for that. Just for folks, that's sending the National Guard to the border in Texas. That was 2021. That started so early Biden, which makes sense. That's right. So, you know, that's, that's a pretty hefty price tag. So that's one of the things going on is the cost of this and who is going to bear the cost of this. And then another thing that's going on that I think Pritzker is playing on quite heavily and maybe not getting a lot of press for is he is pointing out that states don't want to do this. They don't want their National Guard to go to other states

unless the other governor has asked them. Why not? Because they want those guards to be available when they need them. And different National Guards specialize in different things. And so it's not like you can say, well, if I can't get this state, I'll get another state. I mean, you want the state that is really good on, let's say, medical care if you have a medical emergency. So beyond all of the politics of this, there is simply logistics of you don't want to do this if you can possibly avoid it. And that includes a number of Republican states as well. So one of the things that both Gavin Newsom and California and Governor Pritz, in Illinois have done as they went to the National Governors Association. Now, the National Governors Association depends on payment from the states that belong to it to continue to function. And they're both very wealthy states. And they've said, you have to come out against this or we're going to leave the National Governors Association. And then good luck to you. That's an organization that's been around since 1908 and is designed to be outside of politics. And you saw on the back of that Governor Stitt from Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt from Oklahoma, who is quite a far right Republican.

saying, I disagree with these deployments. All right. So there's all that mechanical stuff going on, but there is also the real story, the larger story here, which is Donald Trump, the president of the United States, trying to use military people to enact his will in Democratic cities especially. And ICE and Border Patrol and the troops from Homeland Security are not the same thing as the National Guard, which is controlled by the states unless it is federalized by the president. And they are not the same as U.S. troops. And all of those are reacting very

differently to what's going on in the cities. The other piece of that that we may or may not want to go into is why are they doing this in addition to simply wanting to enforce Trump's will. Pritzker has said, and I think this is not wrong, that they want Americans to get used to having troops in the street because they are looking to the 2026 election. And that is, you know, the end game right there. They want to go ahead and control politics, control the government. And again, to go yet maybe above 30,000 feet, why do you want to control the government? Because if you can control the United States of America, you're the biggest dog in the fight.

And there is one heck of a lot of money riding on all this stuff at an international level. And you can see that sloshing around, too. Prisker made that point about troops in the street yesterday and getting folks used to it. And I think that's right. And I think another thing worth talking about because a lot of, I'm sure you see this in your comments on your substack. Some people kind of will push back on me and say, why are you even talking about this? Like, there's going to be normal elections in 2026.

Like, why are you gaming this stuff out? Like, we're already in this fight against an authoritarian that's going to ensure we don't have free and fair elections. Because this stuff is complicated and nuanced, I just think it's important to point out. Like, that's not quite right. Like, they're trying a bunch of stuff. You know, it's like the velociraptor and the doors. Like, they're trying to open all the different doors and things. figure it out. So on the one hand, the redistricting fight is part of this. That is premised

on the fact that maybe they think they can just win the election, right? I can keep the House and Senate if they if they game the system well enough, right? So like that's cheating in a sense, but it's not like stopping the election. It's not not having free elections. It's just they think that if they game the system well enough, they could win. The troops in the streets are like, well, we'll see what the reaction is to this, right? And you've seen Trump in various ways, dip his toe in the water and then pull back. And I think that is why it's important to talk about this in the context of, like, we are still in a system where public opinion matters, public action matters, pushback matters, right? Like, all of this stuff is in early

stages, you know, as compared to what you see in other places. And living in that gray is complicated. But I wonder how you kind of see all that. Well, for once, I'm going to be the pessimist here. I would say that we don't have free and fair elections. That in 1986, when the Reagan officials recognized that the second round of tax cuts could very easily be overturned with the election of a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president, they started to do two things. One was to pack the courts with right-wing operatives who would, as Edwin Meese, Reagan's attorney General said make certain that the Reagan Revolution was going to stay in place no matter what the voters did. And they also began to say that they needed to protect ballot integrity is what they said at

the time. And they started spreading the idea that Democrats were winning only by fraud. I mean, we could walk through the whole history of how this exploded after the Motor Voter Act of 1993, when you start to get the idea that illegal immigrants are the ones who are voting for Democrats, That's always a myth. And going on through 2010, when you got Operation RedMap and the extraordinary gerrymandering and then Citizens United and then 2013 when you get the gutting of the Voting Rights Act under Shelby v. Holder, we are already looking at a system that is heavily skewed toward the Republicans. And then you add under that the electoral college system, which was perverted in, well, beginning in 1800 by Thomas Jefferson and then in 1929, by

the capping of the House of Representatives and so on. So we are already along the lines where if, in fact, we didn't have partisan gerrymandering in a number of Republican-dominated states, we would have a Democratic House of Representatives. You know, we are already in a place where the Senate is reacting not to the majority of American voters, but to the minority that are in place because of the way the Senate works. So it's not like, everything is hunky dory right now. And every time I hear somebody saying, why don't black people turn out to vote? Look at how the numbers dropped after Shelby versus Holder. And in fact, in our last election, what was it? 64.1 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote. And people always say,

oh, they're apathetic. A lot of those people tried to vote and they couldn't because of the lines or they couldn't because the drop boxes were gone and so on. But that being said, I don't think the radical Republicans would be trying to take away rights to the degree they are if they thought they could win. And the fact that they are throwing all the spaghetti at the wall says they know how deeply unpopular they are. And what you just said about public opinion really matters. Not because it's going to change the people in office necessarily, although as I say, I think Marjorie Taylor Green is a really interesting bellwether right now, but because it's going to change the people who are coming into the system. If they want to get elected, they want to

encourage these new voices and they will push back on the ways in which the system is suppressing those voices. So in a system that is predicated on the very idea that we the people, as our Constitution says, have given our power on a temporary basis to those leaders we elected to create our laws. If we say, we don't support this anymore, you know, we're taking our power back. That government, in fact, loses legitimacy. And this is the last way that I agree with. And I think sometimes some folks get a mixed message. And this is why I just want to just sit on this for a more second.

Because taking our power back means that people have to believe that they have the ability to take their power back, right? And if they believe that we're already in a place where we don't have free and fair elections, it's akin to one of these authoritarian foreign countries like Turkey or something or worse, Russia, then what's the point, right? Like, why not just be apathetic? Why engage in this at all? why get involved? Because the game is already rigged. So some of what you're saying, like, I think the way that the map is, you know, benefited towards the Republicans is surely true, right? Like, particularly with the electoral college and the Senate, at least for now. But like, the House popular vote in 2024 was, I pulled it up here. The Republicans won by 2% and they have a whatever seven-seat majority in the House. Like that, I mean, the House was basically representative. I mean, there are gerrymandered states in both parties. Like, there's some really bad Republican gerrymanders. And,

North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, some other places. But, like, it was winnable. Like, that last election was winnable to the Democrats. And I don't want this just a complacency to set in because people can feel like, well, fuck it. It's rigged. So, you know, there's no reason to get involved. And we deserved it. Like, that's not really true. The Democrats lost last time, in part because they weren't speaking to a part of the electorate that they needed to speak to. What do you think about that? So I agree with you that the game is not over at all. And yes, it's incredibly important to turn out because the longer we wait, the harder it will be to turn things around. And that's never to say that people don't have opportunities to overturn a system that is increasingly unrepresentative.

Look what happened in Syria just this last year. So absolutely that is true. God willing, we don't get to Syria. We don't get to the Syria level. But that's a pretty extreme example, right? Yeah, sure. But just to go back to the idea that the Republicans won in 24, I do think you have to look at what happens when you have a severely gerrymandered state. That's exactly what happens. People get apathetic and they say there's no point in me turning out. So in North Carolina last year, Kate Barr ran a run for her district in which her tagline for her campaign was literally, Kate Barr can't win because it was so badly gerrymandered. And she just wanted people to get involved in the system. So that gerrymandering badly suppressed votes. But so too do the voter suppression measures that have gone into place pretty dramatically

first since 2013, immediately after Shelby v. Holder. But then again... We had more people turn out in 24 and 20 than any election ever. I'm just saying you could have had more. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't do it, but I think it is a real mistake to look at the American population and say, oh yeah. I mean, I guess we're saying the same thing from a different angle. I don't think the American people want what is happening right now. And my support for that comes from the vast number of polls that say, in fact, we want common sense gun safety legislation. We want health care. We want, you know, we don't want these tariff wars. We don't want our neighbors being taken off the streets. You know, I think people want a different government than they have gotten. And the answer to

why they have gotten this government is in part because of misinformation or disinformation is in part from apathy, but it is also in part because we have not adequately fought back against a system that is increasingly putting its finger on the scale for an extremist faction of our country. And this is the moment to step up and say, crap, I wasn't paying attention to gerrymandering. I care a lot about that. In fact, we know Republicans and Democrats both don't like partisan gerrymandering. Or saying, hey, wait a minute, what's going on here with health care? I think this is a really bad idea. Now is the time to do that. I agree with that. The fighting back social important part. I also think that that's, we're getting way late from what I wanted

to talk about, but this is an important topic because like one thing that also has changed since like 08 versus now from the Obama era and even the really the Bush era when I was coming up in politics is the people least likely to turn out are actually kind of were the best for Trump. I feel like the least engaged and the most apathetic he did the best with. So like figure out a way to engage those people. is like absolutely critical for fixing this. And, you know, that's, that's a little bit of a change now politics has happened. Well, Hannah Wren talks about this in her book on totalitarianism. And she makes the point that this is precisely how you get the arrival of an autocrat or she's actually talking about

there's a number of different flavors she's talking about. But by turning out those people who were not previously engaged and who believe that this is their opportunity to be heroes, that they will save the country from this horrible fate that the dictator has portrayed will happen if he doesn't end up in power. But what she says is that they don't stay engaged in politics. They go back to being unengaged when that moment passes. And that's the real question, right? Well, my guess is that we will see when this moment is on the other side. What we saw was somebody like Berlusconi. So many people saying, oh, I had nothing to do with that man. Well, you know, he had a solid 25 percent every time he was elected. And now you can't find anybody who voted for him. And I suspect

we will see a lot of people simply saying, I don't do politics, that, you know, it got away from me. And you see it to some degree now with podcast bros who are saying, oh, I wish I'd never gotten involved in politics. I didn't know this is what Trump was going to do. I want to get into a couple of history things with you, but just one other politics thing we're talking about since you're in Maine. Obviously, there's a lot of interest in the Maine Senate race going to be one of most important ones next year. There's a little controversy out the DSCC seems to be, which is a Democratic Senate campaign committee, seems to be getting involved on behalf of Janet Mills, the sitting governor and giving her preferential treatment in various ways. That's made

some people upset. On the internet, folks are excited about Graham Platner, who is the oyster farmer. There's some other candidates. You're there on the ground. I'm wondering what you're seeing with regards to that race. And there's also a ballot initiative, I think, in the state that you were talking about recently. Folks should probably hear about. Let me start with the ballot initiative. It's an attempt to get rid of absentee voting in Maine. Maine is a very old state demographically, and about 40% of Maine voters vote by absentee ballot. And this is a method being pushed by the Republicans, especially a group of radical people on the far right, saying that this is making the main vote insecure.

And there's just, again, no evidence for that. And that's a great example of trying to shrink the voting population so that you can keep a small group of people in power. But it is worth pointing out that when you get these moments where an electorate shrinks because people are taking away the right to vote, when they go too far and the people they're trying to suppress get into power, they open up the vote. And then those people who took away the vote pay for it for a political generation. And I think that's an important piece to have here in the mix. Yeah, this is question one.

This is on this year's ballot actually in May. Question one is the one that's seeking new restrictions on absentee voting. So we have main listeners. We have main viewers. I just want to make sure that they're on the right side of that one. So I'm in this state. But I'm not, I just am more curious. Like, you're around.

You got neighbors and stuff. I'm just curious what you're hearing. Well, so that's really interesting because, you know, I'm married to a lobster fisherman. You know, I hear a lot of stuff in a lot of different places. And I think my take may be different than a lot of people's. Graham Platner came into the race a bit ago. Exciting guy speaks incredibly well. And let me tell you what the lay of the land is.

and then when I think about it. Janet Mills has been in the state sort of as a groundbreaking figure now for a long time, first female attorney general, first female governor, and has been really, really effective at getting school meals, expanding Medicaid, overturning a lot of what her predecessor, who was sort of a Trump Republican, had done, and has actually done great things for the state finances and all that. there were two other people leading in the race. There were four people at the top. One was the guy who had started or been instrumental in starting the main beer company. Yeah, Dan, and then another one, Jordan Wood, who was, is sort of a political operative, mostly based outside the state, but he's actually from the state.

What happened was the question is, would Mills get in? Because here's the thing about Maine. it's hard really hard in Maine to win a statewide election because you have the very wealthy coastline and the very liberal coastline and then you have all the way up to District 2 up to Arrista County and they tend to be very far right and so you've got this weird I can make it in District 1 but I can't make it in District 2 thing going on and what's interesting about Platner is the way he talks I wonder if he can make it in district two, but that's because he talks about taking on the establishment and nobody's paying attention to you and so on. Neither Platner nor Wood has ever held an elected office, except Platner, I believe, has been Harbourmaster, which is not a small thing.

What is Harbormaster? I don't know what that is. Harbormaster is the person who quite literally takes care of issues relating to the use of the harbor and the area around. it. So moorings and lost boats and injured boats and people being jerks and all that kind of thing. I was trying to nudge you into the race when we last talked in December. So you're familiar with the moorings things that I, you know, this outsider. I'm familiar with the morings, but I don't know the personality to deal with the moorings because that's a lot of like interpersonal stuff. But that's really kind of a problem. If you have never run in an election, you haven't been vetted, first of all, and that really matters because you don't know what's going to come later on

and you don't know if you can make it really anywhere. Now, that works sometimes. You know, certainly it works sometimes, but that I think is probably why there's a push for Mills. Because last time around, everybody thought Sarah Gideon stood a good shot and she had, she was actually had been a very, very active in the legislature, couldn't win District 2. So that's what's going on here. I will say this. I think new voices in American politics right now, especially younger voices, are unbelievably important. That's how you change the political system.

But I also believe people who know how to move the levers of power are important as well. And this is a moment of transition where I think if you want to take a look at where the Democratic Party has made a huge error, over the last 20 years is they walked away from the lesson of machine politics or the lesson of somebody like Harry Reid in Nevada, they should have been bringing along younger people from within the system. And we should have somebody here in Maine who has the ideas and the language of Platner who has been vetted, but who knows how to win an election and how to govern when she or he does it. So now Maine voters have to choose. Do you want the significant older person who's accomplished of, or do you want somebody who doesn't have any track record

at all? So you're a little nervous about what that might look like. Yeah, maybe it's a Federman situation or whatever. I don't want to accuse Platterner of that. But that's just the type of thing that you would be that you would be looking for, right? You know, you get a Federman as an outsider and then all of a sudden it's like, oh, whoa, we didn't really get what we thought we were getting here. And I don't know Platner at all. Yes, I think that's right. But I think there's one other wrinkle. I don't think people give enough credit in Maine to the issue of Susan Collins because we look at her. I mean, I'm in Maine, but I look at a national level. We look at her as a real problem at the national level. If you're looking at the state of Maine and Janet Mills said something recently

that she got jumped all over for by saying, you know, she said something nice about Susan Collins and they were like, oh, she's terrible. You know, she didn't. Remember, Janet Mills stood up in I think it was February to Donald Trump in the White House, in his own place, and pissed him off so badly, he pulled all kinds of federal support from Maine. Maine's a really poor state, right? And Angus King and the Senate and Independent has been out there since the beginning saying that Donald Trump is breaking all the rules and he's breaking the Constitution and so on. Jared Golden, who's a representative and Shelley Pingree, you know, they just don't have a lot of poll. The only person who's been really running interference for the state of Maine in all this is Susan Collins. So that is also, I think, a factor.

If people are thinking that Donald Trump might stay in power, I can see them saying, you know, crap, we don't like her. But we can't get rid of Bath Ironworks because that's where, you know, that's like a major anchor for our economy. We got to keep this woman in place because she at least can play nice with Donald Trump. And I think that's going to be a factor as well. For people in the state, you know, again, that's not going to fly for people in Illinois, looking at Maine going, why the hell are you keeping Susan Collins in there? Right, yeah, yeah. But that does matter here, because a lot of jobs depend on, you know, funding for the Coast Guard

and for our buoys and for the military installations and things like that. I think Maine's complicated, but I'm all for a primary, you know, these people saying mills should drop out. I'm like, because you think Platner can't do it. If he can do it, he should, he should. And she's same thing. A lot of time ahead. Cool. That's interesting.

I'm got to ask about that. You do sometimes these newsletters that go a little deep on, you know, a random thing that is happening in the government that hasn't got that much attention and kind of historical perspective. One of those was from earlier this week about the triumphal arch. I had missed this, except for you mentioning in your newsletter. I guess Trump had showed Canadian officials a plan for an arch that would sit on the Potomac opposite the Lincoln Memorial. The idea would be that to commemorate the 250th anniversary. There's a lot of historical references, though, to the Triumphal Arch. I'll just kind of let you cook on that because I was interested.

Well, a Triumphal Arch comes from ancient Rome, of course, and it's the idea that you build these. They're very distinctive, actually. They're an arch that has sort of a flat top, and you can put engravings on it or statues on it or whatever. And they tended to commemorate military victories or later on important public events. And the idea of this plan, and by the way, the whole idea that the Trump administration is so profoundly changing the landscape of Washington, D.C., I think it's something we really should be engaging with. Because I think to some degree, his handlers are encouraging him to do it because he likes to develop properties and it keeps him happy. He's talked about changing the Kennedy Center. Of course, he's already at work on getting rid of the east wing of the White House to replace it with a ballroom. And this now, this arch would sit between the Lincoln Memorial and the Arlington House, which is the former home of General Robert E. Lee. And the reason that those two are connected is because the Arlington National Cemetery was deliberately placed by the Civil War Air Republicans on the plantation home of Robert E. Lee

so that the dead from the Union's armies were literally on his plantation. And then, of course, Lincoln was set where he was because he's the person who, you know, oversaw the successful United States victory in that war. So there is that going on. But the reason I wrote that piece, I mean, I thought the arch was, you know, I think it's just a boondoggle. Aside from anything else, I think it's a crazy idea. But the juxtaposition of that with tearing down the original Social Security building was, I thought, incredibly powerful because one is in a sense of triumph, historically, a triumph to a dictator. The other was this building that was built, finished in 1940, to house the Social Security Administration. That's not what it was called then.

That was called the Social Security Board. But the idea with Social Security changed the nature of the American government to make it responsive to everybody in a community. And for the administration to be tearing that down, and crucially, in that building are these murals from, the era, these social realist murals, from a number of really prominent artists that we paid for in the 1930s and 1940s that are on the chopping block now just seemed to me so on the nose for what this administration is doing. And I'm just heartbroken over these murals and I hope they find some way to save them and perhaps the building simply because, you know, that is absolutely our heritage. And what at the time people thought was

a change in the nature of the American government that would serve the American people forever and that we are in a moment where we are seeing it dismantled. Again, I think most Americans would not want to see that dismantled, but here we are. This last topic we could do a whole podcast on it, maybe we should in six months. So I'm not, I don't want to keep you another hour, but maybe just one little nugget. And that's this conversation I've been having over and over with Democrats on the pot is, let's just be optimistic for a second and think that this gets this gets beaten eventually that maga gets beaten how should the democrats talk about that and like with some lessons

from your area of expertise the reconstruction era right and like lessons learned from looking back on that and there's some democrats who you talk to who say we should be saying right now that we are going to be back in charge and when we are you're going to be coming for you the law it's going to be coming for you if you broke the law right now and so you should be scared to follow Trump. There are others who say, well, you know, we want somebody who's going to be messaging about how we can bring peace and comedy, you know, to our times and bring people back together. I'm just wondering if there are any kind of nuggets from that post-Civil War era of history

you could leave us with as we kind of think about how to talk about that right now. Well, the post-Civil War era was the era in which we backed away from those kind of commitments, which was a terrible error. And, you know, one of the things that we talk about a lot is how there were no, executions after the Civil War, with the exception of the people who were involved, either in Andersonville Prison Camp or in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. But in fact, there were thousands of executions after the Civil War. They were just of the people who had sided with the United States. And that's really, really important to remember. They were extra legal, of course.

This is the Ku Klux Klan, for example. But it's important to remember that this idea that there's peace and happiness so long as you exhibit forgiveness is simply wrong. Now, that with being the backdrop because you asked about the post-Civil War years, I think it's more interesting to look at the periods before the victory is won. And one of the things that Lincoln did, and I pay attention to all the time, but you also see it with people like Theodore Roosevelt in the late 1890s and early 19 aughts. You also see it with people like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and with people like Dwight Eisenhower. Now, I've just given you a Republican, a Republican, a Democrat, and a Republican, is a reliance on American values. That is the idea of equal justice before the law.

That doesn't say we're coming for you. That says we believe that whether you are the president of the United States or an undocumented immigrant who arrived a minute and a half ago, we are going to exercise the law according to how you interfere. with this government. The reliance on the law and exercising the law and standing on the principles of the United States, the idea of equality before the law, the idea that you have a right to have a say in your government, the idea that you have a right to equal access to resources, including things like health care and education, the idea that we care about hard work and rising through hard work, and we care about education, those sorts of returns to our fundamental principles

that have stood us in good stead since the beginning, even when they did not apply to everybody in our country, but they gave everybody a touchstone to look at when they thought about creating a future. That's how I talk about it. It's not about you need to behave because we're coming for you. It's we will restore the rule of law to this country. And that I think is really important. I thought when Gavin Newsom, a governor of California the other day, said to universities, hey, you cowtow to Trump, you're losing all your funding here in California. That was an important moment because I think President Joe Biden very carefully tried to say, you know, we're all in this together, we're going to, you know, we're going to treat everybody equally.

And what that did was it said to a number of people that they had to behave for Trump, but they didn't have to behave for Biden. And so what you got was almost this abusive kind of relationship where everybody did what the bad dad insisted on while assuming the mom was always going to be there loving them. And what that ended up with was a second Trump administration. So, you know, my thing is always in a moment like this, as Lincoln did, Teddy Roosevelt, and so on,

is to go back to our classics. What do we stand for? And that has a touchstone moment, I think, for all Americans to say, hey, yeah, I know who Lincoln is. And I think Lincoln was a good guy, and he believed that you should be treated equally before the law, whether you were Simon Cameron, one of his first cabinet secretaries who was corrupt as the day was long, or whether you were one of the soldiers who fell asleep on duty. You know, those things actually matter to the preservation of American democracy, and I stand for that.

Yeah, it's interesting. You say that when you just think about the university. principles. I got a text yesterday from a friend who was talking about the principles that Ohio was founded on, thinking about what's happening in Ohio, that state constitution in 1803. It was religious freedom, public education, and prohibition of slavery. Those are the three original pillars in Ohio, right? And like, going back to those kind of original principles does feel maybe the path forward. Heather Cox Richardson, thank you so much. I really appreciate everybody to check out your substack, as always, and we appreciate everything you've been up to. And I'm sure we'll be.

talking to you again soon. Back at you. Thanks for having me. All right. Everybody else will be back here for another edition of the Bullwark podcast tomorrow. See you all then. Peace. Oh, yeah.

Your mind. Oh, hi. Oh, hi. Oh. Oh, ohio. Oh. Oh. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

Turned. Slowly, sorry, I see clearly. Culling, coldly crashing, I pace faster than anyone. Hing just rusting, they swing louder than anything. Truly lonely This place is flatter than it seems The Bullock podcast is produced by Katie Cooper With audio engineering and editing by Jason Brough