History As It Happens

After some of the coldest years of the Cold War came a thaw in U.S.-Soviet relations that witnessed historic summits and the signing of groundbreaking disarmament pacts. In this episode, historian William Inboden discusses the pillars of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy and why, in his view, his strategy of "peace through strength" brought about a peaceful end to the Cold War and a world without Soviet Communism. By bolstering U.S. alliances and supporting anti-Communist insurgencies throughout the Third World, Inboden contends the Reagan administration's statecraft pressured the USSR to produce a reform-minded leader willing to negotiate. In 1985, that was Mikhail Gorbachev. In Inboden's work is an argument that Republicans today would be wise to reclaim Reagan's approach of engaging with the world and embracing multilateral agreements and collective security alliances.

Donald Trump's announcement that he will seek the presidency once more has brought a renewed focus on his worldview, his vision for the U.S. role in a complicated world. 'America First' has a long lineage in our politics, reaching back to a time when isolationism was the dominant foreign policy constituency in the country. In this episode, historian Christopher McKnight Nichols explores the continuities and major differences between the America First attitudes of the interwar period and today's Trumpist populism of the post-Cold War era.

Is it possible for an individual leader to change the course of history? This question is as important today as it was in the past century, when "charismatic" rulers made an enormous impact, often with catastrophic consequences. In this episode, historian Ian Kershaw talks about how certain political leaders obtained and exercised power in 20th century Europe, in an effort to solve the question of the role of individual decision-makers in determining historical change. As Kershaw writes in his new book, "Personality and Power: Builders and Destroyers of Modern Europe," "the character traits of twentieth century authoritarian leaders and the structures that underpinned their rule… can perhaps at times be glimpsed in the rule of their twenty-first-century counterparts." This is not "Great Man Theory." Rather it is a timely conversation about the interplay between human agency and impersonal forces, the conditions and contexts that allow certain individuals -- democrats and dictators -- to play a decisive role, and the constraints holding them back.

Voters largely rejected Donald Trump's slate of favored candidates in the midterm elections, and Democrats avoided the "red wave" many pollsters and pundits expected. The surprise outcome has led to recriminations on the right, with some conservatives calling on the GOP to move on from Trump's toxic brand of populism. In this episode, political journalist Damon Linker, the author of the "Eyes on the Right" substack, says it's too early to know if Trumpism is receding from the political mainstream. Regardless what many voters may think, Trump is not going away quietly anyway.

In the late 1970s, the national mood was dark. In the words of President Carter, Americans faced a "crisis of confidence." Inflation reached double digits. Stagflation entered the lexicon. An OPEC price increase led to an energy crisis. And there was the Iran hostage fiasco of 1979. As his presidency strained to regain its footing, Carter made an appointment that would leave a lasting mark on history. He picked Paul Volcker to lead the Federal Reserve. Volcker took up his new post by taking a sledgehammer to inflation, sending interest rates soaring above 20 percent and tipping the economy into recession in the election year of 1980. Volcker's policies loom large today as Federal Reserve chairman Jay Powell struggles to curb the worst inflation since the early 1980s. In this episode, economist and Volcker biographer William Silber talks about the towering legacy of the Federal Reserve chairman, as well as the historical lessons Powell might heed.

In Vladimir Putin's warped view of the past, Ukraine was only able to seek independence in 1991 because of a mistake made by another Vladimir nearly 70 years before. In his zeal to obscure Ukrainian national identity, Russia's dictator blames the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin for "creating" an independent Ukraine in 1922 "by separating, severing what is historically Russian land." These two events – the Bolshevik revolution and Russia's invasion of Ukraine – are not connected only in Putin's imagination. They are linked through a history of appalling violence and destruction. The place names of battles of the Russian civil war a century ago are familiar to anyone following today's news of Russia's military fiasco in Ukraine. In this episode, the esteemed military historian Antony Beevor discusses the parallels between the civil war that birthed the Soviet Union and Putin's drive to turn Ukraine into a client state – a plan that has, thus far, failed. Moreover, the Bolshevik coup d'etat of October, 1917, far from an obscure bit of history, shaped the course of the twentieth century as few other events did. Antony Beevor is the author of "Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921."

On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson asked a joint session of Congress for a declaration of war against Germany. Wilson declared, "The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty." In the century since, most U.S. presidents have echoed Wilson to one degree or another. And, especially in the years after the Cold War, Americans took it for granted that their nation must promote or defend democracy across the globe because, with Soviet Communism relegated to the dustbin of history, people everywhere would naturally gravitate to freedom and capitalism. Today, it has become an axiom among many public intellectuals and political figures that fundamental freedoms are on the line at home and abroad, from Ukraine to Taiwan. President Joseph R. Biden frequently frames U.S. foreign policy in terms of a global confrontation between democracy and autocracy. In this episode, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David M. Kennedy explores the origins of the Wilsonian idea that now permeates our basic political thinking. We may be getting Wilson wrong in one important respect. Declaring that the "world must be made safe for democracy" is not the same as saying "we must make the world democratic."

As China escalates its intimidation of Taiwan, provoking speculation that President Xi Jinping wants the People's Liberation Army to invade the island sometime in the next few years, Taiwan's government is preparing the population of nearly 24 million for the possibility of war while calling on the world's democracies for assistance. In this cauldron of international tension, The Washington Times' national security reporter Guy Taylor visited Taiwan to interview government officials and business leaders about the future of the island's de facto independence. In this episode, Taylor discusses how the outcome of the Chinese civil war in 1949, followed by the normalization of U.S.-China relations in the 1970s, laid the groundwork for today's dispute. Beyond the historic or ideological reasons behind Xi's vow to absorb Taiwan, the presence of advanced semiconductor manufacturers makes Taiwan an enticing geopolitical target which President Biden has vowed to defend in the case of attack.

A generation before Donald Trump triumphed over the detested "establishment," a pugnacious media personality sensed that conservative Americans were ready to move the Republican Party to the right. Pat Buchanan didn't succeed in his insurgent campaign to defeat President Bush in the 1992 GOP primaries, but he may have set the stage for Trumpism nonetheless. By railing against illegal immigration, free trade, and cultural liberalism -- and by appealing to racial grievances -- Pat Buchanan began splintering the far right from the party of Reagan. Historian Nicole Hemmer, an expert of the rise of the New Right, discusses Buchanan's enduring, illiberal influence.

Sixty Octobers ago the world narrowly avoided nuclear conflict. After 13 tense days, the Cuban Missile Crisis ended with a compromise deal rather than war. President Joseph R. Biden's remark that the war in Ukraine represents humanity's closest brush with nuclear Armageddon since the 1962 crisis may at first seem overwrought, but there's nothing like an anniversary to focus our minds on such a dreadful possibility. The war in Eastern Europe is escalating, and there is no sign it will come to a decisive conclusion before the onset of winter. Hanging over all of this is Vladimir Putin's threat to use tactical nuclear weapons inside Ukraine. In this episode, military historian Max Hastings, author of "The Abyss: Nuclear Crisis Cuba 1962", discusses the critical parallels between the two conflicts.

Years before Adolph Hitler obtained power, and in the decades before the Third Reich brought "the manufacture of mass death to its pitiless consummation" in the words of the late military historian John Keegan, the seeds were planted of America's callous and ineffective response to the Nazi persecution of Europe's Jews. As the filmmakers Ken Burns, Lynn Novick, and Sarah Botstein show in their searing new documentary "The U.S. and the Holocaust," hostility to immigration coexisted with America's reputation as a land of opportunity during an era that saw millions of Europeans make their way to Ellis Island. But a long-simmering nativist backlash combined with the junk science of eugenics to produce federal legislation in 1924 severely restricting emigration to the United States based on nation of origin. These quotas, which enjoyed widespread public and political support, would prevent hundreds of thousands of Jews from escaping Europe when they had a chance. In this episode, author and historian Rebecca Erbelding, an expert on the U.S. response to the Nazi genocide at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and an independent scholarly advisor to the Burns documentary, discusses the ways in which antisemitism, nativism, and isolationism contributed to the failure to save more Jewish lives. Americans expressed revulsion at Nazi violence, but the outrage did not lead to a more welcoming attitude toward refugees.

One-hundred fifty-seven years after Appomattox, Americans are still grappling with a question that hung over the post-Civil War period: what kind of democracy are we going to be? That is the central question of historian Jeremi Suri's new book, "Civil War By Other Means," which traces the violent controversies of Reconstruction over voting and citizenship to our current dilemmas. It was no accident that one of the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters carried a Confederate flag into the U.S. Capitol as his fellow "patriots" marauded the halls. The flag remains a powerful symbol of rebellion and the racism underpinning the notion that the "wrong people" voted in the 2020 election. Wars do not end; they migrate to our minds.

This is the second in a two-part series of conversations recorded at George Washington's Mount Vernon as History As It Happens goes on location, with special guests historian Joseph Ellis and Doug Bradburn, Mount Vernon's president and chief executive. Is it possible to talk too much about slavery at a historic plantation? How does an institution as popular and important as Mount Vernon interpret the past to hundreds of thousands of Americans who visit each year, many of whom revere George Washington as a hero? Listen to Joseph Ellis and Doug Bradburn discuss the problems with the "history wars" -- the endless conflict over who owns the past.

This is the first in a two-part series of conversations recorded at George Washington's Mount Vernon as History As It Happens goes on location, with special guests historian Joseph Ellis and Doug Bradburn, Mount Vernon's president and chief executive. If you read George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address, you might sense our first president could foresee our current troubles. As he prepared to retire to his plantation, Washington warned the young republic about the dangers of faction, or what we might call hyper-partisan passions. He cautioned against getting entangled in Europe's affairs, passing onerous debt onto future generations, and the dangers of foreign meddling in our domestic affairs. And when he died in 1799, Washington left behind a nation that would not solve the problem of racial slavery for another 65 years. Listen to Joseph Ellis and Doug Bradburn place Washington's complicated legacy and enduring wisdom in their proper historical contexts -- a necessary task if we are to seek guidance from our most famous founder.

Why would a U.S. senator pen a polemical attack against a history professor? Florida Senator Marco Rubio labeled Princeton's Sean Wilentz a "cisgender white male" who "reeks of privilege" after Wilentz wrote an op-ed accusing Rubio of standing "in the sorry tradition of the great propagandists" who are guilty of "the deliberate manipulation and falsification of events for political purposes." In early August Wilentz had been among a handful of esteemed scholars invited to the White House to talk to President Biden privately about threats to democracy at home and abroad. Rubio was not at that meeting, but he claimed to know -- without evidence -- that the historians told the president to ignore "working everyday people and their common sense." In this episode, Wilentz, a preeminent scholar of American democracy, discusses what he describes as the "fake populism" espoused by many right-wing politicians. Unlike the genuine populists of the past, who fought for the economic rights of ordinary Americans against powerful interests such as monopolistic railroads, today's "fake populists" are concerned with vilifying "elites" and "snobs" from the halls of academia to "deep state" bureaucrats.

The Italian elections went in favor of a right-wing coalition led by Giorgia Meloni and her party, Brothers of Italy. After winning only four percent of the vote in 2018, Brothers of Italy earned enough votes to lead what will be the most right-wing Italian government since 1945. In fact, Meloni's party has a historic connection to post-war fascists, and she praised Mussolini as a teenage neo-fascist activist. Does this mean fascism is on the march in Italy again? If not fascism, what is it? In this episode, Roger Griffin, a foremost expert on the history of fascism at Oxford Brookes University, explains why right-wing populism is winning at the ballot box not just in Italy but across much of Europe.

War has been the rule in the former Soviet domains. The collapse of the USSR unleashed previously bottled-up ethnic and territorial conflicts. Some countries were rocked by revolution. The Russian Federation, meanwhile, sought to dominate slices of the old Soviet empire with the aim of creating Novorossiya, literally "New Russia." In this episode, Catholic University historian Michael Kimmage argues Putin's hot wars and frozen conflicts in Moldova, Georgia, Crimea, and the Donbas are part of a larger strategy to reassert Russian dominance in its backyard after the humiliations of the 1990s. The collapse of the USSR was not only an event; it triggered a process still unfolding in violent ways today.

Russia is trying to accomplish in a sham process what it can't achieve on the battlefield, which is to conquer eastern Ukraine. In Kremlin-engineered referenda, Ukrainian citizens of four southern and eastern regions are being forced to vote to join Russia so that Vladimir Putin may formally annex them. Should he announce the regions as part of Russia, the window for any peace negotiations will close. That is because no Ukrainian government would recognize the results of the voting, and therefore could see no alternative to trying to regain the annexed regions by military force. In this episode, the Quincy Institute's Anatol Lieven discusses this frightening escalation of a war that Ukraine appeared to be winning after retaking more than 2,000 square miles of territory.

By design the United Nations cannot stop the war in Ukraine. The world body chartered in 1945 to promote peace and cooperation has a decidedly mixed record in those areas, but that is mostly because the great powers from the start kept for themselves the authority to sanction or veto international efforts to prevent war. In this episode, Karen Mingst, an expert on diplomacy and global governance, explains where the U.N. has been effective in building a better world, and where it has failed to live up to its principles.

The death of Queen Elizabeth II provoked in her home country an outpouring of grief and pride while in other parts of the world – the independent nations of the former British Empire – her passing prompted a more ambivalent reflection on the imperial aspects of her legacy. That is because the queen was a symbol not only of stability and monarchical grace. Elizabeth II was also a symbol of empire and colonialism, and a reluctance on the part of some of her subjects to fully reckon with that bloody, rapacious history. In this episode, historian Dane Kennedy discusses the reasons for the mixed reactions to the death of the United Kingdom's longest-serving monarch. Not everyone is feeling nostalgic for the world in which Elizabeth became monarch, which was in the throes of violent struggles for national liberation.

President Biden told supporters at a reception for the Democratic National Committee that Donald Trump and his loyalists within the GOP -- "MAGA Republicans" -- subscribe to an extreme philosophy that Mr. Biden described as "semi-fascism." If you spend any amount of time on social media, you'll see fascism everywhere. Pundits, political scientists, historians, anyone with a Twitter account -- are offering their takes on whether Republicans are steering the United States toward fascism. In this episode, the scholars Jeffrey Bale and Tamir Bar-On argue Trump's critics are dangerously distorting history. Fascism is a distinct ideology from other forms of populism or illiberalism or ultra-nationalism, whatever one thinks of Trumpism. Moreover, they contend the threat to democracy posed by right-wing fringe groups has been egregiously exaggerated for cynical political purposes.

Inflation, high gas prices, foreign policy failures, and the deep mistrust of leadership by American citizens -- these problems and more dogged President Jimmy Carter throughout his one term in the White House. Although faced with difficulties not entirely within his control, Carter committed plenty of unforced errors, none more defining than his address on live TV on June 15, 1979 -- the "malaise" speech. A half century later, President Biden's first two years in office are evoking memories of Carter's struggles. Democrats are said to be whispering that they would prefer someone else run for president in 2024 because Biden's approval ratings are so poor. Is the comparison fair? In this episode, historian and Carter biographer Scott Kaufman takes us back to the late 1970s to see if Biden might be following in Carter's footsteps as a one-term president.

Americans not only expect more political violence. Polls show that a growing number of Americans, though still a minority, believe violence against the government is acceptable in certain circumstances. Ours is a country simmering with rage and mistrust toward wrongs real and perceived. In late 1859, a fanatical abolitionist believed in the righteousness of his cause so deeply that he sought war against the government by inciting a slave revolt in the Virginia mountains. John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry accomplished nothing, but Brown became a symbol meaning different things to different people over time. But in our post-January 6 climate, Brown may serve as a cautionary tale of the dangers of unhinged belief in a crusade against injustice, real or imagined.

When Mikhail Gorbachev died on August 30, obituaries and remembrances lauded his legacy of reform that ended Communism and the peaceful means that allowed the Eastern Bloc to go its own way without bloodshed. But the last Soviet leader is still often misunderstood, because his most important reforms eroded the very foundations of his power, leading ultimately to the dissolution of the state. In this episode, Oxford's Archie Brown, who has studied Soviet Communism for a half century, takes us inside the mind of Mikhail Gorbachev, who was unique among leaders of the USSR.

It's been said that history does not repeat but it does rhyme. A generation after seizing power for the first time in an Afghanistan destroyed by war, the Taliban returned to Kabul last August after enduring another long conflict with foreign invaders. As ever, the Taliban mystify observers who do not understand how these fanatical holy warriors prevailed against a militarily superior opponent and over a population that disapproves of its authoritarian edicts and brutal repression. In this episode, Andrew Watkins, a senior expert on Afghanistan at the U.S. Institute of Peace who has conducted extensive field research in Taliban country, discusses the group's origins in the early 1990s and the reasons for their staying power.

The man who succeeded Osama bin Laden at the top of al-Qaeda, the Egyptian jihadist Ayman al-Zawahiri, was not a driving force or key planner in the group's early days, despite reports that made him out to be the brains behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That is according to Peter Bergen, an expert on international terrorism at New America and one of a handful of Western journalists who interviewed bin Laden. In this episode, Bergen discusses the assassination of al-Zawahiri by a U.S. drone; the future of al-Qaeda after 21 years of global war; whether the wave of Islamic fundamentalism that swept the Muslim world in the 1970s is waning; and Afghanistan one year after the U.S. completed its withdrawal. Men like bin Laden and al-Zawahiri wanted to change the world, but they reaped the whirlwind from their indiscriminate ferocity and violent fanaticism.

The FBI investigation into possible Espionage Act violations by former president Donald J. Trump for keeping top-secret documents at his Florida resort, has sparked curiosity in a WWI-era law rarely used to prosecute actual spies. In the 1950s, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried, convicted, and executed under the Espionage Act for sharing top-secret information about the atomic bomb with the Soviet Union. They were the only American citizens ever executed as spies during peacetime, and their case remains controversial to this day. But, for the most part, the Espionage Act has rarely been used to punish espionage. In this episode, historian Christopher Capozzola discusses the law's sordid origins. Congress passed it in a climate of xenophobia and anti-Red hysteria in 1917, the year the U.S. entered the First World War. But because many Americans opposed fighting in what they viewed as a war between European colonial powers, Congress included provisions allowing the federal government to crack down on dissent. Socialists, immigrants, peace activists, newspapers, and early filmmakers were targeted in this shameful chapter of American history.

Unprecedented may be the most overused word in political discourse, but it applies to the post-presidency of Donald J. Trump. More than a year and a half since he left office, Trump's legal problems, political ambitions, and unrelenting grievances command the headlines and even overshadow the legislative accomplishments of the current occupant of the White House. In this episode, historian Jeremi Suri discusses why there's never been anything like it in American history. Many former presidents maintained a public profile after leaving the White House, but none dominated his party and held onto the loyalty of his base despite being embroiled in so many allegations of corruption as Trump.

As Russia prepared in the opening weeks of 2022 to invade its neighbor, many observers expected a quick victory. Russia's modernized army vastly outnumbered the Ukrainian defenders, and Ukraine as a non-NATO member could not expect direct intervention from the Atlantic alliance to save it. Six months later, Russian forces find themselves in a war of attrition in southern Ukraine, having made little progress in seizing additional territory in the north and east of the country. A long stalemate looms. That is hardly what Russian president Vladimir Putin envisioned in February. In this episode, military historian Sir Lawrence Freedman discusses the reasons why war fails, from Russia in Ukraine to the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, to France's colonial war in Algeria a half century ago. Certain kinds of conflicts, such as wars of occupation, have exposed the inadequacy of sheer military dominance, yet powerful states keep trying to make war work. Even if Russia batters its way to something it can call victory, its presence in Ukraine will never be seen as legitimate.

This is the fifth installment in an occasional series focusing on slavery, the Constitution, and the current debate over the meaning of America's founding. Visitors to Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's mountaintop plantation in Virginia, are shown in exhibits and tours a skewed interpretation of his life, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that decries the "hyper-revisionism" and "racialist agenda" emphasizing slavery at the expense of Jefferson's many enormous accomplishments. In this episode, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, who is a scholar of early American history, discusses the exhibits at Monticello as well as the ongoing "history wars" over conflicting interpretations of the early republic's slavery dilemma.

For decades neither side in the abortion debate had to test its position in the democratic arena. The Supreme Court in 1973 had settled it: the Constitution guaranteed a right to an abortion. But now, in post-Roe America, opponents of abortion rights must convince public majorities that the procedure must be severely restricted or banned entirely. In conservative Kansas, the pro-life movement was decisively defeated when nearly 60 percent voted to uphold abortion rights as enumerated in the state constitution. The conflict over abortion will likely take years to play out in legislative elections or public referenda. But one important aspect is already coming into focus. That is, now that the possibility of criminalizing abortions has moved out of the abstract, ambivalent Americans may recoil at laws aimed at imprisoning doctors, or fencing women into their home states by punishing them for traveling to where abortion is legal. In this episode, Georgetown historian Michael Kazin, an expert on American political and social movements, compares today's conservative Christian movement to outlaw abortion to the temperance crusaders of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, armies of Christian evangelists who convinced a large majority of voters to outlaw booze in the Eighteenth Amendment. Prohibition, an attempt to enforce a strict moral code on millions of unwilling people, was a disaster.

On Sept. 11, 1990, President George Bush addressed a joint session of Congress to explain why the U.S. and its allies had sent their armies to the Arabian peninsula. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August of that year was an act of aggression, but the president also made clear that it was the first test for the new world order emerging from the long decades of the Cold War. "New world order" -- those words still resonate as Russia invades Ukraine and China threatens to absorb Taiwan. What do they actually mean? Are we still living in the post-war order that American leaders invoke? In this episode, historian Jeffrey Engel talks about why Bush's vision for an order built on peace and cooperation never came to be.

The U.S. Supreme Court is redrawing the boundary between church and state. In several major rulings, the court came down on the side of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, provoking critics to charge that the conservative justices are obliterating an important foundation of American life, the separation of church and state. It is the unresolvable conflict in our politics, and today's combatants draw on the founding generation for ammunition for their arguments. In this episode, historian Katherine Carté tries to untangle the conflicting meanings of religious liberty at the center of the legal and cultural struggles.

For most of the 137 years after his death in 1885, Ulysses S. Grant was remembered by historians as a failed president who led a hopelessly corrupt administration. In recent years, however, Grant's reputation has undergone a scholarly renaissance that has set straight his record of accomplishments, not least in the area of civil rights for the newly emancipated slaves. In this year marking the bicentennial of his birthday, Grant scholars say the eighteenth president deserves a place next to Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson in the decidedly small pantheon of civil rights presidents. In this episode, constitutional lawyer and historian Frank Scaturro says generations of historians were negatively influenced by the myth of the Lost Cause and the Dunning school interpretation of Reconstruction. Scaturro is also the president of the Grant Monument Association by virtue of his work in the 1990s, while he attended college in New York City, to successfully pressure the federal government to repair the dilapidated, vandalized mausoleum on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Like the tomb, Grant's reputation has undergone a major rehabilitation. But the effort to overturn a century of tendentious scholarship must continue.

Nearly a year since the U.S. completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan, Americans' attention has long since drifted to other problems. Twenty years of failure to remake Afghanistan as a stable, democratic country have been memory-holed. The Taliban-led country remains mired in difficulties, dependent on outside aid to feed its people. Sanctions and frozen foreign exchange reserves continue to hurt an economy left in ruins by four decades of violence and foreign interference. Drug addiction is worsening and poverty is everywhere. In this episode, the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein joins us from Islamabad, Pakistan to discuss the consequences of forgetting Afghanistan, recalling the years after the Soviet withdrawal when the West abandoned the country.

Is America in decline? We've lost wars in the Middle East and our international standing because of the disgrace of torture. Experts believe China will soon have the world's largest economy. At home our problems seem unsolvable and our political divisions intractable. In this episode, Catholic University historian Michael Kimmage argues declinism is overrated. It's become a self-satisfying trope that thwarts real progress in solving problems. And it may be impossible to actually measure. Decline is not an event, it is a process that can play out over centuries. So, is America in decline? Kimmage looks to Edward Gibbon's history of the Roman Empire for answers.

George Wallace was a segregationist. He was a pro-union Democrat who railed against federal power and pointy-headed bureaucrats. He demanded law and order while standing up for downtrodden, working class whites. He ran for president as an independent in 1968, winning 13 percent of the popular vote and five states. George Wallace was a right-wing populist with a talent for performative politics. And at a time of frequent comparisons between the crisis of American democracy and the rise of fascism in 1930s Europe, Wallace's enduring influence is overlooked today. His inheritors have found a home in the prevailing, pro-Trump wing of the GOP. In this episode, historian and Wallace biographer Dan Carter discusses the politics of rage eating at the body politic in the age of Trump.

During his visit to the Middle East, President Biden explained the larger strategic purpose behind several agreements that he announced from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "The bottom line is this trip is about once again positioning America and this region for the future. We are not going to leave a vacuum in the Middle East for Russia or China to fill," Mr. Biden said. In his focus on thwarting foreign influence in a region where the U.S. has spent the better part of the past two decades fighting wasteful wars, there are echoes from a bygone era of American leadership. In 1979 the Greater Middle East was rocked by two seismic events whose consequences continue to shape the region's politics and the U.S. role in it. In this episode, Bob Vitalis, an expert on Middle Eastern politics at the University of Pennsylvania, discusses the important parallels between 1979 and the geopolitical knots Mr. Biden is trying to untangle today.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the ruling affirmed a half-century of political activism by conservative grassroots organizers, religious and legal groups, and Republican politicians and strategists. Few members of this right-wing coalition were more important than the late Phyllis Schlafly, who dedicated her formidable organizing and rhetorical talents to campaigns against cultural liberalism. In this episode, historian and Schlafly biographer Donald Critchlow discusses the crusader's legacy in light of the conservative movement's success in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. It is a timely reminder about the importance of persuasion in politics, because although young Americans have only known the Republican Party as monolithically opposed to abortion, it took decades of work by Schlafly and like-minded activists to push the GOP further to the right.

Nearly five months since Russia invaded Ukraine, the war in the eastern Donbas region appears to be a grinding stalemate. Civilians are being pummeled by Russian missiles, but little land is changing hands. Neither side seems willing to cede an inch, so a diplomatic settlement is not in the offing. But how much longer must the war grind on before the combatants are convinced further bloodshed is pointless? In this episode, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and Quincy Institute analyst Anatol Lieven discuss what it will take to end hostilities.

Building off recent episodes concerning U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine, this conversation seeks to understand deeper patterns in U.S. foreign policy from the dawn of the Cold War. It may be possible to understand the United States' dilemma by viewing international relations as a donor-receiver dynamic, where the donor believes they possess exclusive knowledge that must be shared with others. The question to consider is why do some people think they know what's good for others? Ithaca College political theorist Naeem Inayatullah joins the conversation.

In 1987 the Senate rejected President Reagan's nominee for the Supreme Court, Robert Bork, because his views were considered dangerously outside the mainstream. Among other things, Bork believed the Constitution did not contain a right to privacy. Today, some of Bork's ideas have been validated by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. By striking down Roe v Wade, the court killed the notion that any implied right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution protects access to abortion. In this episode, esteemed Yale constitutional scholar Akhil Amar traces the history of the right to privacy in the law from colonial times to the 1973 landmark ruling that the Roberts court has relegated to history.

On July 4, 1852, Frederick Douglass delivered remarks of enduring significance and American eloquence to an audience of abolitionists. He mixed condemnation of the nation's tolerance of slavery with hope and uplift. He embraced the founding fathers and defended the Constitution while attacking his fellow citizens for hypocrisy and inaction. "What, To The Slave, Is The Fourth Of July?" was quintessential Frederick Douglass. Historian James Oakes discusses the ideas behind Douglass' rhetorical tour de force, his relationship with Abraham Lincoln, and the critical importance of antislavery politics in bringing about the destruction of slavery.

As the fiftieth anniversary of the Watergate break-in crossed our calendars, the congressional committee investigating ex-President Trump's 'Stop the Steal' scheme revealed new and damaging findings. Past and present are intersecting again: the Jan. 6 hearings are painting a picture of a rogue executive willing to try almost anything to remain in power, including manipulating the Justice Department to interfere in an election. In this episode, journalist and historian Garrett Graff, the author or 'Watergate: A New History,' discusses the parallels between Nixon's crimes and Trump's effort to steal an election.

What is Vladimir Putin? Russia's dictator has been called a gangster, an autocrat, a Marxist-Leninist, an ultra-nationalist, or a fascist by different historians, political scientists, and editorialists over the past several weeks. There seems to be little agreement over what ideas and ideologies motivate the man in his crusade against the West. Fascism remains a slippery term, often used as a slur to denigrate one's political opponents. In this episode, Oxford's Roger Griffin, a leading scholar on fascism, talks about why it is mistaken to label Putin a fascist, despite some similarities to the fascist regimes of the twentieth century.

President Biden's upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia is an example of reality imposing itself on a situation Mr. Biden vowed to change. In November 2019, Democratic candidate Biden said the kingdom should be punished and treated as a pariah, because its de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, had been implicated in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But as Middle East expert Bob Vitalis explains in this episode, the Americans and Saudis still need each other, thereby maintaining a decades-long relationship shaped by oil, war, terrorism, and political expediency.

This conversation with Catholic University historian Michael Kimmage was featured on C-SPAN's 'American History TV.' Kimmage discusses U.S.-Russia relations since the end of the Cold War, the rise of Putin, and events leading to the war in Ukraine.

It may surprise you to learn how much we have in common with Americans of the 1790s: extreme political polarization, crazy conspiracy theories, partisan news media, foreign interference, and fears of violence and disintegration. As the Jan. 6 Committee hearings refocus our attention on the day Donald Trump's effort to overturn the election reached its violent nadir, historian Joseph Ellis joins the podcast to explain why he believes the fate of the republic -- res publica, the public interest -- is in danger.

There is a pattern in U.S. history of a nation seeking redemption through war, attempting to restore its global standing and credibility after a humiliating defeat. By backing Ukraine's effort to repel the Russian invasion, some American intellectuals say the U.S. is also fighting for the fate of democracy and the world order it has led since 1945. In this reasoning, a victory by Ukraine over Russia helps erase the humiliating U.S. retreat from Afghanistan in 2021, which brought the curtain down on the failed post-9/11 project to spread democracy and U.S. hegemony. In this episode, historian and Quincy Institute president Andrew Bacevich deconstructs arguments elevating the Russia-Ukraine war to one of "cosmic importance" for the United States.

In February Russia chose war with Ukraine. In response, the U.S. chose to dramatically increase aid and arms shipments to Kyiv. But now that a frozen war is descending on the eastern Donbas region, one that is likely to drag on for months, certain questions about the U.S. commitment can no longer be ignored. How long can the U.S. support Ukraine? Can the U.S. control any escalation caused by a Russian reaction to its support? What if no amount of material or intelligence support is enough to thwart Vladimir Putin's ambitions? In this episode, historians Jeremi Suri and Jeffrey Engel discuss the potential consequences of an open-ended U.S. commitment to Ukraine's independence.