It's great to welcome to the program today,
Nancy Isenberg, who's the author of the New
York Times best seller white trash.
Her new book coauthored with Andrew Burstein
is the problem of democracy and it will be
reviewed in the New York Times Sunday book
review this coming weekend.
Uh, Nancy, great to talk to you.
Well, nice to meet you.
How are least hear you?
Let's, uh, let's start with the, the sort
of history of democracy in the United States
because I think that there is this view held
among many, if not all, that the sort of stuff,
the type of democracy with the parameters
that it has in 2019, uh, is the obvious result
of the range of views that were held by the
founders and framers of the United States.
But this is not true, right?
I mean, there was a range of opinion as to
what type of representative democracy we should
have.
You're exactly right.
I mean, what we, what we forget is that the
government that we have, if we think about
the federal government was set up as a constitutional
republic.
Uh, there's no mention of democracy in our
federal constitution.
Um, there's no mention of democracy in our
favorite texts, the declaration of independence.
Um, and at the time of the founding, if we
think about some of the period of the revolution
to the constitutional convention, basically
democracy was seen as something that was best
served by Congress.
Congress was to be the democratic branch.
And there when we talk about a range of opinions,
there were still people who were deeply concerned
about democracy.
Democracy was associated with the period of
the classics.
And as John Adams said, um, later, he basically
would refer to how there was never a democracy
that did not commit suicide.
Uh, they were aware that democracies, pure
democracies, which we don't have, we don't
even have a pure democracy today.
Um, we're, we're historically seen as unstable.
I think it's important before we go any further,
because I know that there will be people in
my audience who will immediately think of
this.
There are ways in which pointing out that
we have a constitutional republic is sometimes
used in 2019 or 2018 to justify voter suppression.
When there are people today who are understandably
concerned about some of the voter suppression
tactics and the influence they have on democracy,
the term used colloquially, you will see some
of the supporters of those tactics say, why
are you talking about democracy?
We have a constitutional republic.
And I would like, now that you're here to
tell us why it is really important to understand,
uh, that when people say that they don't mean
that if we have an election, it's okay not
to let people vote or not to count people's
votes that we are talking about a structure
of government than it is a much higher level
conversation.
Yeah, I think there's several things to realize.
I mean, any government, it changes over time.
I mean, right now we're facing problems that
have to do with partisan gerrymandering, gerrymandering.
We have problems with too much money in campaigns.
The idea of the donor class, which is something
that the founders never supported.
Um, and the other thing you have to realize
is that I disagree with that.
We have to understand the real historical
roots of our government, uh, because there
has always been voter suppression.
I wrote about this in the context of white
trash that, uh, during the period of poll
taxes, which were not considered a unconstitutional
until like 1966 essentially, there have always
been efforts to suppress the vote.
Think about the fact that women were not allowed
to vote until 1920.
So we have to realize that at every stage
of our historical development, there have
been efforts to suppress the vote.
And we haven't just had this gradual development,
this evolution of our government from a constitutional
republic to a more perfect democracy.
A democracy's have, have problems rooted in
the rise of parties, which is something else
that the founders did not include in the constitution.
They did, they should have anticipated parties
because they existed in Great Britain, but
they didn't realize how much party development
would lead to these kinds of abuses like voter
suppression.
Um, my point of mentioning that it's a constitutional
republic is to understand the actual structure
and institution that we still live in today.
Um, and to understand what are the powers
of the different branches of government.
And for John Adams, the key was that you needed
institutions to check the abuses, the inevitable
abuses that all human beings are prone to.
He was very aware that people are prone to
abuses that come from ambition, which come
from the vanity.
Uh, this is why his major concern of any kind
of elective form of government, and this was
true from four even governments that we think
is completely different from ours.
Even in monarchies, for example, he talked
about how the people are often reduced to
spectators, um, and they are often trained
and often encouraged to worship elite.
And this is even strewed true today.
This is why the media is constantly talking
about the cult of personality, which we highlight
in our book.
Uh, because this is a problem that has to
do with voters being in.
It's even worse today.
Voters being bruised, rooted, uh, reduced
to spectators.
Where are they simply are caught up in the
excitement, the game of the election caught
up in the allure and the personality of the
candidates.
Let's talk a little bit about uh, the way
in which we can maybe make some good faith
critiques of some elements of, of modern democracy.
And one of the things I've always found interesting,
uh, has been Plato's view on democracy.
And when you look at Plato's pseudo skepticism,
maybe we could call it or, or even even opposition
in some sense to democracy.
Part of his opposition, if I recall correctly,
is based on some of the particular characteristics
of Athenian democracy.
Like the ease with which people are just executed.
For example.
And it's not so relevant today, but one of
the ways that he was concerned about democracy
was the way in which democracy arguably stand
sort of an opposition to expertise and the
idea of getting the most informed people making
decisions, which of course as we understand
it today, we have a crisis of so-called expertise
and the expert industrial complex.
And it brings up a whole other slate of issues
if we were to go in that direction.
So to step back from this and take kind of
like a 40,000 foot view, what are the most
important and relevant critiques of democracy
that you would make in modern day?
Yeah.
I think first of all, one of the things that
John Adams insisted on, you know, he, he believed
that people should not be in power forever.
He believed it was very important, um, even
at the level of who we elect to Congress,
uh, that they needed to be returned to the
people.
They needed to be humbled.
Um, they needed to stay in touch with the
people.
He also believes strongly in the importance
of the town meeting, and this is actually
comparable to what Jefferson said when you
described war democracy.
They, they both believed that there needed
to be a local foundation, uh, for democracy.
That the people actually knew how to effectively
articulate their demands.
And John Adams, because in Massachusetts they
believed in education, which they didn't in
Virginia because they didn't want to pay for
it.
Yes.
He believe that from infancy, this is what
you wrote from infancy every bit.
Essentially people needed to learn how to,
uh, deliberate debate and articulate their
views.
And this came from the local institution of
the town meeting his son, John Quincy Adams
would carry on that view when he becomes the
argument.
Defendant defender of the petition and petitions
were the most widespread way, uh, for, for
everyone in society to articulate their grievances.
And in fact he defended the right of petition,
not only for, for white men, but for slaves,
for women.
And even for the, you know, the vilified antislavery
activists.
So this is, this is one of the essential ingredients
of John and John Quincy Adams that gets forgotten.
Um, and it's because they're new Englanders
I think that they, they still kind of fall
into that camp of believing in local politics
and that's essential to democracy.
That the other issue that I think is relevant
today is the one that I was getting to is
the, as we know, we have seen our executive
branch become more powerful.
This really begins in, in Eisenhower's error.
This is where the right of executive privilege
was first invented.
We also see the increasing power of the executive.
And foreign policy.
Um, and one of the things, this is what they
were deeply concerned with because with John
Quincy Adams, what he saw emerging around
Andrew Jackson was very much this cult, the
what we refer to as the warrior cult of popularity.
Uh, and the fact that he saw people being
obsequious, this is his words obsequious to
executive power.
Um, and this is one of the dangers.
I mean in a sense it's one of those basic
principles we always go back to, but John
and John Quincy Adams believed that you need
it, each branch of government to be able to
check the power of other branches of government
because they're all prone to abuses.
Get along those lines.
What changes with what are the specific changes
that could be made in order to address these
issues that have developed?
Yeah.
Well I think the, one of the key issues I've
already mentioned is the problem of regulating
the amount of money that controls politics
today.
Uh, we also need to think about the problem
that we, that we all know about and many people
are writing about right now is, is the damage
done through the Internet?
The way, and this is why I talked about why
we have this kind of virtual cults of personality,
the fact that so much of people's information
today comes through the Internet.
The fact that there's not only do we have
the abuse of elections that can come through
the Internet, but people in a sense are fed
things that, as we know, are untrue or lies.
Uh, this is what John Adams refer to as quackery.
Um, and I think this is the problem, and this
gets back to your point that yes, we need
an educated citizenry, but not just educated
in a sense that it's only the college elites
or the professional elites have to control
government.
It gets back to this idea of making sure that
people who have a town meeting can make their
representatives accountable.
You remember, remember when several politicians
actually had town meetings who had never had
them before and they suddenly had to answer
questions that the media weren't asking them.
Yeah.
Um, and I think this is, this is one of the
issues we have to find a way to address
briefly what is the degree to which the sort
of celebrity worship type culture that we
have today.
And that in great part is at least partially
responsible for Donald Trump becoming president
of the United States.
How much of an issue was that, uh, in the
time of the Adams is in earlier times in,
in the United States, sort of political, uh,
infrastructure?
Yeah, I know we can sort of clearly identify
Donald Trump's rise.
So his role on reality TV, but it's not new.
Essentially.
This is one of the things we highlight.
I mean, the first time the John Adams, she's
the cult of personality, uh, take shape is
when he is in France.
And watching Benjamin Franklin turned into
the first American rock star.
He was adored by the French people and he
played the role.
Um, he was always on a stage.
Um, and he used that as part of his, you know,
diplomatic gamesmanship.
Uh, then we have George Washington, you know,
and this is where the danger is with the executive
branch because part of where the invented
powers of the executive branch come from,
barring from Monica monarchy, barring from
the traditions of royalty.
This is where executive privilege actually
comes from.
Um, and in addition to that, if one of the
things John Adams said about Washington is
the idea that, you know, Washington was successful
because of invented stories of his heroics.
People praised his horsemanship.
They essentially admired him and as he said,
for his handsome face, for his polite bearing,
and also for his largest state that they knew
he was a wealthy and they admired him for
this.
So nothing new there in a sense.
No, nothing new.
And then when we get to, uh, John Quincy Adams
Critique of Andrew Jackson is that Jackson's
identity, he's the first to have a, you know,
campaign biography that doesn't highlight
his statesmanship because that's not where
he had really any experience whatsoever at
all.
But they turned him into the hero.
They turned him into this figure.
And even though people knew about Jackson,
they knew he was imperious.
Uh, they knew that his, he wasn't that well
educated.
Um, they in a sense tried to invent this very
popular image for Andrew Jackson that was
used to sort of again, celebrate his personality.
Jackson as a person, not as someone who deserved
to be in an, uh, such a high important office
of the presidency.
And that's where the danger lies.
We still live in a society where people vote
based on whether they like the candidate they
vote on, whether they think the candidate
likes them, um, and they assume, which is
usually incorrect because TV doesn't tell
you the truth.
They assume they know a candidate a because
they've listened to them talk and they somehow
assume that they're up close and personal,
which is what TV gives you the false sense
of.
But in fact, are there role responding to
all the wrong cues?
And the media contributes to this because
the media is obsessed with, you know, getting
the sound soundbites, showing the candidates
faced and responses and never really focusing
on what's most important, most important,
which is not all the issues, but right now
we need to focus on how we have to give a
civics lesson to Americans about how the government
really functions.
What are the real duties of Congress?
What is the role of the Supreme Court?
Uh, what are the limitations on the executive
branch?
We really need to kind of remind people and
keep people up to date on what the real roles
of government are as a way to make sure that
they don't sort of imagine just because a
candidate says something that it's true.
No question about that.
Yeah.
We've been speaking with Nancy Isenberg.
She is coauthor of the new book, the problem
of democracy with Andrew Berstein.
Yes.
Book will be reviewed in the New York Times
Sunday book review this coming weekend.
Nancy, really a pleasure having you on.
Thanks for having me.
