20 Burst results for "jill lepore"
"jill lepore" Discussed on At Liberty
"At liberty. I'm only kaplan your host. This week were diving into the at liberty archive and returning to a conversation with historian. Jill lepore we're on the brink of a once in a generation change. Congress is considering a plan to create a pathway to citizenship. For up to eight million people this september the aclu is urging congress to pass a reconciliation package which includes a path to citizenship for dreamers temporary protected status holders farm workers and other essential workers. But what does it mean to be an american citizen. And how did we get here to a place in a time when we deny so many the ability to become an american. These are the questions that joel poor explorers in her book. These truths which tells the story of how our nation has evolved from its origins. Jill is a professor of american history at harvard. A staff writer at the new yorker and a prolific thinker and writer on history and contemporary politics. In this conversation. Jill speaks to former at liberty. Host lee roland. We hope you enjoy the conversation. Jill thank you so much for joining us share. Thanks for having me. Let's start with the idea of who gets to be an american. Americans are fond of saying that we're a nation of immigrants. Have we always thought of ourselves. That way Can we start with. Say our founders. Did they consider themselves immigrants. Yeah they did consider themselves immigrants but they also didn't really talk about nationhood at the time. Nationhood is an idea that reaches its maturity in the nineteenth century and so does citizenship. So they're not really quite talking on the terms that we talk about today in it. I don't mean to sort of be semantic about it but it does make a difference how people in the eighteenth century talk about what it means to found the united states and when they are talking about subject peoples or we the people what it is that they mean by those terms is actually different than what we mean by those terms and that's one of the reasons to study the past right. We wanna watch how things change and see who's in control of those changes but with regard to is actually from a historical vantage like immigration wasn't issue like that doesn't make any sense as an eighteenth century phrase to say right. It is the case that the people who are at the constitutional convention say do talk about whether the constitution guarantees rights including the right to vote a right to hold elected office to people who are naturalized citizens. That's a question that finds its way into the language of the constitution..
Apple vs Epic with John Gruber
"John gruber. Welcome back It's good to be here peter. Thanks for coming. Thanks for making time. We're not gonna take a lot of time. But i wanted to check in with you about the epic apple case in the trial recording this on wednesday. So we're we're two and a half days into the trial i assume you following it closely I noticed you not a lot of coverage during fire. Also i figured go straight to the source and you have to type anything. You can just talk. You know it is easier to talk about especially at this point I am following. But i am not following hour by hour. It just does. That just doesn't seem like good use of my time. i mean so. I'm trying to get the daily updates and i'm looking at. I mean obviously the big juicy part that's coming out of this are the emails that come out through What's the process called. Whatever you know being entered and coverings. Yeah yeah a little bit of a smaller at all. This stuff was uploaded into the court system last week. So if you wanted to you could have gotten all this last week But no one wants wants to actually go thrilla before we go into the particulars of of what we've heard because we can't see We've been we've been listening to these calls and looking at documents Let's just talk about the case. Rodley i think anyone who's listening to this show understands the broad outlines right this epic arguing the administration monopolist Because of the way they run the app store you are someone. I i often think of referred to as an apple enthusiast so i would think you are mostly sympathetic to apple in this case but i think also you have been increasingly critical about the way apple runs the app store for the last few years so before we get to the specifics of epic and apple. What's your overall. take on the way. Apple runs the store. And and what you'd like to see from them. You thought you said it was going to be a short show. I i would. I think it's useful to break this down. I took a note. I wrote before coming on the show. What exactly is epic asking for. And i know you're asking me my take on the apple store but i kind of feel like epochs suit is a good prism to break a very broad range of complaints out into some discrete ideas.
"jill lepore" Discussed on Talking Politics
"Got to impeach him and we think we can prevail. I think they should just sit with them. And we know we're not going to prevail but this has to be done and even if it costs us election it has to be done because there's a bigger story here. Which is the rule of law and here too. I think he certainly should have been convicted of the last articles of it can be impeachment in my view. I think that the suggestion that some members of the house have made which. I suspect his is likely to be the position. That leadership takes that. He should be impeached in the house. But maybe the impeachment shouldn't be kicked over to the senate till after biden's first hundred days. That's the position if i were in a position of of suggesting what should be done. That's position. I would suggest i think that you know biden has appropriately. Stay out of it. It's not the business of the incoming president side about the fate of the outgoing president. But i you do get the sense. That biden sort of wishes he could at least get into office and get congress to pass some laws that need to be passed to do the things that the country really desperately needs to have done given that we've basically had no functioning federal government for many many months now and if the decision is to launch impeachment but then to delay it moving to the senate as well the trial phase until after trump has gone presumably. The implication of that is the goal. It may not be achievable but the ostensible goal. He can't be punished by being removed from office but he can be barred from ever running for office again and that then becomes what the argument is about. Should this man to stand for office again. But then because yeah and i think that is crucial. Because i do think he would. Otherwise run again. And i think he would even having been impeached. He's gonna be causing no end of trouble. you know. i was asked by the washington post at some point over the summer. I think it must have been what i thought about whether there should be truth and reconciliation commission which is another after trump's end of term and there was they were gonna run a series of essays on this question and i guess i'll i'll offer at my view which is a truth and reconciliation commission's not the appropriate measure here and i also thought in and still think that it's really not the best thing for the country for the biden administration to be in a position of pursuing a criminal charges against trump. But i also. I really see the argument that it's necessary and i think it's such an incredibly perilous road. We risk now every presidential election being contested on the streets with violent street action. And i've completely one hundred percent supported peach moment but prosecution which at the time last summer i thought well maybe we should be away from that because then every person coming president is gonna it. It'd be willing to consider criminal. Charges against the outgoing. President wants to transfer power from party to party. That's that's a model of how nations are run. That is a model of doom. But i i think.
"jill lepore" Discussed on Talking Politics
"Them. It's not for lack of trying that took off but the co-opting of them actually had already taken place. Or i mean i think of much of the last half century as having been a very slow and steady extraordinarily successful aggregation of cultural power on the part of conservatives notwithstanding the whole conservative argument that liberals own the culture. And that's the problem but you know from a position of relative political powerlessness in the late fifties early sixties william f. buckley barry goldwater moment conservatives. Decided that the the way to gain the only way to gain political power in the united states would be too slowly takeover institutions arbitrate knowledge. What are the institutions that decide. What's true and what's not true. And those are the university the academy journalism. And of course i mean literally the courts decide verdicts. What's true what's not do. University is the world of the kind of the production and dissemination of knowledge in journalism czar seeking to report. What is going on in the world and it took many many decades. But you can watch that unfold if you could kind of watch kind of like Like an animal like a stop action animation of how that will work right. So with the courts. The the decision was in you. Can't you can't erected in alternate court system you have to take over the courts that's the only thing you can do. So they form the federal society and in the early nineteen seventies devised the kind of originalist theory of constitutional interpretation. It's finally gains. Power with reagan's election in nineteen eighty. And then he appoints emmys His attorney general and the reagan era court appointments. Which are these originalists Appointments are what set in motion a complete recasting of the direction the supreme court which had been really a very liberal supreme court of course in this in the sixties and seventies and that is.
"jill lepore" Discussed on The Current
"Let alone the next few years and they may not even be able to remember what the last six months where like As somebody whose job it is to see that sweep of history. What do you think the moment that we're in right now can tell us about the bigger picture or what the bigger picture can tell us about the moment that we're in right now. I love the clip that you began to segment with about the vaccine ending an era cloaked in uncertainty or the mystery of uncertainty and. That's one of the lessons. Here is our capacity to tolerate the unknown and the uncertain. Is i think quite a bit worse than it used to be. There's a we have a kind of false belief in certainty. Because of how highly predictive our world is like data is predicting everything we who you look at the latest poll so that you can know exactly what's going to happen next. You choose what. You're gonna watch because netflix tells you this is what you like. Exactly you know what the weather's going to be like tomorrow. There's an app for you. Know what the best route is. Because there's going to be a traffic problem because there's an app for that. You know what you should watch. What's going to be the right. You know the the tv show. That's going to be interesting to you because there's an app for that what book you should read your told. I think we actually just have considerably less tolerance for the unpredictable. The known in the uncertain. And that's why people are obsessed with the curve. I mean not like the curve is of course. The curve is an important piece of information to dispute that. It's not like a like a know nothing about the curve but just the you open up your newspaper and there's the curve and you know then there's the various projections in scenario one. The curve will go like this scenario. Two we'll go like this. If we open today. It looked like the i. We don't really actually have that kind of control We certainly need to take responsibility for our own actions but just our utter impatience with the unknown. Is i think a real liability for having the stamina to deal with this extraordinarily difficult time. I mean i don't. I don't begrudge anybody. Their terror of the unknown just remarking as a history. And i think there's a kind of shift like there's an for most of human history. Nobody has any idea what's going to happen next from you know from the from the weather to anything else when we get out of it then how do you think we'll look back at it at this time. Boy you know. That's kind of trajectory question. Historians are terrible making predictions. I i i guess i would say that. The patterns uc in the past is that they'll be a long period of trying to figure out who to blame. That's the nasty version of what will happen. Next wordy kind of in that. We're not even over this and just so. Many people are making so much political and a lot of people are frankly making money over blaming other people so that's a lot of cause for despair about that But i think that for most people what they will carry forward. Are you know the tender moments of compassion that they shared with fellow human beings and where they found strength by being together even in this almost impossible situation which thing you have to fear most is intimacy with other people. It's a real pleasure to talk to you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Jill lepore is professor of american history at harvard university a staff writer at the new yorker and the author of several books including this america the case for the nation. She's also the host of a podcast called the last archive..
"jill lepore" Discussed on The Current
"Podcasts. I pull back the curtain on the secret of self help group that experts call a called and follow one woman's heroic journey to get out. The podcast was featured in rolling stone magazine and named one of the best podcasts of two thousand and eighteen in the atlantic. Listen to uncover escaping nexium on. Cbc or wherever. You get your podcasts. This is a cbc podcast. The news is on everyone's lips. Polio has been beaten beaten by the genius of a modest man named sauk and the army of dedicated medical and scientific people who is one and only ideal is world free from disease in toronto and the rest of ontario. The reaction of the people was the same. As though the announcement had meant end of a terrible war i would like to conclude only with a paraphrase of sir winston churchill by saying that on the basis of these data. The future does not seem to be completely veiled obscurity just as the development of the first vaccine for polio was met with cheers april of one thousand nine hundred fifty five. So was the news last week. That canada had approved the first vaccine for covid nineteen the salk vaccine named after its developer. The american dr. jonas salk halted the spread of polio. The cripple because it could cause paralysis among it's mostly young victims. When i spoke with her in june the harvard university american history professor jill lepore was looking back at that terrifying epidemic and how it ended as a way to shed light on what we were living through then. We are replaying that interview today now that this moment in time as she called it has arrived for the covid pandemic as well. Here's our conversation for people who might not remember. Remind us what the nineteen fifties polio epidemic. Look like and the devastating impact that it had on people's lives. Polio was terrifying especially to parents of young children. Did i in the. Us at first showed up. Really an epidemic proportions in nineteen sixteen in new york city and return relentlessly every sprang. It was really far worse in the summer than any other time of year and it affected children especially children under twelve most of all children under five. Sometimes people called it the baby plague. You could certainly die of it More often he would be crippled by it. So polio hospitals opened up. That we're really kind of Physical therapy centers. Children were braces. If he lost the use of your lungs you'd be put in a almost like an iron coffin called an iron lung that would breathe for miraculously invention but a horrible way to live..
"jill lepore" Discussed on Talking Politics
"This is time of year for books and this year all the books of come out of the same time we try and pick just a few the very best to talk to you about. Panel and our conversations about politics are coming back soon but we have an extra episode on Sunday. A Sunday supplement. I'm going to be talking to the novelist Robert Harris, but his new novel V two. Is going to be a conversation about weapons, but also about counterfactual history. Next week in our regular slow took to the philosopher Michael Sandel about inequality meritocracy and the failures of democracy. And after that, we're going to be talking about the American presidential election. My Name is David Runciman and we've been talking politics. Okay I'm so ready. Can we just play guests debris Dave one second? Guess the bree is it whippet? Too. Small. I like big dogs. Labrador. Bigger. Ridgeback? Bigger. Great Dane, it's half great Dane and half Newfoundland. Shut the door that's the new. Here's the thing we have two great Danes and we've always looked Newfoundland's and like is really sad my husband without one day to pick up tacos from the dock you came back and he said you'll never guess I've met at the TACO truck a woman who bring her dog or dogs a newfoundland pregnant by her great Dane. So I've got a one of the puppies. I said to talk of the. A cast powers, some of the world's best podcasts. Here's a show we recommend..
"jill lepore" Discussed on Talking Politics
"And this technology has not had that kind of it's not equivalent of the financial crisis. Its not had sa- quivalent of the pandemic yet, but it will I mean at some point I think this technology will fail in a way. That is equivalent. Those events. You don't WanNa wish that on any country or any group of people but Absent that Democracies aren't good this kind of reform. I mean I think the closest analogy would be you know during the progressive era a century ago when campaign finance reform measures were passed by people that been elected on money that was somebody'll gotten that they wouldn't be able to get afterward. But what's different with? Reforming campaign finance and reforming technologies of communication that can aid your campaign. Is that it's very hard to communicate in other ways in order to seek the reform. Can At least Publish a bunch of. Newsletters and broadsides pamphlets, and go to union meetings and hand out leaflets and tell people they should support campaign finance restrictions if it's nineteen oh, eight or nine, hundred eleven you like you can get your message out on a fairfield right like yeah. Okay. So the people want to be able to still. Make, big donations by politicians have more money to fight against you. But if you have enough people and you're GonNa always have enough people. To be always more people. You could. You could win that with the numbers you could enact that democratic reform because you would have the votes. To get people elected who would promise to? Usher in and support campaign finance legislation but you imagine this conflict. How do rally support? When the means that you have available to communicate with voters are so corrupted and you would need in a kind of principle way to steer clear of them. I think it's a much bigger bind. It's a kind of trapped inside the machine problem instead of hammering on something from the outside. And is I think that the original attempt trespassed into tatum monopolies didn't need to use the monopolies to take down the please exactly. That's. The difference pre now in one hundred years ago. The monopoly is the monopoly of the means of doing politics. Yeah. It's much worse now because of the pandemic coming, you could say we're GONNA WE'RE GONNA hold meetings in public libraries all over the country and in school buildings in the evening and we're gonNA run a kind of nationwide unity campaign on a Crusade for American democracy and democratic values. We're going to have face to face meetings with our have debates deliberations we're GONNA. Do you know Straw polls? GonNa you're GonNa try to rekindle the institutions of just the habits and practices of of of talking to people who disagree with and hanging out with them and working through problems together, we have this whole regime. And you could. Somehow, you could get out of the machine you could do old fashioned kind of politics. We can't do that. Every has to be through your screen or through a mask at six foot distance, and that's not among the few things I don't play baseball four, but it does wet us to these devices in in a wholly different way that makes it very difficult to conduct campaigns for political change outside of them I mean you would say. The black lives matter movement and it's thriving in growth in the past few months is a real challenge to any. You'd be right to point to that. Right. There are ways to rekindle a tradition of protest even in this moment, but we'll see where that goes. haven't seen the legislative reform war the electoral wave that is a that is a response to that.
"jill lepore" Discussed on Recode Decode
"That actually is a national story that we should hold onto and figure out and. I think there is a you know historical argument to be made from evidence that. Both understands and appreciates dangers of nationalism, but that nevertheless can hold onto. Mean I just picturing these people always tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of people out on the street in the last week, calling for a better. America that is actually I, don't mean to neutralize the radicalism of that, but that that radicalism is American. That call is also very best so I. Know Argument against us at our very worst. Yeah, yeah, so you when you're looking at that when you when you were teaching. History I'm was just talking to my kids about this. Baby two teenagers and we're talking about how stuff is taught. History is taught, and we had a really interesting discussion about what we learn and what's. What's in books? And what would and I was like Gosh when I was learning? We didn't have a lot of diversity in the books. We didn't have and I went to a pretty. I would say liberal school. How do you then teach history now to students? What's the demands that they have especially given? There's so much information on the Internet my son. Watches reads widely. He gets information from everywhere. Some of it isn't good. Some of it's good. Some of it's different some. It has a different point of view. How then do you teach history? Well I think of history is a form of inquiry, not as a stories to be passed down. In the sense that you know I think we weirdly conflate a lot of different things under the heading of history that are actually different things, so for instance we, we talk about chemistry. We understand like you need to know the periodic table, and then you need to be able to conduct experiments into test propositions and reproduce findings, and there's some formulas that you need to know, but really it's trying to spew inquirer oxygen out. But when you think about Alchemy, which is you know, you could do these outcome of magical things that are mystical like that alchemy. or we don't conflict astronomy, which is in science with astrology, which is a form of mysticism like. God, bless them both like would rather hear from an astronomer myself, but you know I understand people appreciate astrology. We very different things. History like there's a kind of an alchemy astrology version of history, which is a set of myths. Some of which is can be kind of Quainton. Innocent kind of folklore Betsy Ross. The invented story of Betsy Ross I mean like it's wrong. It doesn't make me crazy, but it's not history. History as an academic discipline and a method of inquiry. Why like that's folklore to me so when I teach history I? Teach it as a method of inquiry. Where sure I've been studying this for a long time. There's the equivalent of the periodic table that I want you to have and some formulas like is actually interesting to ask yourself. What's the? Of Legislative change versus protest movements like who just one drive the other obviously, but on the other hand like when and under what conditions like sort of scientific east kinds of questions you can ask C. so I ask a lot of questions also find honestly that I. I. Try really hard to learn a lot from my students who have a very acute Sam 's that they are standing on the edge of history, and if there's a god, damn cliff, you know, and they're looking down into some abyss, and they're also just scouring the ground trying to think like what could we use to build a bridge across this chasm? Like what are we going to do to get to the next land like a better tomorrow? Right well, this is the perfect chance to take a quick break, but and then get into your podcast podcasts about what is truth and the history of truth. It's called the last archive. We're here with Jill Lepore. She's a host of this history podcast. If you call it that the last archive, we're going to take a quick break now. We'll be back after this. This is advertiser content. This is w f h working from home brought to you by Dash, -Ly, the Password manager.
"jill lepore" Discussed on The New Yorker Radio Hour
"You know when I ran for Mayor And got elected which was less than a year ago. I used to say that The president doesn't make that much of a difference in my daily life and our daily lives in Kansas City I'm I regret that I have to say that's not the case. Clinton Lucas is the mayor of Kansas City Missouri. That Weekend when the president finally set this is an important deal Things are going to be different. We should all have shelter in place or stay home orders. You saw pretty much throughout the country. With the exception of a few holdouts Republican states all sorts of things. I'm having these stay at home orders but I think on the opposite way as soon as the president tweeted liberate Michigan Liberate Virginia and your Second Amendment Liberate Minnesota then we started seeing more these protests in state capitals had protests on the steps of City Hall here in Kansas City. You started seeing kind of this. Great level of acrimony Between Different forces and I think he started seeing the repeal of of stay at home orders a little faster than anyone could have recommended. We'll tell me about those protests. What was the rhetoric that you were hearing? How representative were there? You know I like to think that they weren't that representative But it was they. Were certainly loud. You know they in a time where the news is looking at Data which is always saying that is actually Deaths and tragedies but you know I think people wanted to look at something that was different than a number instead. They saw a bunch of people with. Don't tread on me flags and you know had bullhorns and were saying Zani. Some ways really bizarre off the wall things You know prior to this time in life. I've never been compared to Adolf Hitler I don't think in any way steps that I'm taking her. Any governor in our country is taking anything that that that dramatic other than trying to save. Lives and You know it's been frustrating to see that so. I think they've been more effective than their size is let on. I think but you see. Forgive me Mr Moore. I just WANNA be clear on this point. You seem to be connecting the insults. That have been directed. Your way. I think you've been described as Nazi like an how you've instituted restrictions in the city and you're drawing a line between being called a Nazi and the rhetoric from the White House. I I I do think that there there is a connection to where we are. I think we've unleashed some level of Total detachment from I think science and understanding why rules are being issued in the way they are. I think you have seen an increase in Very negative sentiment. You know some of the left have said that Now that all of our efforts aren't stern enough that we you know that there's blood on my hands so I guess it's to street in terms beyond rhetoric. What kind of practical problems has the White House created for? You has donald trump created for you as you try to manage. Kansas City's daily life. I think there is an inconsistency investing that we have right now I'm one who has a concern with the fact that you know we're trying to say that wearing a mask is important and the day that the president announced during mask. You said you know I'm not gonNA wear one and You know some people say you needed some people. Don't do what you will It is shocking. How many people? That may not even subscribe politically to the president's viewpoint. So listen to him. Still listen to what he says and then still particularly some of our younger people model that level of behavior. I think the fact that those of us here in cities particularly wearing interstates or not giving us much guidance. are looking for. What are the rules for reopening schools? What are rules for summer student activities swimming pools that sort of thing and think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Has Been Muzzled? Basically what I've heard is that We should agree open from Washington and That's the only consistent message we've gotten and sometimes you certainly want to sit back and say can I get some clear guidance from someone else so that I'm not exchanging text messages with superintendents in the Kansas City. Suburbs about well. Can we have events in August or can we not? It's not clear we don't know the as one thing. We heard something different organization even credible organization now because we've urged them attacked lighthouse. It's frustrating and it matters and it gets down to every day decisions. Like mayors of small towns and dig cities are making all across our country. How do you go about being mayor? You don't have all the usual instruments available to you ribbon. Cuttings meeting with people. So how do you go back communicating with people and staying in touch with your community and getting people to do? What you think is necessary. We've done a lot more outreach. Depressed been I think I ever had ever wanted really I have a weekly segment on hip hop station here in Kansas City to try to reach a crowd. That may not catch me on our National Public radio affiliate. I have a weekly segment on Spanish language radio. We continue through social media through pretty much everything we can to get people to recognize how important the moment ins and how we're not doing this. As part of some sort of vast left wing conspiracy to keep them indoors. And so that's you know the nature of what we do each day but it certainly has changed. I mean I'm I'm an inner-city politician. Right and a lot of buying trajectory to being mayor of Kansas City was going black churches every Sunday. Which is something don't do but I get to talk to minister. Still try to make sure passage with them and we'll keep doing that for as long as this crisis is around mayor. Louis thank you so much and I wish you in in Kansas City. All the very best. Thank you Marian or is the mayor of Cheyenne Wyoming. It's the largest city in the state and our county has seen over one hundred confirmed cases of covert nineteen mayor or welcome to the show. Thank you how bad is your community. Been hit in terms of economic terms. How how do you quantify that we are heading daily budget discussions? Our budget is due June. First and we have absolutely been. We've been devastated in unfortunately for not only my community but for Wyoming. This couldn't have come at a worse. Time because lambing so heavily dependent on the coal industry and oil and gas ahrends saying well prices in the negatives devastates our economy and then to have sales and use tax plummet. We're seeing a thirty percents decrease in revenue. And we don't see it coming back anytime soon. Mayors are often cheerleaders for their city. They should be and you you're often urging people to come to your city come to Wyoming and spend money but right now you found yourself in a position where you had to do the opposite discouraging some of your even your out of state neighbors from coming and visiting. What's what's that change been lying. Well it's been very difficult for only twenty five miles away from Colorado in Weld County which has seen a very large number of cases and we are one of the few states that did not Issue a shelter in place a stay at home and what we witnessed several weeks ago. Was the weather started to get better. And we saw folks Colorado coming up and purchasing out of state resident fishing licenses and camping in our parks and unfortunately we had to do a on. That might might message has been. Hey We we love you to come visit come visit Wyoming. It's a great place. But we just ask for a little bit of patients and we can't wait to welcome everybody back in to tell me about the policy of not doing sheltering in place. Why not well it came from. I came from our governor who took direction from our state health officer out here in Wyoming and we kind of maybe pride ourselves in the fact that many of us have been socially distancing before any of knew the phase where we're very rural. I mean our entire states population is less than six hundred thousand. We've really had to follow the lead of the governor and take a really unified approach as far as how the state operates now. I wonder as a Republican and as a citizen and you're watching president trump in Washington. What do you think of his messaging? What do you think when he says Liberate Michigan for example La be honest? I've had to turn it off because it's And and perhaps it's because I'm I'm dealing with my own issues here. We certainly have had protests here in San at the Capitol. You know the right to assemble. I think that really harsh rhetoric is not what we what we need right now. We need We don't need politics in this virus. Not only does it not have a date. But it's it's bipartisan. It's not had a republican and it's not a Democrat and we really need to. I think communicate as leaders in a very mindful and using the medical expertise that we have available to us now. The Corona virus has placed a huge drain on the city's budget is an eight million dollar deficit. Now which is a big deficit for for for your city. What plan do you have? What plan can you possibly have to get the city back on track financially at this point well with most city budgets are largest expense is payroll and so unfortunately we've had to furloughs sixteen employees? We have not stilled fifteen Positions that were open. We have roughly four hundred and seven employee. So that's really a pretty significant number. We are also looking at church Tiring additional police in additional fire Even though we're a growing population so certainly payroll is top of the mind. One of the things that we we talked about today was the hat even in City Hall. We don't need square footage. We need technology. We need to be spending money towards technology because so much work can be done from home. We've learned we don't need this massive building with eight back issues and you know electrical costs and we. We need technology so in other words I in a very profound way. The virus is going to change municipal life not just for a little while but maybe permanently I I believe that absolutely shall perhaps perhaps the way we do business and deliver government services shall be changed forever or thank you very much and all the very best to your city. Thank you very much. That's Marian or mayor of Cheyenne Wyoming. We also heard from Quinn Lucas Mayor of Kansas City Missouri. And Andy Burke Chattanooga Tennessee. I'm David Ramnik and thanks for joining us this week. Cnn Time The New Yorker Radio Hour is a CO production of WNYC studios and the New Yorker our theme music was composed performed by Merrill. Barbara's of tune yards with additional music by Alexis quadruple. This episode was produced by our Barron. Emily Boutin Ave correo ran in corby. Cala Leah David Krosno Caroline Lester go fan and Hutu Weli Louis Mitchell. Michelle Moses and Stephen Valentino with help from Alison macadam Morgan flannery. Danny Bonner Mum Fei Chen and Emily Man. The New Yorker Radio Hour supported in part by the Tarinah Endowment Fund..
"jill lepore" Discussed on The New Yorker Radio Hour
"The salk vaccine.
"jill lepore" Discussed on The New Yorker Radio Hour
"Much of the country is beginning to reopen at least some businesses and activities. A little later this hour. I'll talk with some of the mayors who were trying to negotiate how to do that without putting huge numbers of people at risk but some restrictions are likely to extend through the summer and perhaps beyond the prospect of that is daunting for everyone. Not least for anyone with kids in the house. After months without going to school the idea of keeping kids indoors away from their friends their sports summer camps and scouting trips. It seems like more than apparent can bear. But it's happened before and not that. Long ago I'm Jill Lepore. I'm a professor of history at Harvard. I'm also staff writer at the New Yorker in as a history and I I always think a lot about was their comfort to be found in times in the past when people have had harder struggles saying gotten through things and immediately comes to mind for me. The stayed home campaigns that run during the polio years. All the boys and girls of the northwest during Radio Stay Home Campaign. Now listen polio at. I hit the US in nineteen sixteen and some years were worse than others. A lot of viruses abate in the hotter months but with polio. The warmer the weather the virus spread faster but also polio was most effectively transmitted by water. So in the summer when it got hot this is before the age of air conditioning. Kids would be outside. WanNa go swimming. Pools jump in the river and it's not like they have homeschooling assignments. It's this summer they're supposed to be outside playing catch in playing baseball and drawing hopscotch. Chalk on the sidewalk and it's really hard to keep them inside and I came across this incredibly charming clip from W. C. O. in Minneapolis which had a Sunday morning program called fun at home during the campaign. Well it's nine five and time for all your kids together Andrea Radios and listened to the funnies this morning. We ever do anything to be entertaining. Because it's so S- clippers from nineteen forty six and fairly young Democratic Mayor Hubert Humphrey. I mean think of as the Andrew Cuomo of the moment although more charming he comes in volunteers to come into the radio station on Sunday to read the funnies outlaw. We start right off with blondie and you know what it looks like. Blondie Dag would or going to go out in a fishing. They told me he got any fishing over their ads. Just take a look at that. There's kids and there's good right along right alongside the the lakeshore there and he says I don't ally there's I can't catch a fish doesn't look all he just looks off down in the dumps. He loves it and you can tell because he brings his kids with like he does voices and he tries to. Dag would and Blondie in his kids keep asking questions and they want them to read Popeye instead. Can of worms there and look at that funny. How they're just like he's hunting lion skip and he says. Do you have sure you have a hat like that. And and DAG would says that they pull out fishes when I look. I listen to this clip. Maybe in the fall sometime this it's so adorable and it's so sweet and it's so quaint but somehow the the didn't strike me or you just use everything but he can't catch anything. So one of the strange. Maybe only blessings of the code pandemic is that kids seem to be so far less vulnerable to it but with polio is exactly the opposite for a long time. Polio was called the baby plague. Which is this heart breaking named to think about that what it does to know that your children babies toddlers preschoolers are the most vulnerable on private property without a license on that if the policeman you betcha without got a long nose. Yeah I wonder who that. That's a funny looking Guy Right. It didn't really hit me that this was a desperate measure. It just seemed to me adorable. I listen to it again. I almost listen to Hubert Humphrey with what I think of as Cova deers. And it's still sweet. It's still charming. I still love listening to it. But it's it's also quietly desperate humphry. We're going to have a thong by Toby. Friend the original tax on toby takeover. With put your arms around a little closer.
"jill lepore" Discussed on Impeachment, Explained
"That did things like ask. The American Political Science Association Task Force in Nineteen Fifty. That you write about to say you know what we really need. We know now because our models rational choice. Tell us we need. More polarized political parties did we. I mean we do. Actually who probably didn't but quantitatively it was interesting to do and the understanding of the human condition that emerged from that field which was about the man Kam battle between communism and capitalism which is actually about the moral absolutism. That the the killer be killed the ultimate polarization which comes from that Cold War moment this the free world and then there's the world of tyranny and when see historically by the nineties at the end of the Cold War that becomes domestic. Now we're in the domestic Cold War. I think as a matter of history. That's a phenomenon that I see so when you say you arrived in Washington two thousand and five well you arriving in that world where people like. We can't fight ideological End Times warfare with the Russians anymore with the Soviet so we'll fight it with the Democrats and we'll fight with the Republicans. That whole mess in fact is deeply implicated in the. Social Sciences weirdly. Enough actually love that. I think that's probably at least in some part right. The one thing I'll say about journalism I arrived to it is the kind of journalism I was doing Do now around. Social Science and policy was in Puerto Reaction to form of journalism that I feel continue feels deeply unregister. So I don't think it's a social sciences. Were dominant when I came into into journalism. In fact I think that almost there was nothing Restraining anybody from just saying here's what I think and so I try to at least have some restraint but i. You're like corrective. I think that's well taken. I think people who hopefully read the books you keep it in mind. I feel personally like having written this book that this is the absolute best. I can do to give you the model that I think is most predictive and explanatory of politics right now and I can also feel inside myself that I'm overly bought into it that I would never tell anybody else that should be their only model about politics. But I think the amount of work I did to create it in the amount of rejecting things and having to decide what went where and is convincing or is it not the nature of that for all that I write about. Political Psychology in the book is that. I've convinced myself pretty deeply of it and one of the things I've been thinking about a lot. Is that after the twenty twenty election. I think it's probably time for me to stop covering politics for a while because I think I need to like. I've said I think it makes a lot of sense to say and I probably need to learn about some other things for a while so I don't just get locked into this one thing. I think it can come back with fresh eyes at some point. I mean who knows about end up doing that but I don't I mean look I obviously the the models good but I think that you are probably right that it is heavily relying on social science. Some of that is not gonNA prove to be true and then other things that right now the book will read very much like a closed loop two people somebody said. It has like the inevitable force. It has inevitable logic of a nightmare which I sort of appreciate it as a description at some point something fundamental that I'm writing about is going to change either. The demography is GonNa Change so that you know Texas goes blue and that's up and everything about the geography I read about in the book or the media is going to change. And you know whatever like or we're going to have the war that begins to reunify around an American identity as opposed to political identities to your point about communism and capitalism. And I really worry about not. I think that something was helpful for me was I came into journalism when people really had this baseline nine hundred eighty s tip. O'neill Reagan model and I could see that it had changed. I was in caught in that. Because that wasn't what was happening in my twenty s at some point the thing that has been happening through my twenties in my thirties which is super polarized era. Something's GonNa Change that. Somebody's going to change it It's going to shift and I worry a lot as a journalist about not being able to see it being so caught into my explanation having had so many discussions ride defended and argue it and so on that. I'd just become one of these people who's going to be spinning out the same argument long after it has stopped being useful. I think that is not yet. People should buy the book currently but ten years from now. I'm not competent. The book will be right. Do you think that your understanding of the best of journalism is. Is it explaining how we got? Here is predicting we're going. Ooh I mean. Journalism does things so I wouldn't say it's either of them. I mean obviously the most important journalism is journalism and that covers new facts around the world and then the journals in that I really appreciate is the journalism that helps me understand how those facts fit into the messy complexities of the world. I really admire journalism and often the Kinda read is not done with as much social science. But it's done with a lot more on the ground reporting of just messy human reality the way that clean theories of how things should work actually play out. That's the kind of journalism I really appreciate. The stuff in politics that I dislike is the unlike the what I like to call it. Green Lantern Theory stuff where it's always about just some messaging move or a speech you know that it pretends politics is a TV show and if he does right up dramatic enough ending. The problems will solve the journals. And I really appreciate is when people are out among voters even out among politicians and they can help me understand why people are making decisions or doing things that feel off to me right. I mean somebody does is true for all the ways in which social science might impose a rationale on it. I think that a lot of a see and feel the sense. That people are making decisions in politics that even the people making them don't really like at the end of the day and journalism that helps me understand how we become our political selves as opposed to are more complex selves is really helpful. I mean particularly for politicians right. There is not a politician I have ever met who does not seem reasonable and rational and judicious when you're talking to them one on one sitting in a room without cameras talking through things and then you watch your behavior in Congress. Things collapsed down to that binary and it can be totally ludicrous and a lot of my book is trying to understand what is happening in the middle that process but there's a lot of journals in the desert from different directions. Even just today Tim. Alberta was doing a great if actually in this case at twitter series. I'm very sorry but about how he spent a lot of time with retiring. Republicans and the view people have that they feel free to criticize Donald. Trump is just not true. They're thinking about their communities. What job will take next? They want people threatening their families and so just the intuitive sense. A lot of people retiring. You're free to do whatever you want. It's just not how it feels on the ground to them so I really appreciate journalism that helps me understand the complexities of reality as opposed to journals and the tells me that people were just doing it right. We wouldn't have all these problems when theory. I have about the changes in journalism as business. And it's changing business model which has to do with your argument about the nationalizing all our political issues and our political coverage being predominantly national which is important consequence of polarization and also a driver. But it's also a consequence of the of local news reporting in news bureaus at the local level. One theory I have is that that kind of reporting going out and talking to people and explaining how they feel to other people which is done quantitatively less now than it was twenty years ago because people are reporting from twitter or they don't have the budgets to do much more than read. The latest Pew poll does not. They don't have enough words they don't they have a deadline to fast. There's this really short staffed. This is not to blame journalists for the fact that this work isn't being done but at work that Kinda Gumshoe. You know rubber to the ground work of go around talking to people at meetings in bars and PTA. Meetings is actually what makes a democracy work is? Actually those conversations does they. Hours spent talking to people is not just the reporting that as a story in the paper later on in the week. It's actually the the the idle Chitchat. and that that comes you can hear this kind of great sucking sound. Is that gets kind of sucked out of this now. Kind of vacuum packed bag Americans Does that seem plausible to you? Yes or no I mean I I feel that when both ways which is a lot of that work is bad not that the idle Chitchat is good for people. But a lot of that work where you're doing kind of dropping into a place and it's like this community in Iowa and here's what I found out that the diner it just turns out that way found out the diner wasn't representative and so on the one hand. I'm very sympathetic to you. WanNa us to pupils which show you in a course way and in a way that if you like zoomed into it would have some inaccuracies to it but in a course way the general direction people ran and on the other hand. I am sympathetic to it. Because you somehow have to figure out a way to do both and I'm certainly very sympathetic to the idea that we are. We are losing something deep in the complexities of how people relate to politics. The more time in particular journalists spend among other journalists and just listening to political leads in being in the super sorted world of twitter even of Cable News because most people are just not sorted that way they don't think about politics that way the endless the endless lesson of doing actual reporting voters which I've done a lot is that people are not ideologically intense in the way that political elites are and people who are Democrats have opinions you wouldn't expect. Democrats TO HAVE AND PEOPLE. Republicans have opinions. You wouldn't expect Republicans Tab and is the end. There's something argue in the book. It is the political system that sorts them into having to make these binary choices that often don't really represent them and in some ways. I think that's something that was very powerful for Donald Trump. He was a lot like a voter in that way. I mean just him. Himself Guy doesn't really like Democrats like where the country's changing doesn't care about Medicare thinks it's fine Medicaid Fine Kinda like planned parenthood. He just had a very different assortment intuitively and a lot of people looked and said yeah like that more matches mine then Paul Ryan who is sort of the way. Washington is sorted but not the way the Republican Party and and basis sorted so on the one. I think you want that reporting on the other hand. The question is always and this. Actually I think goes a little bit here question about an not question but your point about who is enfranchised. In who has disenfranchised Johnston who can vote but even just in the political conversation there is a tendency to do that reporting fit into the narratives people already believe and it's very hard for them. You know after twenty. Everybody pays all the attention to the white guys in Wisconsin. And maybe in twenty twenty. What's really going to flip? The election is Hispanics in Arizona. Or it's going to be any demographic group in particular just be a different collection and so I think that reporting is really important and also very hard to do in a people. Want it to be predictive when what it really is is a kind of storytelling. Yeah and just to clarify. I didn't mean kind of reporting where the report from the New York Times drops into Iowa for the weekend actually mean the Iowa local news person whose debts. Oh I like that that. I think that is constituent of of a civic culture and we don't have that percents person is not only not constituent.
"jill lepore" Discussed on Impeachment, Explained
"The street thought that their conversation was more important than people who walking down the street talking to each other in. I. I remember having strong feeling but I don't know what the date was. The first time I read in The New York Times a story that was about a twitter post and I just I just remember. I'm sorry how is this story? I mean there's a novelty piece of that. There's you could report on the phenomenon after but that the story is being driven by. I'M GONNA leave. Spender wish I can. I say one important thing about this because we're talking about the day the thing that I don't know at a rate one of my views in the book is that something that has happened is that we've been moving. I think a simple way to put it is. We keep moving onto mediums that forces to be even more polarizing versions of ourselves and the way. I would almost put it as we move from. You know what the news media looks like. Let's call it in the eighties nineties into the Cable News era which dominates starting in the late nineties into the office and still is very dominant but cable news gets its own version of cable news and twitter and on the one hand. It feels like you have to watch stuff because it's where everybody is making those statements today. Lamar Alexander that they were talking on. Had A fifteen tweet explanation of wise not voting for witnesses and impeachment so I had to read him on twitter and yet that is like it's a simplified version of a it lacks nuance. He might have had another place. It's much less careful in the speech. I think arguments bad no matter what it would be. I think it's about argument but nevertheless I also have this kind of feeling that we just keep moving onto worse and worse platforms. I've been reading and you probably know much more about this. I've been reading a lot of criticisms of the television age stuff like Neil Postman. There's a great book called a four arguments against the existence of television. That is worth picking up. Don't print and one of the things that has just been striking to me is they. Were actually right. I think people are like well people in television. They write about what it would do it. We're just living in it and it turns out that it's not the only thing that happened inside. He didn't literally collapsed for like all these leads from before but no they were right about how it would change us. They couldn't have imagined donald trump and twitter. It's so much worse than what Neil Postman said what happened and so there's this funny way in which like. I don't know what you do when your copy tween a belief that on the one hand it's all it's like it is the fact that a lot of politics is happening in this pot from and you think it's a bad like you think it's moved about platform like how do you. How can you be in his system and outside of it like how do you take that independence gauge? It's really tricky. And I will say as a strong argument against my. Let's go back to an age before this stuff sensibility. Which is not an intellectual argument but is just a a misplaced nostalgia is over the last few weeks listening to the impeachment hearings which I listened to. I didn't watch. I listen to them while I was working and people complain about them. And you had to. The senators had to sit there and they couldn't say anything and they couldn't have their phones out and and I remember thinking. This is exactly the pace that I like like listening to like to listen to twelve hours of debate about something I mean but on the other hand actually didn't really get to the heart of the matter at some level rate like it was it was a lot of posturing was twelve hours of posturing every day but I still like the pace of it so much better than I got beef. I would be very willing to and you probably would. I'm sure to be willing to listen to Lamar Alexander. Give that explanation in a forty five minute speech. Who'S GONNA air that? I mean he could post it. But no one's going to really watch it if you try to watch it you'RE GONNA. I be directed to the five minute summation of it right. Like you can't even get to the impeachment hearings anymore. You only get shunted over to the Washington Post impeachment five minutes you know. It also find that with is the debates democratic debate so I had the experience of the last three debates sort of randomly have fallen on nights when. I'm on parenting duty with my son. And this is about to explain the ways in which parent but I had to cover them but identified on the media could wait till you went to sleep it so what I would do is have my air pods in on. It'd be taking care of him and and hearing the debate and that was a big difference from the way I would normally do. Which is like. I'm on slack with my colleagues sort of keeping an eye on twitter and I experienced the debates so differently not having this real time social social group feedback on it right instead of hearing. Everybody say that answer was terrible and you know so and so it looks bad and most of the time. I kinda come away from the debates now and I've started doing this normally to listen to them because they can everybody makes a lot of good points Except when Joe Biden's having a really bad night and it's a very different and it's a very different experience you process it differently. Yeah no I I I'm going to get back to my next question. Is taking his back to your book. But I remember watching the first of these decrees e seventeen person one and I don't I don't read the is like once in a while I'll check on like the New York. Times live feed and watch what Maggie Haberman saying or so but normally I don't and.
"jill lepore" Discussed on Impeachment, Explained
"I mean even the dixiecrats because they had one party rule the south. I mean there's this point and Robert Mickey's book. He talks about dixiecrats. Democrats having ninety five percent of all elected offices in the American south because he had that much rule there were reformers in the dixiecrats party. There were establishment members of the DIXIE Cup Party. There are liberal dixiecrats more conservative ones. I mean there's a pretty wide range of opinions so any cut you make is is going to be rough dummy bit about if you if you take what you're saying. We're seriously that you should understand the disenfranchised as a fifth political party or their own political party. How would that change the analysis so I guess just to respond to what you'd say? I do think your point about the nationalizing of our political culture is entirely on target. And I think it is a form of our political dysfunction. It's it's very hard to cut against his ear. Civilised of suggestions hints that. It's a difficult thing to to to struggle against. But I think that is a really important vantage for us to have an to notice that the richness of the parties in the range of possible positions within a party had reality in a flavor it's almost like the modernization of dialect rain. There used to be so much richer and wider varieties of regional dialect in the United States than there are now. We're not getting dialect back. I don't think we're getting local flavor in our political parties back anytime soon either but I think that what I'm suggesting is actually a significantly bigger challenge than slice it up differently or put people into different categories or notice that African Americans were drawn to the Republican Party before they were recruited into the Democratic Party. It's actually suggesting that the very measures of polarization that your book studies in summarizes so well and so I think makes it some quite obscure and some not altogether obscure political science research quantitative political science research available to people to really kinda reckon with and look carefully at one of the beautiful things about the book I think is that welcoming way and worship brings that scholarship to bear on with a sense of urgency for the ordinary reader. The basic premise of quantitative political science is that we will measure public opinion and we will count votes including roll-call votes on Kong in in Congress. And we will come up with a number for everything for congressional activity for presidential decision. Making we will come up with an index of why an index of Z. If we're talking about what I'm suggesting that fifteen percent of the population the millions of people who were held in bondage or denied the right to vote and I would include there through nineteen twenty women. The vast numbers of Americans who are unable to vote are not quantifiable so that the very lens is clouded. Like it's actually impossible to see the richness of this political culture that I'm describing with the measures that political scientists use and. That's the problem is not to say that quantitative political science isn't really important striking the important. There's all kinds of things we can measure. But just to think about for instance George Gallup when he started measuring public opinion using what we would refer to as modern scientific polling in nineteen thirty five. He's specifically never pulled African Americans because his opinion was well. None of them in the south can vote and there just aren't enough in the north to count and he was introducing. This is kind of similar to your media. Arguments is kind of an early nationalizing of the media story. He was a nationally syndicated columnist and when he tried asking. White Americans is the only people he pulled questions about civil rights. The southern newspapers threatened to drop his column so he just we just don't have actual data about how people thought about civil rights. How White People? We certainly don't know who and polling data for black people just didn't pull them to say. I think we have an incredibly clouded view of polarization across American history using the measures that you are necessarily forced to rely on your so I guess my question just a challenge you to think about if you did want to reckon with that if you did want I mean the place whereas you sometimes see people reckon with it is with the new deal and you talk about this as well right. The way that everything that Roosevelt is able to do domestically is determined by Jim Crow. He wants to get the new deal through. Therefore he can't push this south to come up with an anti lynching while he just has to compromise again and again and again on agenda in order to keep the south and the new deal becomes a kind of Jim Crow. Deal for those for those reasons. And so we if it if it makes it to congressional agenda setting then sometimes it. It rises to the level of visibility in the world of this kind of political science. But I think it's otherwise requires a different kind of looking at and so that's GonNa wondering like does your thesis hold if we have always had a raucous incredibly vicious identity based politics. We just didn't see until after nineteen sixty five. I think it does hold and in the place where I tried to deal with it in the book and at least my own thinking is that I spent a fair amount of time on the book in the book trying to disentangle the idea of polarization and conflict or polarization and extremism. And something that I am trying in. Maybe a crude way to push people to to see. Is that this period American political life where we're in theory deporres where the political science measured show low levels of conflict is actually one of the most conflict rich periods in American History I mean nineteen sixty eight on polarization measures is one of the least polarized years in American history and yet I mean nineteen sixty eight civil rights movement women's rights movement. I mean the number of deep fractures and frictions using in American life are really high. I have a section talking about all the political violence than the assassinations European riots Kent State Etcetera and so one of the arguments are making which I do think relates to this A bit at least is that. It's my view that a lot of that political conflict because of the way the political system was suppressing conflict. It was coming out in society and not in politics actually An argument I've heard people make and I don't know what to make of it. I find it. I find it provocative but I. I just don't know if it's true. Is that the high level of politicized conflict. We have now might in some ways. Be Helping. Keep the pressure off of things that People go on twitter and a scream at each other and they go on. Cable News. And there's a lot of way to act out your politics or see your fury being represented on television or see your fury being represented in politics such that. You don't always have to take to the streets but my fear about that. My fear about this period compared to that period compared to this period is on the one hand a lot of the suppression of political conflict is deeply unjust. I talk a lot about how deportation was built on an acceptance Fundamentally Jim Crow but that's suppression also meant that by the time if Congress decided to put something on the agenda it did it recognizing it could find a way forward on it and now it seems to me what we have is conflict amplification. Oftentimes the political system seems to take relatively low levels of social conflict or moderate level social conflict and amplify way beyond where they would otherwise be. I think here for instance of NFL players kneeling on the field during the national anthem. I mean that was a divisive issue that people arguing about but it got a lot worse when Donald Trump decided despite having no power over the NFL to start tweeting about and demanding they get fired and so something that I see. I wonder now is if we had that level of social division in this political system where the conflict gets amplified because between the two parties whether or not we would even survive it as a country. You know I was reading Letters to achieve Oh congressional subcommittee from nineteen sixty six recently. And they all read to me. Like crazy person tweets. But they were stored away deep in the archives of his congressional papers and no one. I don't think aside from the one. Staffers who that that letter and send a formal reply has ever seen them. Which leads me to ask you whether you've suggested that this amplification is a function of our political system. But isn't it rather a function of our media? Technology Technologies Communication. I think so I mean I. I've a chapter on this but I think that we polarization is set off a series of feedback loops in different institutions. And that from the way. The media's changing the way elections are changing to a governance changes that they are all accelerating polarization in their own ways. But the particular. When you bring up here feels right to me. I get annoyed with the idea that post truth. Politics are fake. News is something that Donald trump invented in the year. Twenty Sixteen Ozzy about the protocols of the elders resigned being published by Henry Ford in his paper in Michigan. And so we've had fake news for a long time. And it's not like the Birch Society folks were so nice not like the communist hunters were so liberal and open and tolerant but that was in many cases away in which the system had these gatekeepers and the gatekeepers operated both for better and for worse. Though for worse is that they ignore. The concerns of large communities of disenfranchised people the worst is that they often just didn't allow conflict needed happen to happen. The worst is that they were insular and couldn't hear new ideas but the better is that there are certain kinds of conflict. They tried to keep a lid on. And I think that just one thing that's true here and now is that players like that are just less able to keep a lid on conflict. Even if they want to. I mean the media has become I tell a story at some length in the book much more competitive a choice atmosphere and you sent me this piece. You actually used Marcus. Prior research too. Which is really fascinating where he show. Is that as you get cable and you get the Internet. What happens not to get more politically informed on average but we stay the same because what happens. Is that the people who are really into politics. Get a lot more political information and the people don't like politics are much more able to opt out of the political information system and so now if you're in the media and I think that we in the media refused to let ourselves be analyzed his Business and sometimes we are dealing with economic. Incentives introduced shape the way we think about our role even if we don't want them to but we are competing for more polarized audience and when we had these monopolies when you're one of three networks here the local newspaper monopoly or whatever and in doing that and not only competing for people who are very into politics and people are into politics eventually chosen aside but also distributing through them because of the primary modes of distribution. Now are for many of us not that. Somebody's subscribes to you. But somebody is sharing what you did and when somebody shares. It's usually because they want to say like they had a very strong reaction to it. Either positive or negative yeah. I think that we are a huge part of the polarization problem And it's something that to be honest as I started box and I mean the media even how a causes me a lot of agony. It is very hard for me to see a way to not be polarizing within a polarized system because the issues often are pausing I think about this Donald Trump. All the time. I'll get emails about the impeachment. Podcast I've been doing where people say you know. I really like the podcast I find. It has a lot of good his folks formation. But then they'll say I just I don't think it's fair. I think too hard on Republicans. You're too hard. Donald Trump and in my view saying how Donald Trump is acting or other public acting. Honestly it is polarizing because it is a problem and the more things polarizing the more polarized it is state them clearly and then the more porous things get because they go through the media transmission system and get put up on facebook and headlines turned up to eleven all the rest of it and I like I'll be dead honest. I think if you read that chapter correctly what you see is a problem as is true for much in the book that I don't know how to solve but in that particular respect it's a problem where I'm very much inside the system. I think I've seats incentives pretty. Clearly I think there are things we do to combat it but you know there are times when I can figure out a way to both be honest to not make it worse. Well I appreciate that but I do think maybe you're letting yourself a little bit too easily off the hook even though you're trying to take responsibility and I mean that with all due respect but you know you talk about Washington as polarized polarization machine people say Fox is a polarization machine. I mean the sort of the basic like ab headline.
"jill lepore" Discussed on Impeachment, Explained
"Hello impeachment explained listeners. Sorry the PODCAST is over. Wish impeachment itself had been somewhat less depressing dive into the underbelly of the American political system. But something said here quite often was that this was a show about impeachment. That was in truth. The show about polarization because impeach him became a lens on political polarization and the ways in which it is challenging and frustrating and reshaping the way our political system works over at my main podcast. Client show where I do interviews on all kinds of things I've been exploring polarization a little bit more directly a lot of you will know. I just read a book called Y. Were polarized and I've been having folks come on either as part of my life tour or just onto the show itself to talk about the book about polarization about what I get wrong about what we can see and understand in this moment by looking at the past and one of the episodes have done that I really loved was with Jill Lepore you may know Jill Portuguesa Harvard. Historian she wrote the amazing one volume history of the. Us called these truths she writes for The New Yorker. Of course she's a favorite Gusta mind from the past and she came on the show And did an interview with me. That really pulled no punches. It was very much about this question. Of what if this whole way of knowing things about American politics is wrong? What are social science itself cannot be trusted? Things a great exploration of both polarization as a question which you can see in that podcast and a lot of other ones. I've been doing over there but also that one was just a fun way of contesting different kinds of knowledge against each other. And I think if you enjoyed the show with its dual focus on political science and ways of understand particle structure but also history hearing me and the poor. Come at it from these very different angles. is I think illuminating People really like that one. I think you all will too so head over to the client show You can find it wherever you are finding this podcast. You can listen to my conversation. Jill Lepore with Tennessee coach Jim Buoy so many others. There's a lot of good stuff happening over there right now. And if you are missing your daily dose of this show. I think that one is going to fill that need so head over to the Cacho. Wherever you get your podcasts on your husband mean no I would actually I? The reason I do is I would like to know what you think is wrong about the book the the audience has heard me talk about how how great it is in my amazing like. Tell me what's wrong with that? Knows your take on these questions and it's a really important take but it's my job you know. I want to hear what's wrong. Welcome to the Ezra Klein show I'm your guest host Jill Lepore Ezra. Thanks for being with US tonight. I'm so thrilled to be on this show. I've always wanted to. I've always wanted to be on this show. We're thrilled to have you. We've been trying so long I mean you're scheduling joining thing. Yeah so congratulations on the book which I see everywhere so you know. I think it's the kind of Oakley could say well. It was perfectly timed and yet the timing of this suit has you could really look anytime since two thousand and four say. I think we can pick a date where this would have book appeared inopportune moment although the month of the impeachment of course are very particular. One I guess I WANNA start with the historical framework that you set up in the I say third of the book just all display my own prejudice as a historian interested chiefly in the historical dimensions of this problem. Which I know our our slightly less concerned you but you spend a lot of time in the beginning of the book trying to establish as you say on the very first page that something has changed. And by the time you get to page seventy you say. This is what has changed. Our political identities. Have become mega identities. So can you just walk through the nature of that change in how you understand the drivers of that change? Yeah so the way I think about. The interesting question to the book is called. Why were polarized? The interesting question is why was there appeared when we weren't because look. I'm I'm terrified talking about history with you because all of it much better than I do. But we've had very high levels and much more dangerous levels of polarization at other points in our history. We had a civil war in this country and so in mid twentieth century American politics which a lot of people understand as the golden age of American Politics. A lot of current political pundits baseline. How American politics should work. I mean I remember coming in Washington in the two thousand five's when I moved to Washington and it was still everything was operating in the mythology of you. Remember that time when Ronald Reagan and tip. O'neill had drink just fixed social security and that was the tail end of de Polarized period. So what was happening in that period and the answer that I found convincing talking to historians and political scientists was that in this era we had functionally a four-party system we had Republicans think that now liberal. Republicans don't think about them now but in particular we had Democrats again as we think about them now and then dixiecrats which were this tremendous blockage in the system and kept the parties from polarizing around and then around demography in the way they naturally would've otherwise. The DIXIE CRAP party was in many cases very conservative. Strom Thurmond was one of the most conservative members of the Senate when he was elected there as a Democrat and so as long as that was happening and I think this is something I have not done a good job emphasizing in interviews. But that was really different about. That era was the dynamic of how you handled political conflict in particular. It seems to me that when political conflict happens in a system where a lot of the divisions are inside parties it gets handled one or two ways one is. It can get handled to compromise. The different sides want to figure out something together. They WANNA find a way to move forward and so they find a way that they can all agree on. Its positive some negotiation. The other possibility often gets handled through suppression. Which for much of the early twentieth century is how. We handled a lot of issues of race. Dixiecrats were able using control of committees in the Filibuster to block anti lynching laws in Civil Rights Act laws and voting rights laws but so severe essay begins. It does not all of a sudden create but it begins a rupture of this alliance parties then sort by geology. It permits what wasn't permitted before. Which was that this racial dimension of politics with stopping the parties from going off in very divergent directions once that blockages taken away. And they do diverge that divergence interacts with our political system which needs high levels of bipartisan compromise. To function well in ways that create the situation we see around us now so when you refer to this era am I right in supposing that you're referring to say at nineteen thirty two to nineteen sixty eight yeah. I would even put probably a little bit past sixty eight. I still think you're seeing the end of that. System in the seventies. I mean even now when Joe Biden talks about getting to the Senate in I believe he was elected. If I'm not wrong in nineteen seventy two or nineteen seventy four somewhere right around there. When Joe Biden talks about being there and working with segregationists senators they were still many of them in the Democratic Party. I'm including some very very rigid racist. Senators like Eastland and so even though the Civil Rights Act had happened and you'd be gun seeing Republicans become competitive at the presidential level in the American south and some of these players have begun moving over Strom. Thurmond ran as a dixie crowd. At one point. Eventually become a Republican. It took time for that cohort to change this interacts. I think in an interesting way with the parts of the book the focus on identity because it shows how hard it is to actually shed and identity even after there is a very fundamental rupture around policy itself the most important policy priority for many of these southern Democrats. They still been Democrats all their lives. Their identity was still democrat. And it's really not until the ninety s the Republican Revolution. And what comes after that the you see the south become solidly Republican in an identity. Way As opposed to just becoming more of a swing part of the country so intrigued by what you say about essentially defacto for party system because of conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans in this era of the middle decades of the twentieth century. But I guess I wanna I wanNA challenge you there and suggests that another way to account for the change that you see is on your host. But I'm a mean I'm the reason why I do is I would like to know what you think is wrong about the book that the audience has heard me talk about how great how great it is amazing like. Tell me what's wrong with that? We know your take on these questions and it's a really important take but it's my job you know. I want to hear what's wrong so one of the things that I often think when people ask about polarization and they're talking about the two party system or in your case trying to divided again into a essentially defacto four-party system. Is that what they're failing to consider? Is that People who don't have the right to vote or unable to exercise the right to vote our political people who have party positions that is to say if you were to think. Broadly about American history from the ratification of the Constitution and the first congress in Seventeen Ninety two thousand nine hundred sixty five. You could very easily. I think argue that there is assuming from we're only talking about the two party system move. You'd even started in eighteen twenty eight so we can talk about Democrats and Republicans but there is a there is actually a shadow third party in the United States which are people are held in slave in state of slavery and then who subsequently they and their descendants are unable to exercise the right to vote in the Jim Crow. Sal who I guess. I challenge anyone to describe those people as something other than a political party in the sense that they have a shared political agenda and body of political interests. They are allies with one. Another their political objectivism anticipation or enfranchisement. After mets patient and that we have always had essentially a three party system until sixty five with the Voting Rights Act. When when those people are finally fully enfranchised putting big asterix next door current voter suppression schemes. And that what we see post sixty five or post sixty eight or post seventy two is just a messy -ness of an actually enfranchised third political party. Well that's an interesting way of putting that I mean I agree on a big level voicing I think something that this is getting at which is in my view the toughest part of all this literature and something that I'm trying to work through in the book but every political scientist what they tell me about this apart. They want to either agree with early. Debate with is a question. Between is the relationship between Michael like elite level party polarization and where the mass public is. And I think what you're keying on there and correctly so is that a lot of his book is about what is happening. Polarization elite institutions. As you say that there is this other coalition happening in the country during this period. But they're not enfranchised in Congress and so they're not you can't look at how they voted on this or bill and one of the stories. I try to tell as time goes on. Is How differences at that elite level polarization than sort the choices the mass public able to make which ends polarizing the mass public more. So I'm trying to build more connective tissue between some of the theories of elite polarization and some theories of mass polarization. But what you say. There is well taken something. That was really striking to me. And I didn't end up keeping much of it in the book but I just found it interesting that in that period in that mid century period we were not super sharply sorted by race in the parties themselves there are a lot of African. American Republicans are also African American Democrats Andrew Solve Interested Review. The book re said that he described saying that those democratic coalition mid-century that was good at representing both the interests of white Americans and Black Americans. I don't really think that was true. Actually that what you had was in different places. Parties at acted very differently in some ways. I think one of the other way to put it is that we might not have had something that should be understood as a party system at all right. Maybe there weren't for parties. Maybe there are eight. Maybe they're forty. I mean we were very regional. What it meant to be a Democrat in Virginia and Democrat in Missouri in a Democrat in New York. We're just really different. And so all political scientists at that time. And you've done work on these. Apps reports one of the things too they come out. They say that the problem is that we have these regional parties. That don't translate into national agendas so I think it is almost certainly true that when I cut this into a four party system. I think it's a useful way of thinking about Congress in its coalitions but it's very rough and almost certainly if you go fractionally on it you're gonNA find that could be understood as a partisan..
"jill lepore" Discussed on The Ezra Klein Show
"How do I do is I would like to know what you think is wrong about the book that my audience has heard me talk about? How great how great it is amazing like tell me what's wrong with that? Those does your questions and it's a really important take but it's my job you know. I want to hear what's wrong. Welcome to the editor Klein show. I'm your guest host Jill Lepore Ezra. Thanks for being with US tonight. I'm so thrilled to be on the show I've always wanted to. I've always wanted to be on this show. We're thrilled to have view. We've been trying so long you're joining thing. Yeah so congratulations on the book which I see everywhere so you know. I think it's the kind of book we could say. Well it was perfectly timed and yet the timing of this has you could really will anytime since two thousand and four say I think we could pick like a date where this would be book appeared in opportune moment. Although the month of the impeachment is of course are very particular. One I guess I want to start with the historical the framework that you set up in the I say third of the book. Just I'll display my own prejudice as a historian. I'm interested chiefly in the historical dimensions of this problem. which I know our are slightly less concerned? You you spend a lot of time in the beginning of the book trying to establish as you say on the very first page that something has changed and by the time you get to page seventy seventy you say this is what has changed. Our political identities. have become mega identities. So can you just walk us through the nature of that change in how you understand understand the drivers of that change. Yes so the way I think about. The interesting question of the book is called. Why were polarized and the interesting question is why was there appeared when we weren't because look look I'm terrified talking about history with you because all of it much better than I do? But we've had very high levels and much more dangerous levels of polarization at other points in our history. We had a civil war in this country and so in mid twentieth century American politics which a lot of people understand as the golden age of American politics a lot of certainly current political pundits baseline is line. American politics should work. I mean I remember coming in Washington in the two thousand five when I moved to Washington and it was still everything was operating in the mythology. The of you remember the time when Ronald Reagan and tip O'Neill had drink just fixed social security and that was the tail end of his de polarized period. So what was happening in that period and the answer that I found convincing talking to stories and political scientists. was that in this era. We had functionally a four-party system. We had Republicans as we think about them now. Liberal Republicans don't think about them now but in particular we had Democrats again as we think about them now and then dixiecrats which were this tremendous blockage in the the system and kept the parties from polarizing around ideology. And then around demography in the way they naturally would've otherwise. The DIXIE party was in many cases very conservative Strom Thurmond and one of the most conservative members of the Senate when he was elected as a Democrat and so as long as that was happening. And I think this is something I've not done a good job emphasizing in interviews but that one thing that's really different about that era was the dynamic of how you handled political conflict in particular. It seems to me that when political conflict happens in a system where a lot of the divisions are inside parties it gets handled one or two ways one is it can get handled to compromise. The different sides want to figure out something together. They WANNA find a way to move forward and so they they find a way that they can all agree on. It's a positive somebody Goshi action the other possibility often is handled through suppression. which for much of the early twentieth century is how we handled a lot of issues of race? Up dixiecrats rebel using controlled committees in the Filibuster to block anti lynching laws civil rights laws and voting rights laws. But so severe begins it does not all of a sudden create create but begins a rupture of this alliance in the party then sort by ideology it permits what wasn't permitted before. which was that this? Racial Dimension of Politics Hall Techs with stopping the parties from going off in very divergent directions once that blockage is taken away and they do diverge that divergence interacts with our political system which needs it's high levels of bipartisan compromise. To function well in ways that create the situation we see around us now so when you refer to this era am I right in supposing posing that you're referring to say at nineteen thirty to nineteen sixty eight yeah I would even put a probably a little bit past sixty eight. I still think you're seeing the end of that system in the seventies I mean even now wow when Joe Biden talks about getting to the Senate in I believe he was elected. If I'm not wrong in nineteen seventy two or nineteen seventy four somewhere right around there. When Joe Biden talks about being there and and working with segregationists senators? They were still many of them in the Democratic Party. I'm including very very rigid racist senators eastland and so even though this elected happened and you'd be gun seeing Republicans become competitive at the presidential level in the American south and some of these players have begun moving over Strom. Thurmond ran as a dixie crowd. At one point eight venture would become a Republican. It took time for that cohort to change this interact. I think in an interesting way with the parts of the book focused on identity because it shows knows how hard it is to actually shed and identity even after there was a very fundamental rupture around policy itself the most important policy priority for many of these southern Democrats crafts. They still been Democrats all their lives. Their identity was still democrat. And it's really not until the ninety s the Republican Revolution. And what comes after that the you see the south become solidly solidly Republican in an identity. Way As opposed to just becoming more of a swing part of the country so intrigued by what you say about essentially defacto four-party system because of conservative Democrats grads liberal Republicans in this era of the middle decades of the twentieth century. But I guess I wanna I wanNA challenge you there and suggests that another way to account for the change so you see is on your host. But I'm a mean I'm the reason why is I would like to know what you think is wrong about the book that the audience has heard me talk about how great how great it is in my amazing like tell what's wrong with that myself. Yeah your take on these questions and it's a really important take but it's my job you know. I want to hear what's wrong. So one of the things that I often think when people ask about polarization and they're talking about the two party system or in your case trying to divided added again into a essentially defacto four-party system. Is that what they're failing to consider. Is that People who don't have the right to vote or unable to exercise the right to vote our political people who have party positions that is to say if you were to think. Broadly about American history from the ratification of the Constitution and the first congress in Seventeen Ninety two thousand nine hundred sixty five. You could very easily. I think argue that there is assuming from we're only talking about the two party system. Ooh Ooh you'd even starting in eighteen twenty eight so we can talk about Democrats and Republicans but there is a there is actually a shadow third party in the United States which are people who are held in slave in state of slavery avery and then who subsequently they and their descendants are unable to exercise the right to vote in the Jim Crow. Sal who I guess. I challenge anyone to describe those people as as something other than a political party in the sense that they have a shared political agenda and body of political interests they are allies with one another their political objectivism commands patient or enfranchisement after mets patient. And that we have always had essentially a three party system until sixty sixty five with the voting rights act. When when those people are finally fully enfranchised putting big asterix next door current voter suppression MM SCHEMES END. That what we see post sixty five or posts sixty eight or post seventy two is just a messy of an actually enfranchised third political party. That's an interesting way of putting that I agree on a big level voicing I think something that this is getting at which is in my view the toughest part of all this literature and something that I'm trying. China work through in the book but every political scientist what they tell me about this apart they want to either agree with really debate with is a question. Between is the relationship between Michael Elite Level Party polarization and where the mass public office. And I think what you're seeing on there and correctly so is that a lot of this book is about what is happening in polarization in elite institutions. As you say that there is this other coalition happening in the country during this period but they're not enfranchised in Congress and so they're not you can't look at how they voted on this or that bill and one of the stories I try to tell as time goes on is how differences at that elite level polarization than sort the choices of the mass public able to make which ends up polarizing the mass public more. So I'm trying to build more connective tissue between some of the theories of elite polarization and some theories of mass polarization. But what you you say there is well taken something. That was really striking to me. And I didn't end up keeping much of it in the book but I just found it interesting. was that in that period. In that mid century period we were not super sharply sorted by race in the parties themselves there are a lot of African. American Republicans are also African American Democrats and yourself interested review. The bokhary said that he described it. as saying that those Democratic Coalition mid-century that was good at representing both the interests of white Americans and Black Americans. I don't really think that that was true. Actually that what you had was in different places. Parties had acted very differently in some ways. I think one of the other way to put it is that we might not have had something that should be understood understood as a party system at all right. Maybe there weren't for parties. Maybe they're eight. Maybe there are forty. I mean we were very regional. What it meant to be a Democrat in Virginia and a Democrat in Missouri in a Democrat in New York which is really different and so all the political scientists at that time? And you've done work on these apps reports and other things too they come out. They say that the problem is that we have these regional parties. That don't translate into national agendas so I think it is almost certainly true that when I cut this into a four-party system I think it's a useful way of thinking about Congress in its coalitions but it's very roth and almost certainly if you go fractionally on it you're gonNA find. That could be understood Mr at eight. Partisan I mean even the dixiecrats because they had one party rule the south. I mean there's this point in Robert Mickey's book. He talks about dixiecrats. Democrats having ninety five percent of all elected offices in the American south because he had that much rule..
Judge OKs limited release of Pentagon Papers case records
"A federal judge has okayed that the limited release of the Pentagon papers case records a federal judge has ruled the government must release some records on two grand jury investigations in Boston nearly fifty years ago into the leak of the Pentagon papers the ruling comes on a petition filed in twenty eighteen by Jill Lepore Harvard University professor and staff writer for new Yorkers in her ruling US district judge Alison burrows grants limited disclosure of grand jury materials but not the unfettered access stop by Lepore the Pentagon papers released by former government consultant Daniel Ellsberg to The New York Times The Washington Post and other newspapers on mass government deceived about the
Judge OKs limited release of Pentagon Papers case records
"A federal judge has ruled the government must release some records on two grand jury investigations in Boston nearly fifty years ago into the leak of the Pentagon papers the ruling comes on a petition filed in twenty eighteen by Jill Lepore Harvard University professor and staff writer for new Yorkers in her ruling US district judge Alison burrows grants limited disclosure of grand jury materials but not the unfettered access stop by Lepore the Pentagon papers released by former government consultant Daniel Ellsberg to The New York Times The Washington Post and other newspapers on mass government deceit about the Vietnam War hi Mike Crossey up
"jill lepore" Discussed on The New Yorker Radio Hour
"Rating has been worse so two things seem to be true from this evidence right that the number democracies the round the world has been dwindling and then in the case of the United States the United States has become. I'm significantly less democratic so we talked that off to Donald Trump. What are the factors that have made us dip? I guess I just think that stuff that's been going on with with the growing power of the presidency. As against the other branches of government goes pretty far back. I mean it certainly goes back to Nixon I that's for sure. Sure I can't see Hillary Clinton White House having turned that around and ceded power back to Congress for instance the increasing increasing politicization of the Supreme Court is is something that I mean I would date to to. Really Reagan's Justice Department. In Reagan's appointments I guess Conservatives would look at that differently but people would date that to the Warren Court say Those are things that are making our system of government not work as it was as it was designed and increasing income inequality which precedes trump. And it's only been exacerbated but it's it it's not it all on him I take I take your point completely. It just seems that since two thousand and sixteen in in rhetoric and action The individual has made a difference. I'm not saying he's the everything in the be on there weren't factors before and I will probably outlive him Absolutely I live in but I like. I put a chart on screen in a class that has income inequality polarization charted from nine hundred forty five to twenty sixteen and we get where we get based on changes that started nineteen sixty eight. So yes you could you could follow that chart from two thousand sixteen to twenty twenty and things stings look worse but it's a long term. It's those are long term trends your piece fairly yearns for calls for the modern equivalent somehow of town halls radio plays public forums kind of thing we were discussing before. How would you see that taking place in the world that you know of the University of of social media of the technology that we have available? Is it even possible. What would it look like? I am sure that it actually does take place. Jason all kinds of ways. I mean I spent a fair amount of time going to K.. Through twelve schools and meeting with kids and watching them debate stuff or argue over things. I think there's a lot more of that going on than we might perceive. I don't think you can really track going on on social media. Because it's just not conducive uses it's not conducive format to the kind of careful deliberative listening that you can imagine I think it actually goes on all the time in classrooms. I went to my city council to Council meetings this year and I was like all right amok she still working but you Kinda have to get into a room with people so I want to go back to your piece. You write about a series that ran in nineteen thirty seven in the new republic. Were editors asked each rider series of writers whether whether they thought political democracy was on the wane and you described the answer given by the Italian philosopher then Detto crunchy and Italy. That point was living under under fascism. So what did you say. He objected to the question. The way the way a good philosopher should And he just objected to the passive framing of the question. Because he's like his thing was all right. Politics and government is not like the weather like we don't just like you're asking me basically a meteorological a question like what's the weather look like. It's not the weather we this is actually control politics and government. So you don't ask people. What's the weather going to be like? You asked people people go out. And how are we going to go out and change the weather. What are you going to do? You don't just sit around like trying to decide. Do I need an umbrella today. Actually go out and change the weather. And that's That's what I think. People had a sense of needing to urgently do in the nineteen thirties. And I we do have a kind of different sensibility. On a we. Whatever and mcquarters I inhabit? There's there's a lot of political despair. It's fashionable political despair. It's almost like a fetish for political despair. Is it a reasonable political LEWISBURG seriously. No I don't actually think it is I really I really don't Because look before nineteen sixty sixty five we mean have voting rights in this country. Like what what is it. The what is the past that you think was so infinitely better than this moment. It's easy to take democracy for granted when things are going fairly well and when you watch democratic institutions being jeopardised and renew watch abuses of power and authority. It casts your attention and your concern into really stark light and those conversations that you have about what's going on our what actually restores the democracy. They are what rekindles those traditions is. What defends those institutions and what renews the democracy itself? Jill lepore thanks so much. Jill Lepore is a staff writer now throughout this election year. We're going to be considering the future of democracy from a range of perspectives and we've inaugurated a series appropriately called the future of democracy and we'll send you all the pieces in this series if you text the word democracy to the number seven. Oh one a one. Don't worry I tried. And it works. Text the word democracy two seven. Oh one a one. I'm David Remnant. Thanks for joining us today. And I hope you'll you'll tune into the New Yorker Radio Hour next time the New Yorker Radio Hour is a co production of WNYC studios and the New Yorker. Our theme music was composed performed by Merrill Garbis of tune yards with additional music by Alexis. Corrado this episode was produced by Alex. Barron Emily Boutin Ave correo. Corby Karen from Kala Leah David Cross now Caroline Luster Louis Mitchell. Michelle Moses and Stephen Valentino with with help from Morgan flannery Alison Macadam. Mum Fei Chen and Emily Man. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Tarinah Endowment Fund..