The Daily Stoic - Kermit Roosevelt III on Theodore Roosevelt And Cultural Movements (PT 2)

Episode Date: January 13, 2024

On this episode of the Daily Stoic Podcast, Ryan talks with American author, lawyer, and legal scholar Kermit Roosevelt III on Honoring and doing what is right, Why peoples values and sense of honor are collapsing, How many people know who Marcus Aurelius is because of Gladiator, and his book The Nation That Never Was.Kermit is an American author, lawyer, and legal scholar. He is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a great-great-grandson of United States President Theodore Roosevelt and a distant cousin of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt worked as a lawyer with Mayer Brown in Chicago from 2000 to 2002 before joining the Penn Law faculty in 2002. Roosevelt's areas of academic interest include conflicts of law and constitutional law. He has published in the Virginia Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Columbia Law Review, among others, and his articles have been cited twice by the United States Supreme Court and numerous times by state and lower federal courts.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail🏛 Check out the Daily Stoic Store for Stoic inspired products, signed books, and more.📱 Follow us: Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, FacebookSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to the weekend edition of the Daily Stoic. Each weekday we bring you a meditation inspired by the ancient Stoics, something to help you live up to those four Stoic virtues of courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom. And then here on the weekend we take a deeper dive into those same topics. We interview stoic philosophers, we explore at length how these stoic ideas can be applied to our actual lives and the challenging issues of our time. Here on the weekend when you have a little bit more space when things have slowed down be sure to take some time to think to go for a walk, to sit with your journal,

and most importantly, to prepare for what the week ahead may bring. Hey, it's Ryan. Welcome to another episode of the Daily Stoic Podcast. I don't know when you'll be listening to this. I'm in a little bit of a limbo myself as I'm recording it. Found out my in-laws have COVID last night. So it's still there and out there people. So I hope you're being careful as you're traveling for the holidays. But it's this opportunity to practice a little stoic practice, which is you have the exposure our travel plans, loom in the future. And it's out of my control whether it's going to affect things or not, whether the virus is in me right now or not.

All I can do is one, take precautions, not expose other people to it, and then not get in my own head about it. Try myself nuts about it, not let it cost me anything on top, which is, can I be productive in this time? Can I be happy in this time? Right? Can I just be present in this time and not ruminate or worry or bite my nails or something that's not in my control?

And that's why I'm recording this intro right now, which is part two of the episode I brought you earlier in the week. My interview with Kermit Roosevelt III. He has an awesome book that I will recommend, The Nation that Never Was. He's an expert on reconstruction. He's a legal scholar, and he has the great grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, distant cousin of Franklin Roosevelt, comes from one of the great American dynasties. And he's a fascinating guy.

We had a great conversation. I'm really glad he came all out all the way to the studio. And I think you're really gonna like this interview. We talk about one of my favorite heroes, one I stole a hero of mine, Data Roosevelt. We talk about a bunch of different topics. I think you're really gonna like this interview. And you can follow him on Twitter at krozevel93. And you can check him on Twitter at K Roosevelt 93. And you can check out the

nation that never was. And he's also got a number of not. He's got two novels in the shadow of the law, a novel, allegiance, a novel. And he's also got a book on judicial activism. He's a legal and constitutional scholar, a fascinating guy. I hope you listen. fascinating guy, I hope you listen. I remember very specifically, I rented an Airbnb in Santa Barbara. I was driving from San Francisco to Los Angeles. I just sold my first book and I've been working on it and I just needed a break, I needed to get away and I needed to have some quiet time to write.

And that was one of the first Airbnb's I ever started with. And then when the book came out and it, well, I bought my first house, I would rent that house out during South by Southwest and F1 and other events in Austin. Maybe you've been in a similar place. You've stayed in an Airbnb and you thought yourself, this actually seems pretty doable. Maybe my place could be an Airbnb. You could rent a spare bedroom, you could rent your whole place when you're away. Maybe you're planning a ski get away this winter or you're planning on going somewhere warmer while you're away, you can Airbnb your home and make some extra money towards the trip. Whether you use the extra money to cover some bills or for something a little more fun, your home could be worth more than

you think. Find out how much at Airbnb.ca-host. I'm F.W.H.R. I'm Peter Freikopad. And in our new podcast Legacy, we explore the lives of some of the biggest characters in history. This season, we delve into the life of Pablo Picasso. The ultimate giant of modern art, everyone has heard of or seen a Picasso work, or the Picasso brand on something. But a man with a complicated, difficult, personal side too too that makes us look at his art in a different way.

He was a genius and he was very problematic. Follow Legacy Now, wherever you get your podcasts. You can binge entire seasons of Legacy Add Free on Amazon Music, or by subscribing to Wondery Plus on Apple Podcasts, or the Wondry app. So what was growing up in that tradition like? Was it something talked about? Is it a set of values or stories that's passed down or is it just totally normal in the way that I don't really think of my

great, greatfather very much? I guess on the whole I would say it was pretty normal. We didn't talk about it in my family really. We did have a bunch of books about Theodore Roosevelt lying around probably more than the ordinary family did. And so I read those because I just read every book in the house when I was growing up. That's kind of a Roosevelt tradition. Yeah, I guess so. And then like, I don't know, my classmates teased me some. And when I was in fourth grade, they elected me president of the class because they were

like president Roosevelt. That makes sense. But then I like to think I did a good job anyway. Sure, sure. Yeah, I mean, one of my favorite quotes from Senna that he says, we can't choose our parents, but we can choose whose children we would like to be. And I like this idea that the sort of family

or born into is not something you control, but you decide whether you follow the tradition or not, or whether you seek out a new, what parts of your family tree are you going to choose to come from? Like even the Roosevelt family, right? There's the good side, and then there's also what the alcoholism side and the flandering side, and you know, like the racism side. I mean, there's, I guess there's a bunch of branches on that family tree. And you ultimately decide as an individual, which ones you're gonna come from.

Yeah. And, you know, I think you can find people that you like and want to emulate and want to learn from. And you can model yourself after them, even if they're not yes, biologically connected to you. Well, that was the Roman tradition that I didn't really understand much until later, but like a family that didn't have a male son would often adopt a Prominent man

Sometimes well into adulthood to sort of carry on the family tradition. So Seneca's brother for instance The reason that most people wouldn't identify him as a Seneca is Even though he's arguably more famous than Sukah is because he after he's adopted he changes his name to Gaiyo and he ends up in the Bible. Oh, I had no idea. Yeah, so he's adopt like that. That was a tradition of famous tradition. You would adopt people. And so there was this idea that you would sort of identify with or be associated with different groups or clans and sort of become part of it.

And so I do like that idea that people go, this person was my mentor and we assume that they mean, oh, they, you had a lot of direct conversations with that person. But I also feel like you could be mentored by or sort of in the tradition of someone that you never met. You've just read them and studied them very deeply. Yeah, I think absolutely. I mean, I would say that people have had very strong influences on me

without me ever meeting them. Yes. Just reading them a lot. Yeah. And the famous Stoic one similar to yours is Cato the younger is actually the great great grandson of Cato the elder. So that you think it's like a father in a son situation, but they're separated by a very long period of history so much so that when Stoicism comes to Rome from Greece,

Cato the Elder is like, wants to ban the philosophers altogether. He thinks like this philosophy is like rock music or some sort of like corrupting tradition. And then by the time his great, great grandson gets it, it's like the highest form of moral and civic excellence, like Taylor Swift. Yeah, that's exactly. So it's funny how that works out, but there was there's this tradition that they're following in, even though they would have disagreed severely on certain issues, he's still modeling himself after his great grandfather,

great grandfather, and then the subsequent Stoics sort of choose Kato as their grandfather. You know, Seneca says, you have to choose yourself a Kato, like who's your ancestor that you're trying to continue their example or not let them down or follow in their footsteps. I think we have to do that. Yeah.

I think theater Roosevelt did that. I think that I felt that way growing up to some extent because we did like we had a lot of old books lying around. Yeah. So I read a fair amount of history and sort of classics. And yeah, I was kind of always looking for role models. Was it, I mean, then you kind of, the family kind of seemed like it would go to the same schools.

I'm sure there are sort of traditions or like things that felt like they tied you to that That family lineage, right? Schools, yeah, like college definitely. Yeah, cuz you're like he went here. Yeah um And there's a moose that he shot on the wall here. Yes. At the freshman dining hall. Yeah.

Although, you know, I was also thinking it was very different back then. So he did go here like he walked along these streets, but it was a very different world also. Yeah, I'm sure Harvard cost like $40. Yes. And it was a very different institution also, right? Well, they really learned classics. That's true. And they boxed.

Yeah, they did a lot more boxing than I did. No boxing for you? No boxing. I did take some Krav Maga more recently with my son. That's a tradition to turn back. I feel like my sixth-year-old does Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Yeah. Krav Maga is probably the worst martial art to teach a young child. Why is that? Well, because it's about inflicting maximum damage in minimum time. So it's the worst

thing for them to like pull out in a playground scuffle. It's all like tiger claw, eye gouge, in a playground scuffle. It's all like tiger claw, eye gouge, you know, bite. My son jumped on me and did a Jitsu choke on me while I was in bed yesterday. And I was like, you don't even take Jitsu. You learn this from your brother and then you're like, which is a move he's not even supposed to be learning yet.

And somehow I'm getting choked out in my bed while I'm sleeping, what's going on? But yeah. Well, yes, so my son is 11 now, and it was great up until like six because I let him attack me. Yeah. And he couldn't hurt me,

and I felt like invulnerable. And then when he got to like eight, I was like, wait, that's starting to hurt. And now I have to be like, don't hit me, don't hit me. Yeah, it's funny. But again, that's, I think kind of an ancient tradition of the sort of brood of feral children all trained in martial arts of some kind. There's something lovely.

I got this from what I've read about the Theodore branch of the Roosevelt's that it was a very loud house. Yeah, absolutely. There's a lot of mischief and a lot of animals. And a lot of animals craziness. Animals in the White House. Yes. Horses in the elevator. Yeah.

And how have you thought about that tradition with your own kids? Like, I just like, I feel like, not that it matters, but most of us are just regular people, right? There's not a particularly well-known lineage to explain or, here's your grandpa, he worked at a factory, right? Like, your grandma was a school teacher, right?

There's not the more sort of historical story to go along with. How, how, how was that passed on to you? And then how have you thought about passing it on? Well, I just, again, like I mostly got it from books. You know, my, my parents didn't talk to me about it that much. But I did read a better and I was like, wow, that sounds cool. That sounds like a lot of fun playing point to point. Was it deliberate

you think that they didn't talk to you about it? Or like a reaction to how it had been talked? Honestly, yeah, I don't know. And then like I don't talk to my kids about it that much either. I'm mostly like let other people bring that up if they want to, don't you bring that up yourself. Yeah. But it does seem like, I don't know, it would have been a lot of fun to be a kid in that house and I sort of aspire to make my family life kind of like that. Yeah. Fun. A little crazy. Yeah, you would take them on these walks I've read. So they'd go on these long walks and he would try to like walk them through a Russian river

or over like a pile of rocks. It was about these, Deer-Roseau would do these kind of like nature walks, slash, you know, American Ninja Warrior practice, to make like tough, resilient, active kids. Yeah. Which I think is like the best way to do it. I mean, you can learn a lot of virtues, I think, through physical activity and physical challenge. Yes. And certainly not learn some things by not doing it. Like, or learn the wrong lessons by not experiencing challenges, or shying away from challenges, or having things come easily or without struggle.

Yeah. I think that the experience of struggling and achieving something is really great. The experience of struggling and failing, and realizing that that doesn't destroy you, is equally important. And I imagine in Deterotov's time with his family, with his parents, they were probably quite concerned about raising indolent spoiled fragile children

because didn't have to work, had immense resources. You know what I mean? Like, I mean, there's the famous story, right? Like he's asthma and he's sort of wea, and his father says he's your smart, but like you have a weak body and you got to make your body. And you can see the gym at the house, I'm was a 20th, first, 18th, 19th street.

Yeah. Like the, the strenuous life that the Adiroles Velocirv introduced you is a reaction deliberately. So I think from his parents to the comfort and the potential entitlement that could come from that comfort. Yeah. Which I think was exactly the right thing to do. Yeah. So you studied philosophy, right?

You were going to be a philosopher? Is that what you wanted to do? Well, I wanted to be a novelist, but I thought the teaching would be a good way to do that with a little bit more of security. Yeah. So I wanted to teach, and I was trying to decide between law school and graduate school and philosophy. And my parents basically talked me at a law school. Because it's more practical. Yeah, what they said was it's actually easier to get a law

teaching job than a philosophy teaching job, which is true. There are very few philosophy slots that open up. And if you do get a teaching job, you'll be working on things that matter to people, which at the time I didn't really care about as much, I was like, wow, but philosophy is so interesting. Yeah. And philosophy can actually transform people's lives, of course. But professional philosophers tend to write on topics

that are pretty narrow and inaccessible. So they were right about that. And then they also said, and if you don't get a teaching job, your law degree is worth something. Whereas your philosophy PhD is not going to do much for you if you're not teaching philosophy. So all of that made sense. And I went to law school. And I'm really happy with the way it worked out actually because now I do feel like I'm working on topics that matter and I'm trying to say things that could have some impact.

It's kind of an indictment of what philosophy is both academically and culturally though. You would say philosophy if you just want to live in a world of ideas, but you said to the law, if you want to participate in society, you want to make a difference, you want to help people, the Greeks or the Romans would have found that to be a strange state of affairs, I feel like. Right. Well, so I think what people would say about that is philosophy doesn't touch people's everyday lives, but you're always being affected by the law, right? And then the answer to that is, well, philosophy is touching your life. You just don't realize it. Yes. Because you haven't been sensitized to the role that philosophy plays. And I think actually Stanley Kovella Harvard philosopher wrote something very much like that in the claim of reason. But I don't think that it went

that far outside academic circles. Yeah. Is the thing, I mean, professional academic philosophy is kind of insular. Yeah, I mean, in the ancient world philosophy was about sort of practical questions and about how you lived. It was closer to a system of ethics and a kind of civic religion, and then as it becomes more abstract, theoretical, and academic, it becomes about these questions that feel like they don't pertain to everyday life, and it's true, a lot of them don't. But then it's sort of like, well, what is helping people answer those questions? Nothing. Do you know what I mean?

Yeah. Well, like, so I'm doing this series of books now on the Cardinal virtues. So, I did courage, courage is kind of straight down the middle. Everyone knows why courage is important. I did discipline. Everyone wishes they had more discipline. They understand what discipline does. And then, as I've started to write about justice,

you bump into this thing, which is, it's not just that justice to people feels like the legal system or politics, but it's almost like a, like if you'd call someone a social justice warrior, that's like an insult. Like what does that say about where we are as a society that we,

that justice not only feels kind of feels this one partial domain of life? Justice only comes into play when you commit a crime or break a law, or you get a letter from a lawyer as opposed to justice, and I think by extension philosophy as a whole, that it's this thing that pertains to all the decisions you make, what kind of car you drive, or how you treat people, what business you enter, right? Like, actually, it's supposed to help us with all these questions.

It's supposed to help us derive not just knowledge, but also values. Right. But how can we get a broader engagement with that? I'm trying. I'm trying. That's what I do. That is great. No, that's great. Yeah, no, it's good. I love what you do. Actually, like I hadn't known that much about it, but everyone I talked to was like, oh my god, the daily stoic, that's amazing. And I was like, wow, really? It's funny because that's certainly not like what the reaction from my publisher was when I was like, I want to do this book on stoicism. Yeah. They were like, but you write marketing books. Isn't that what you should keep doing? And it turns out that I think people are well aware that this is a part of society and

ourselves that is neglected. You know, like the sort of, the, the, the answers to the big questions as well as guidance in the practical matters, which I think is, that's the philosophy that I think get excited about. I mean, like, there are interesting questions that trolley problem and right, you know, how do we know we're not living in a computer simulation, but like philosophy also helps us with some slightly more practical matters, as well as just things like you're going to die. what does that mean? Yeah. Yeah, the philosophy that I was studying in college was not that practical.

Yeah. I think it was like philosophy of language, philosophy of mind. Yes. A lot of German names that are hard to pronounce. Bitcoin Stein. Yes. Yeah.

Freege. Yeah. And the R.E. brains and a VAT, which is basically the R.E. and a computer simulation. Yeah. Yeah. And what am I supposed to... Let's say you told me yes or no. What am I supposed to do with this information?

Right. How does that help me with anything? Right. I'm not sure that it does. It's interesting, but it kind of... Yeah, I guess, like, how many angels could fit on the head of a pen? Yeah. And I think maybe part of it also is that religion answers those questions

for a lot of people. And religion is, for the most part, done a pretty good job of selling itself as the answer to those questions. Yeah, religion's done a very good job of selling itself. It's stepped in and it filled the void. Well, also religion, I think, to go back to something that I was saying earlier, religion

fits into this agency detector slot that people have in their minds where you're like, there are these patterns in the world, something's causing it. It's a supernatural religious entity. So it sort of, it naturally appeals to people. How did we get here, someone, or something must have put us here? Right, yeah. Although there's something strange about how willing people are to accept that, they're like,

I must have come from somewhere, the answer is God, but then like where did God come from? Right. Well, God is the first cause, right? The unmoved mover. But why does that seem like an answer? I don't know. Yeah, Pete Holmes was the comedian at this joke and his most recent special about how

atheists and religious people essentially come to the same conclusion, which is the atheists are saying like we come from nothing and then a religious person saying that God is everything and also nothing and so same it's the same thing. Right. I don't know if that was interesting. But yeah, it is weird about philosophy. And it's just not, it's not maybe I actually have this, I've been working on this idea that I think a big part of it is that people used to learn Greek and Latin, right? Which I nobody taught me.

people used to learn Greek and Latin, right? Which I nobody taught me. And when they teach you Greek and Latin, one of the only ways to do that for most of human history was to have you read the people who wrote in Greek and Latin, which were the philosophers, right? So you're like when I learn Spanish, it's like Paul goes to his house, or you know, like I have pants. You know, it's like these not super interesting,

basic rudimentary ways of stringing a question again together. But the way Latin and Greek were taught were like, memorize this passage from Cicero, or here's an epigram from Ceneca, right? And so you're being forcibly introduced to some actually pretty intriguing or interesting ideas that are loaded with a lot of the bedrock assumptions of Western civilization, and that goes,

when that slowly goes away, there's sort of a void left behind. Yeah, you know, I only took two years of Latin. My Latin teacher did, in fact, give me little epigrams to translate as like extra credit exercises sometimes. And I remember, like, carry on and be strong, this pain will be useful to you. I actually used to repeat that to myself. And I mean, that's how like Julia Caesar

would have been taught, like, you know, like, that's a pretty ancient, not particularly innovative, but continuous tradition that went for on for like 2000 plus years, that just kind of disappeared sometime in like what the mid 20th century permanently? Yeah, people still take Greek and not, they still have a very

black day at my kid's school. But but but very small minority. Yeah, it's definitely shrunk. Like I mean, when you see these like Latin expressions on the you know, classical buildings and stuff here, like in America, they would have expected that people could read those or know what was happening. Or even I always think it's interesting later reading some like Penguin Classics thing. And they'll just be like untranslated chunks of some poem in Greek or Latin and, you know, montaigne is assuming that you wreck, not only that you can translate this, but that you recognize its Virgil. Yeah.

Like, and not only do we not recognize the language, but we definitely don't recognize what work is from because we weren't taught at that same way. Yeah. But if you quote's car face, maybe a teenager would recognize it. Well, maybe, but I mean, now I think less and less like it used to be, at least people would know Shakespeare. Sure. And now it's all stem. You know, now we don't have English majors anymore.

Yeah. Which I think is a real loss. Hey, Sasquatch here, you know, I get a lot of attention wherever I go. And a lot of judgment. So when I need a judgment for your zone, I go to Planet Fitness. They have equipment for every workout and helpful staff. But best of all, no one asks me about my feet. Get started at Planet Fitness for $0.24 and then $15 a month, plus a $49 annual fee.

Now through January 19th. Hi, I'm Anna and I'm Emily. We're the hosts of Wondery's podcast, Terribly Famous, a show where we bring you outrageous true stories about our most famous celebrities. Our later season is all about the Catwalk Queen Naomi Campbell. The years Naomi had to fight to be treated barely in an industry that was overwhelmingly white. That drive saw her break down barriers and reached the pinnacle of high fashion, but it also got her into some dangerous situations when it spilled over into an anger she couldn't control.

In our new season, Naomi Campbell's model behavior we tell the story of how a young girl from South London became a trailblazing black icon but had some very public falls of how she stood up to the British tabloid and won and then lense she had to go to to be the first black woman in history to make the cover a French frog. But she risks losing it all when her explosive behaviour lands her in court. Follow Terabie Famers wherever you listen to podcasts,

or listen early and add free on Wondry Thus on Apple Podcasts or the Wondry app. Hey, it's Guy Ross here, the host of How I Built This. It's a podcast that gives you a front row seat to how the greatest businesses were built, and the innovators, entrepreneurs, and idealists behind them. Every week I speak to someone new, like Max Levchin, a computer genius who built PayPal into a successful business against all odds with future visionaries like Elon Musk and Peter Teal, or Emmett Sheer, a gamer who turned a 24-7 livestream

of his friend into the billion dollar gaming platform, Twitch, and all of these great conversations can help you learn how to think big and take risks and navigate crises in life and work from people who've done all of that and more. Follow how I built this on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to how I built this early and add free right now on Wondery Plus. I was talking to my wife about that, you know, like Taylor Swift is the biggest thing in the world, right? But that that's how society is supposed to be, like in the sense that there's supposed

to be forms of art or artists or plays or works that everyone knows, right? And that that's where culture is derived from is the ability to make the like Lincoln, he'd made quote sometimes, but like you look at his addresses and huge chunks of them are illusions riffing on the Bible, classical works, but these are unattributed illusions. You know, the mystic chords of memory or better angels of our nature, judge not less, do you be judge? People are no, people know what he's doing there because they're all sharing this common culture. It's not that we should have some sort of forced common culture, but it's the, I guess what I'm saying is that it is not even an academic or a school criticism.

It's that as culture has fragmented because there's an unlimited amount of options, even the stuff that's really popular, is capturing only a small percentage of the population at any given time. and so you don't have the ability to create reference points or elude to ideas that everyone intuitively gets. Yeah, exactly. So I teach a creative writing seminar at the law school. Yeah. And very often I'm trying to talk about a particular technique, like you know, where you build up this backstory and then you reveal that this backstory was

actually a lie, and there's this underlying world. And so I try to give an example of that, and it's so hard to find something that everyone in the class knows. Like, I can get like three people with star wars. Yes. And I can get four other people with twilight

or something like that. But there just isn't this common set of works that we can refer to and sort of build on in our discussions. Right. Yeah, like I've been telling this story, but one of my sons got very into his gotten into Greek mythology. So he's like, he was like the Odyssey. And there's something remarkable about the fact that I could tell the story of the Odyssey basically from memory having learned it, but that is a very old, I mean, for thousands of years, that's true, but you could count on your hand, you know, the other works that you could do

that for where everyone knows, right? And that everyone has been doing it generation after generation, and it compounds and compounds, and compounds, the more people know and reference the same stuff. Harry Potter is maybe one of the recent additions to the children's canon. And it's not the same level. And it's not the same level, right? But the idea of having these cultural reference points that everyone knows. And I think about it, how many people know about the stillyx, or when I talk about Mark's Lewis, they just know that because of the movie gladiator

was famous 20 years ago. And then I remember I was talking to this guy's a football player and he goes, hey, I love this stuff in the Stokes. Like, are there any movies about the Stokes? And I go, well, there is this movie gladiator. And he was like, oh, I have to check that out. And I go, what do you mean? And then I realized it came out when he was one years old.

Right. Yeah. No, with my students, part of it is that I'm just aging out of their demographics. Yes. But also, they don't seem to share it with each other. So it's not like there's something that they all know that I don't. Yes. They just don't have anything in common. Right.

Except Taylor Swift. Yes. Well, I'm a Swiftie too. Like everyone, yeah, everyone loves Taylor Swift. But there's something magical about that. Like there's something magical about 60,000 people attending the same thing right and Yeah, the one tour being the thing that everyone's talking about and the You know like and the movie that you can all say because like this is part of the problem that we have politically

Yes, I think that everyone is getting different information from different information sources Well one argument I heard that I thought was interesting is understanding Trump has a phenomenon like that. So there aren't many mass cultural events anymore. Taylor Swift being a good example of a recent one, but like, or the Barbie movie being a recent one. But again, these are like exceptions approved, the rule, right? But like, Trump is a national slash international phenomenon that people are liking the community.

Like put aside the repugnant public abilities, going to a rally with 50,000 people. What other rallies have 50,000 people? Like it's not a put aside politics. There's not even like big revival movements. Like you think about the great awakening in the Americanish, there were these events where things like that happen where people go do these things.

You know, you look at baseball stadiums when the games are televised and there's like 10,000 people in a 40,000 seat stadium, like even these past times are not what they were. So they're not shared, right? Like, these past times are not what they were. So they're not shared, right? Like, you know, I read someone like the single best time to have a heart attack in New York City was well, the finale of Seinfeld was being aired because no traffic. Yeah. But like no other show since has wrapped up in such a big way. Matthew Perry died. There's not, there's not gonna be actors like that anymore

in the sense of a show where a regular episode is being watched by tens of millions of people. So you lack the ability to create or draw on shared frames of reference because you don't have a mass culture. So Trump is a forum, is one of the few mass cultural events. Like that's why I think that's why people have the flags. Even like you think like I was talking to someone how, yeah, when did flags become a form of political expression again? Right? Like it's strange. But then

you realize, oh no, that's a way of saying like, I belong to this group. Even though that group is repugnant in my view, people are saying like, I wanna be a part of something and they know that you know what the flag means. Well, yeah, do you mean the Trump flags or the American flag? I mean, the Trump flag.

But yeah, the Trump flag is terrible. That's like the most unamerican thing imaginable. It's like putting a person's name on the flag is we're not supposed to be loyal to people. But have you also noticed that as they made the Confederate flag more and more sort of politically incorrect, some of those same people just put the regular flag now, the regular flag.

Yeah, but with the same kind of medicine intent, that's on. Well, I mean, one of the things that saddens me so much is the changing meaning of the American flag. And so to some extent, people were doing this with the Betsy Ross flag. And I'm like, you know, legitimately, I have some reservations about the Betsy Ross flag, right? 13 stars in a circle, every star represents a slave state.

That's the first flag of the Confederacy too. It looks almost the same. But the idea that the American flag is like a divisive flag for Americans is very sad to me. But like that's how it's being used. It's like this. Like I live out in the country, my neighbor has this big ass truck,

and on the weekends, he puts an American flag and a special flag holder in the back, sometimes a Trump flag, and it just drives around with it. And you're like, what is that? What is he trying to, what's going on there, right? Like, what is that, what is it doing for him? And it's, it's the longing to something, but it's, it's about drawing on and expressing oneself through a symbol.

Symbols are very, very powerful. I think the quote unquote, good guys don't have that many symbols and aren't very adept at speaking through and creating symbols. Yeah, well, we need a better flag. What? So, well, I'm trying to think of a flag that would be inclusive rather than divisive and threatening because I think like a lot of people, I feel sort of like the really a sort of American flag waving people, I find that kind of menacing, because it's aggressive.

It's like why it's being that. We're the in-group and you're the out-group. Right. Yeah. Yeah. And then people don't want the pride flag. Right. Exactly.

So then there's the pride flag and then the pride flag gets you attacked. Yeah. But I think symbols are, I think, Tito Roosevelt was good at understanding symbols, right? Or finding things that bind people together, national parks being a good example, right? Like finding the ability to... Yeah, the national park saw the perfect example, because that's inclusive. The whole idea there is this is something that is for everyone. This is something that we have in common.

Except for the Native Americans that I was still in from. But... Yeah. A lot of times, like, I think I've come up with some great story about America and then people are like, and what about the Native Americans? And I'm like, yeah, that was bad. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you guys, I thought that a little bit during, um, during the Maui wildfires, you know? People are obviously the native people there sort of upset with what's happening in the

talking about. And then people hear sort of repeating what they're saying. And it's like, you know what happened there isn't that different than what happened here too. It was just slightly more recent. Right. Like, so it's, yeah, the more you dig into it, so you know that, you know this idea of negative capability, Keats talks about it, Fitzgerald talks about it,

basically it's the ability to hold contradictory ideas and be right at the same time. Yeah. You can't understand, you can't survive, slash understand, slash be good in American life without the ability to hold these wildly contradictory notions in your head. Like you're talking about stories in your book,

you really have to be able to understand multiple simultaneous stories because different people were having very different experiences and different things meant different things to different people. Yeah. And I think it's easier a lot of times just to forget. Yeah. Some of them.

And we just, we suppress them. And then certain people's thought of certain people's viewpoint is we can't talk about these things and by you repeatedly bringing them up, you're making things hard on me or them or whatever so stop. Like, let's just all agree on a simple unpleasant version of the story and then ignore the other stuff. Right. Well, it is hard on them. I mean, I think it's hard to try to hold these contradictory ideas in your mind because there is a sort of natural tendency

to try to make things coherent. Yeah. And have a worldview that makes sense. And so you kind of squeeze out the inconvenient splinter, even if it's a splinter of truth. Yeah, cognitive dissonance is the thing we're always fighting always. Yeah. And yeah, it's tough.

It's really tough. But you have to sort of swim against that tide. Like I heard someone say once like, if it's pleasant, it's probably not history. Like if the narrative is reassuring or clarifying to you, you're probably not anywhere near history, you're somewhere in the realm of propaganda or fiction or story. Yeah, I think that's true. I mean, on the other hand, I think that stories are very valuable and helpful, you know, even though they're not completely true and they do have an ideological angle. Well, because if you don't have them, what do you have? Right, this is what brings us together.

Yeah. And the stories teach you virtue. Mm-hmm. You know, we have these ideas about what it means to be a good American. Or a good person. Or a good person. Yeah, there's the line from one of Roosevelt's early biographers. He said, he grew up reading about great men and decided to be just like them. And a child needs that. I mean, people need that. A country needs that, a team needs that.

Like if you don't have the sense of what you're aspiring to be, what do you have? You have sort of cynicism and nihilism, you've nothing. And so you need these stories to inspire you to show you what's possible, to measure yourself against. The problem is, if you're intellectually honest or of any kind of self-awareness, the kind of the closer you get to the story,

the more you explore them, the crumble a little bit, they show themselves to be more complicated, right? Deer Roosevelt himself being a great example. If you just look at him as the Strenuous Life Great American President, you know, there's a lot to like, but then you kind of dig in more The right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right,

the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the right, the know, we can learn from his mistakes too. We can learn from his weaknesses. Because it shows us that no one's perfect.

And that people have particular kinds of blind spots and sometimes their strengths turn into weaknesses in some ways. And all of that I think is good perspective. I mean, it does complicate it. You don't necessarily want that all at once. I think maybe your first exposure to theater rose boat when your child could be like the teddy bear story.

Yes. That's a good one. Yeah, I mean, even he's hunting with Leroy Percy, who's, you know, in a found segregationist and also, yeah, they're just hunting a bear, you know, which was quickly thereafter hunted nearly to extinction. So even just like your poker around in that story, it's a little strange. Oh yeah, no. So if you poke around in that story, it turns out to be not very accurate the way that it's traditionally told, because he did refuse to shoot the bear,

but then they killed the bear anyway and they ate it somebody else He just yeah, it's just the kind of shoot out. I'm not personally going to do it. Yeah I won't get my hands dirty, but I will eat it You know, I'm not the kind of person who would do that then yes, but someone else can yes I do parkour with my kids really yes my coach Patrick My coach Patrick is a fan of his podcast. That's so cool Yeah, and we started out and we were at this gym and they're like the first thing we teach you is how to fail I was like that's really good learn how to fail safely, right? And then you fail safely. You build on that You can succeed. Yeah

Like the first thing you do before you try to actually land the move is you think about I'm going to do this. I'm not going to make it what happens next and then how can I do that safely? And Parkour, I mean, the thing that impresses me the most about it is it always shows me that I'm capable of more than I thought. So usually like each class, there's something that we're building up to. And you know, you practice the different components and then you try to put them all together and it's a lot harder to put it all together than do them individually.

But I almost always end up doing things where at the beginning of the class, I was like, there's no way I can do that. It's also an interesting hobby or sport, I guess, in the sense that, I mean, it's you against yourself or it's it's it's you against your physical limitations but primarily you against your sense of what your against you against your fears. It's primarily mental. Yeah. So I'm more scared than I need to be is the thing that I learned from a lot of it and the muscle occasionally I've heard myself But never that badly but building the muscle of being able to do something that you're afraid to do is pretty. Yeah, yeah. I think it's really useful. And also it feels incredible. You're like, wow, I didn't believe I could do that, but then I did.

Well, that's the letter I was telling you about. When I was so struck by it, I wrote about it in my courage book, is basically he thinks he's going to, he wants to meet Booker T. Washington. The hero is going to meet Booker T. Washington. And he's like, oh, I'm going to the White House. And, and for this split second, he thinks about what a shit storm is going to result from, from doing that. And, and then he decides to do it because of that feeling.

And that can't be the first time that he did that, right? That's a must-see. Like the first time you do that is not when you are president, touching the third rail of American politics at that time, which is race, right? You, that is the hunting trips and the boxing and the explorations and the mountain climbing and the publishing, you know, his whole life was leading up to doing, as Emerson said, do the thing you're afraid to do.

Yeah. You have to build that's a muscle. Yeah, totally. And cultivating it, doing parkour, helps you when you're going to run a novel, which could feel like, I don't know about you, but when you put some artistic thing out in the world, there's that, is this cringe? Is this weird? Yeah, scary, oh, you know? You know, people are gonna laugh at me? Yeah, and like when you're writing,

there are different choices you can make, and there's like the riskier one and the safer one. Yeah, and the one that sounds like everything else. Yeah, yeah. And sometimes you do wonder if your vampire novel is gonna make you look ridiculous. Yes. And I tell people about it, and I sort of laugh,

but I'm really gonna do it. Well, one of the things I do is I don't tell people about creating things I'm considering, because like, when I tell you about the book idea that I have, it's obviously not the best explanation of that idea because I haven't done it yet, right? Like at the end, I can tell you exactly what the book is, but as it's, you know, still a thing I'm figuring out,

by definition, I'm not gonna give a great explanation, right? It's like, you can give the elevator pitch for Google after it's Google, easier than you can when you're thinking about what Google is gonna be. And so I would find that as I would tell people, I am thinking about quitting my job to write a book. Oh really, what's the book about?

There's no explanation I can give you of the book that's gonna make you tell me that it sounds like I should definitely do that, right? You're gonna be like, oh good for you, I hope it works out. And I'm gonna pick up on your skepticism. And it's going to make me self conscious. So I basically don't tell people about stuff I'm working on until I'm basically done. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. And actually, like, that's usually what I do. Yeah.

It's been so long with the vampire novel. I kind of plotted it out mostly that I was telling people about it. But usually, yeah, I find that like the feedback I get when I'm in the early stages of a product, a project tends to make me less confident about it. So I might kind of float the, I might float it around, but not tell you or, you know, like I might talk about the ideas, but not be like, I've become and write a book about it.

But the awkwardness of the half-baked idea, a lot of things can get killed there, and you've got to have good people around you who are not that spouses can be great at this, right? Yeah. That sounds amazing. You know, it didn't, but they told you that because you needed to hear that. You know what I mean? I guess that's another tradition you've continued, the sort of writer-scolar lawyer. Yeah, well, I always wanted to write fiction. And then I got sort of more interested in nonfiction and politics and social issues. Just sort of through the practice of teaching constitutional law, I guess, because it made me pay more attention to what was going on. And then I thought in order to understand what's going on now, I need to understand where

it came from. So I started trying to learn more history. But I love writing. I mean, I love pretty much every aspect of my job. Yeah. I sort of go back and forth between whether the writing is my favorite or the teaching is my favorite, but it's really sort of whatever I'm doing at the time. And you've done what three books? You've done two novels, one nonfiction?

And also there's a book called The Myth of Judicial Activism, which is about Supreme Court decisions, sort of trying to decide whether the Supreme Court is abusing its power. trying to decide whether the Supreme Court is abusing its power. So I wrote that in 2005, back when the criticisms of the Court were coming from the right, and people were like this liberal activist court is doing these terrible things. And so I tried to come up with a perspective that would let you say something about whether the court was behaving appropriately, sort of what we want a Supreme Court in a constitutional democracy to do. And so then like the test for that is now that the criticisms of the court are coming more from the left does what I said still makes sense. And I think it

does. I mean, I think it works out pretty well. Because my basic idea there was the court is one actor in our system of constitutional democracy and other people are supposed to interpret the Constitution to and sometimes maybe what they think is worthy of respect from the court. So other institutional actors like Congress can decide whether what they're doing is necessary to protect interstate commerce better than the court can, probably. And often they can decide whether some group of people is being treated appropriately or not better than the court can, because it's just nine people in Washington who are often out of touch. So there are some constitutional issues where it makes sense to defer to representatives, legislatures, and so on. And then there's somewhere at Dussand, and you can sort of look at what's been going on historically, and how good different institutional actors are at making certain kinds of decisions.

And whether there are, like, defects in the political process that would make you not trust what's going on, depending on who wins and who loses with a particular law or something. And it all kind of works pretty well, I think, to figure out when the court should be asserting itself and stepping up and saying, we're gonna decide this and when they should be holding back and saying, we're gonna leave this to ordinary politics. Welcome to the happiest place on Earth, where you're a new kind of happiest every time you visit, only at the Disneyland Resort in California.

Visit Disneyland.ca for important details subject to availability and change without notice parking mission and reservation required for park entry. Everyone leaves a legacy. For some, the shadow falls across decades, even centuries. But it also changes. Judgment to revised, summer redeemed, others are torn down. From Wundery and Gollhanger podcasts, I'm Afwaharj. I'm Peter Frankapan.

And this is Legacy. Exploring the lives of the biggest characters in history and asking whether they have the reputations they deserve. Follow Legacy now wherever you get your podcasts. ever you get your podcasts. We were talking earlier about this idea of duty, like, this is my role, this is my job, I'm going to do that job come hell and high water. I think one of the things we're missing, there's a great pair of please quote, where he goes like, a person can't abdicate their responsibility or their engagement without forcing the engagement

upon someone else, right? And I feel like a good chunk of the American problem, but maybe you could argue this sort of globally is that when people who are in positions of leadership or something falls in their realm of responsibility, when they don't step up and do that job, it just defers it onto someone else. So the court has been forced to adjudicate

a whole bunch of issues and also not adjudicate, because that is their job. The court has been forced to decide a bunch of major political questions in the absence of a functioning Congress, right? Like, yeah, or a functioning legislative branch. And because people aren't in the same way that the president is getting stuck with the responsibility for what's happening at the border, as

although that's not a legislative issue, right? So, or the border agencies are being forced to deal with what's happening at the border because they're not giving good instructions from both the court and the president and Congress. So, when one society or one institution doesn't do their job, it forces that pressure finds a different way to go. And that pressure is often not just that that pressure breaks the institution that it's being redirected towards because it's not made for that pressure.

Yeah, institutions not made to do. Yes. Right. So the, you know, the institution's not made to do. Yes. Right. So, the president is not supposed to be making laws. Yes. But when Congress doesn't act, the president does what he can through executive orders. Yes. And yeah, like same thing with the Supreme Court, I think. One of the things that people have complained about with some Supreme Court decisions is, oh, it looks like legislation.

Yes. Because you're setting out this detailed code. That was one of the things that people objected to with Roby Wade. And it's true. You know, if Congress did more or if the political branches resolved conflict better, maybe we wouldn't be punting so many things to the court. Yeah. Like, I think it's funny. You have these certain congressmen and senators who are mad about woke businesses. Like, why are these businesses getting political? And it's like, to me, it's very obvious.

It's because those businesses, which are made up of people, feel like the government is not being responsive to the problems that they have brought to their attention. That actually, there's a broad consensus around a number of pressing issues, right? But because of our sort of janky system, you don't actually get any satisfying legislative or governmental solutions to those problems. So people go, if I can't get my

Congress person, like this is one of the most gerrymandered districts in the entire country right here, right? And so because I have no hope of reaching my congressman about anything, I might talk to my book publisher about something or my boss about something, right? I might, where I have leverage as a person, I'm gonna try to use that leverage because everyone wants the world to be the way that they think it should be, or let's just be more generous.

Everyone wants the world to be better. If they cannot it should be, or let's just be more generous, everyone wants the world to be better. If they cannot bring about political change through the system as it's intended to go, they go, I'm an employee at Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, you're my boss, I'm going to quit if you don't do something about it. Right? And so it creates, it's directing that pressure into institutions that are not designed for that pressure and are not particularly able to express political viewpoints very effectively. And so it's by someone not doing their job, which is politicians, other people are doing double or triple duty, or stepping into things that are like because we had such a woeful pandemic response, social networking companies found

themselves having to make public health decisions. And now we're mad at them for making these public health decisions. Like they were under a lot of pressure from customers, from employees, you know, and ironically from government, from employees, you know, and ironically from government, as if government didn't have their own solutions to this problem. Yeah, I mean, sometimes I think it's not so bad. You see this was climate change,

where, you know, if you can't get the action that you want from the government, maybe you can pressure businesses into doing the right thing. So sometimes it works. But when people are like, why are these companies being so political? It's because politics isn't working. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I do think our political system

Congress in particular is broken. Yes. Well, why do we have the same number of representatives that we've had for so long? We should definitely have more representatives. Yeah. We should have more representatives. Yeah. We should have more states. Of course.

We should have small blue states so that Senate Malaportionment doesn't have a partisan tilt. Because it really shouldn't have a partisan tilt. That's the problem. We should have Ranked Choice Voting. Final five voting would be a great idea. So this idea is you have an open primary. And then the top five vote

voters go on to the general election and you have ranked choice voting with instant runoffs. Yeah. Because one of the reasons, I think maybe like the main reason that the political system works so badly is it's basically primary voters who determine the outcome because you've got all of these safe districts. And the people who vote in the primary are the most intense partisans and very often they're motivated by negative partisanship, which is they just think the other side is the enemy and wants to destroy me. So they elect this person. And then if that person is like, I'm going to reach across the aisle and work with the other party, they're like, you're a trader. And they get rid of them. Sure. So obviously like you're electing people.

And then you're punishing them for actually doing something. Right. So you end up with this negative polarization in the government too, where people are really afraid to work with the other side. Well, I think if you asked someone like Peter Roosevelt, obviously he had his imperial streak. So he would have thought this for slightly different reasons. But I bet he would have been surprised

at how little growth there has been in some of these institutions. In the sense that there are only marginally more states than when he was president, right? That there haven't been some of those changes or. I think the idea was never that you get to a point and then you cease to grow and then everyone just fights over the same number of seats or like a dynamic system is growing and expanding and changing.

And so yeah, right. Otherwise you get bogged down in some form of kind of trench warfare, where it's only with really big mistakes or really big buildups that you get kind of a breakthrough. But yeah, if Puerto Rico was a state, it would force both conservatives and Democrats to adjust Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico would be an interesting state, of course, because it would be kind of up in the air. Yes. District Columbia. That would also be an interesting state. Of course, because it would be kind of up in the air. Yes. District Columbia.

That would also be a good state. Yes. I think. I mean, that would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic.

That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic.

That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. That would force a dynamic. and only something like COVID shaking things a little bit, right? You would be having new changes that are happening all the time. I'm not saying you should be capturing Pacific islands and making them into states, right? But like if California was suddenly four states. Yes. If we've got two decodas, we should have four Californias. Yes. I usually say three, but I go for four or two. Yeah.

And we should have a national popular vote, because that makes California matter, right? There's three million Republican votes in California, and they count for nothing, with the Electro College and the Winter Take All system. And no one cares about California. It's all about Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina. But if you have a national popular vote system, then every vote actually matters.

And if you change someone's mind, that helps you, even if it's in New York or Texas or California. Right. You don't get the obsessive focus on changing people's minds in Pennsylvania. Yeah, it's like I grew up in California. I live in Texas. In both states, my vote doesn't matter. Yeah. Because they're just, it's already decided. Right. It's effectively already decided. Yeah. And the vote of someone

in Wyoming counts like three times as much as yours. Yeah. Which is an offense against our basic principle of political equality. I mean, if there is a founding American principle, I mean, there are a couple probably. One, I said before, is loyalty not to a person, but to an idea, loyalty to the Constitution, which is why the Trump flag is so bad. But political equality of citizens. Yeah.

So at the founding, they're very big on this idea. There's no kings, there's no aristocracy. There are no superior insiders, they're okay with the inferior outsiders, which is the enslaved people. But there is this idea that Americans, no American is better than any other American. And it's just wrong for some Americans votes to count more, because that's basically an aristocracy. So right now we've got like this rural low population aristocracy. And you get minority rule from that.

But do you think also the meta sort of lesson of America or a meta-story of America is also that change is possible? So America founded by change, right? It's like break off. And then you have this revolution. You have this new system of government that's never existed. And then you have the articles of Confederation, which are disaster and they go,

this is a disaster, let's change it. They change it and they go, oh, shit, we missed a bunch of important things. We're gonna amend it with 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights. And then by the way, we're gonna continue to add to the Bill of Rights. We're gonna make alcohol legal. And then we're going to continue to add to the bill of rights. We're going to make alcohol illegal.

And then we're going to realize that was a huge mistake and just a couple of amendments later change it. And then at some point, like what, like 1970, we were like, no more. Everything is the, nothing changes. Same number of representatives effectively. Right. Same, like no, it's impossible to add to the Constitution. and now everything's the same. So you get bogged down. And so I think there is this sense for now more than a generation where we don't have

agency over the governmental system that it simply is what it is. You can't change it. It won't be radically different in your children's lifetime than it was in your lifetime. And there's something very sad about that. Yeah. And the end of the amendments is just about the rise of originalism. It's like the same time period. And we were talking about this before. And I think there's actually something to that because it's the rise of originalism that makes us think of the founding moment as a concrete moment when everything is fixed and all of the answers are there. And then we're sort of building out and trying to live up to the ideals and more fully

realize them and so on, but it's all there at the founding. Right. And in fact, the historical understanding the time was it was fluid. Things were changing. And maybe the biggest lie that we tell ourselves about the American story, I think, is that it's this sort of steady progress of fuller realization of founding ideals. The essence of America is there in 1776, whereas really, like the story that you were telling is it's failure and reinvention.

And we work within the system that we have for as long as we can, as long as we think it's going to get us where we need to go. And then at a certain point, again and again, we realize this isn't going to take us where we need to go, we have to break it and start something new. And that's like the story of the revolution, and it's the story of the failure of the articles of Confederation. And it's the story of the Civil War and Reconstruction, too. I mean, first, the South is like the system's not working anymore.

We're leaving. And then the rest of the country is like, no, you're not. Yeah, we paid for all that stuff. Yeah, right. Give us back our forts. Yeah. But then, like, Reconstruction, they're trying to work within the system and the 13th Amendment is enacted through the normal process.

And then they can't get the 14th Amendment ratified. And that's when the Reconstruction Congress is like, okay, we're destroying the original states. We're going to break this and move forward. So we get these moments of radical reinvention, and those are really often the moments of progress. So like one of the lessons that I think we should take from American history that we downplay is that very often it's conflict that leads to progress. And maybe one thing I would add to that

that I think is both hopeful and then maybe something that's missed and is that that work was primarily done by young people. The founders are remarkably young. They're all kind of under 40 for the most part, Benjamin Franklin's like the lone old guy. Obviously, the civil rights movement. We see it as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, both of whom were essential, but we forget that it's really the students in Nashville and the sit-in movement, the kids who are putting

their bodies on the line that actually transform it into this. You know, it's the freedom writers that make it from an issue that's affecting the people in Montgomery to a federal issue that draws the North in and really brings about the change. And so, you know, the idea that this isn't like old people kind of fiddling around with things at the margins, but it's also young generations going, hey, you guys have screwed it up in some cases, or you guys have taken this as far as you're willing to take it, and we're going to pick up the torch

now. I'm writing about this, and I think this is historically true. I write about Thomas Clarkson, the British abolitionist. He writes a college essay about this question of whether it's wrong or right to own a human being and he wins this prize and he's walking, riding this horse away from Oxford. And he's won this, but he was just writing

what he thought they wanted to hear to win. Like, he's just writing, he wrote not even what they wanted to hear. He tried to write what he didn't think anyone else would write. And that's what we hope. He writes that, no, you can't own a human being. And as he's writing away, Adam Hothchild writes about this and bury the chains. But he has this sort of road to Damascus moment, he's on the road and he goes, if I'm right, someone should do something about this.

And then he goes, that person could be me. And one man eliminates essentially the oldest institution in human history, from a college essay. And that is a remarkable but then timeless thing right there. That's what those college students, those vets who came home from World War II were like, I don't wanna ride on the back of the bus.

I don't wanna be pushed around. Like I wanna go eat a sandwich with my friends and I'm gonna do something about it. You know, the idea that young people can demand that the system change and then remake the system in their image, kind of stop with the baby boomers. Yeah, I mean, you do see young people doing that now, like organizing around climate change, organizing around gun violence.

I hope it's going to work. I hope so. I hope it's not to work. I hope so. I hope it's not too late. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's, but this generation is up against so much entrenched sort of, there's not room because a lot of the offices haven't been big-headed.

Yeah. I think that's a big part of it. I don't think the lifetime appointments idea ever anticipated people living to be a hundred years old. No, it also didn't anticipate the party system. So if we're talking about lifetime appointments for federal judges and the Supreme Court in particular, that's terrible. That's completely broken.

It's completely messing up our system of governance now, because the way things are now, justice is retire strategically, so that the president who appoints their successors going to point someone like them, they're sort of replacing themselves. And what that means is the current composition of the Supreme Court can persist pretty much indefinitely as long as the Republicans win one out of three or one out of four elections because you wait 12 years, then for justice's retiree, you replace them with young people, you keep that majority forever. And that's not the way it was supposed to work. Yeah, Stasis is not natural. It's supposed to be change in dynamism. I mean, more generally, I think we're seeing some problems with how old some of our political leaders are, and it would be better if we had younger political leaders.

Yeah. But life tenure on the Supreme Court is like a particular structural problem. It could be fixed. The proposals are out there like 18 year term limits Let each president appoint two justices per four year term We could really do that We could do that. We could do that. Yes The same action is the belief that we could do that. Well, it's weird. It's weird because it seems like the belief that we could do that. Well, it's weird. It's weird, because it seems like political actors don't think that we can, even though there's broad bipartisan popular support for it. And yet, people are acting like, no, it's not possible. We can't do that.

Yeah, as if. I don't know why not. Yeah, it's, yeah, as if it was supposed to stay the same forever. Yeah, well, so there's this idea that changing the constitution is like unwise or unpatriotic or something like that, which is crazy because one, like the constitution provides for a method of amendment.

And then two, like the things that we like the best about the constitution are basically the amendments. No one's like, I feel a swell of American pride when I recall that the president has to be a natural born citizen. They're like, I feel a swell of pride when I think about life, liberty, and property being protected by the due process clause, which is the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. I think that our protection of free speech is so great, which maybe it doesn't like it's kind of been applied in a funny way sometimes, but that's an amendment. Like we love the amendments.

Well, the last question actually, because you, which you would be as a constitutional scholar, you'd be the expert. There was this sense, right? Franklin Roosevelt tries to propose his packing the court, and there's this sort of rebellion against it, right? Franklin Roosevelt tries to propose his packing the court, and there's this sort of rebellion against it, right? Like the story we tell ourselves is like the people and Congress were horrified, and he backs off. As I understand it, it's like his vice president was very opposed, a southerner. How much of it was actually an understanding by, in the Democratic coalition, to that point, included all the southern Democrats, that if he fucks with the composition of the court, our tenuous holds on the levers of power. That's like that, like FDR's mistake was thinking, hey, I'm gonna pack the court so I can get some

of these social safety net programs through. And the actual reaction was your threatening this whole segregation thing. I don't know, actually, I haven't really heard that. I just made it up. It's possible. But do you know what I was thinking? Well, the other thing about the court packing plan is, no, he didn't end up packing the court,

but also the court kind of changed its tack. Yes. So, you know, it's not entirely clear that he didn't get most of what he wanted. Right. But there was this kind of arrangement in the Democratic Party that like, I mean, Kennedy ironically puts in a bunch of the justices, not justices, judges who are most resistant

to his civil rights program because he's rewarded its political patronage. He's like, I'll give you the judges you want. So there was this kind of schizophrenic division in the party where yeah, sure, we all agree. We should have these social safety net things, but if you put a bunch of Northerners on the Supreme Court or a bunch of more modern liberals on the Supreme Court, how long is our ability to continue to interpret the 13th, 14th, 15th amendment

the way we are? How long is that going to last? And suddenly the whole legal edifice of the south become vulnerable? Maybe. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, the thing that did happen was you got the social programs and the social safety nets and then they were applied in a racially discriminatory way. Which kind of, it is, it's compromised. Yeah. Like, people are against redistribution. But it's okay if it ends up really only going to white people. redistribution, but it's okay if it ends up really only going to white people. Sure. It's like redistribution that increases racial equality. That's like the third rail. Well, this was awesome. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Really interesting. Thanks so much for listening. If you could rate this podcast and leave a review on iTunes,

that would mean so much to us and it would really help the show. We appreciate it, and I'll see you next episode. Hey, prime members. You can listen to the Daily Stoic early and ad-free on Amazon Music, download the Amazon Music app today, or you can listen early and ad-free with Wondery Plus in Apple Podcasts. What's a Disney World thrill feel like? It's plunging into Pandora, together. It's racing your light cycle into the grid, or the chance to simply scream.

Thrills everyone can be part of. Across all four Walt Disney World theme parks. Wow, that's cool! Feel it all for yourself at Walt Disney World Resort. Where Disney thrills us like... For a special ticket offer, just for Canada residents, visit DisneyWorld.ca-tickets. For a special ticket offer, just for Canada residents, visit DisneyWorld.ca-tickets.