Who Writes the President's Speeches?

The modern presidency includes giving upwards of 400 speeches a year. How does the president find time to do it? They don't. That's where the speechwriters come in. This is how the (ideally) inspiring, comforting, clarifying sausage gets made and former Barack Obama senior speechwriter Sarada Peri is giving us a peek behind the curtain.


Transcript

: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the This transcript may contain errors.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
The faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it.

Hannah McCarthy:
Nick, are you familiar with John F. Kennedy's inaugural address?

Nick Capodice:
I think so. You don't want me to take a crack at it, do you?

Hannah McCarthy:
Sure.

Nick Capodice:
Ask not what your country can do for you.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
You can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. That's terrible.

Nick Capodice:
That's right. Sorry, everyone. I do love that speech.

Hannah McCarthy:
My fellow citizens of the world. So I have to admit here, I'm not sure I ever actually listened to the whole thing. I just knew that line. Ask what you can do for your country, right? But to hear this youngish guy who just narrowly won the presidency speak with so much urgency and energy and certainty in his voice. I could feel the echoes in the air, you know, I could feel the change. It riled me up.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
Grief can sacrifice when we ask of you with a good conscience. Our only your reward. With history, the final judge of our deed. Let us go forth to lead the land we love. And I'm just watching this speech and thinking, who wrote that gold?

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Civics 101, I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy:
And today we're talking about the political professionals behind the words of the politicians. We're talking about speechwriters, in other words, Nick. We're talking about ghosts.

Sarada Peri:
We're ghosts for a reason.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Sarada Peri. She was special assistant and senior speechwriter for President Barack Obama, and she spoke with former host Virginia Prescott back in 2017.

Nick Capodice:
All right, when you and Sarah to say ghosts, you really just mean a ghost writer, right?

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, weirdly, I get the sense that it goes deeper than that. A presidential speechwriter is like this spirit of the White House crafting the words that will come out of someone else's mouth.

Sarada Peri:
I would joke that I kind of started to kind of inhabit the mind and soul of Barack Obama in some way, right? So, you know, whenever something happened in the world, my first question wasn't, what do I think it was? What does Barack Obama think about this?

Nick Capodice:
All right. Hannah, I'm going to pull back the curtain for good or for ill here. But you and I do this all the time. We write a script for a show and we write one another's voices. And when I write your voice, I have to think, What would Hannah actually think about this? Would she say it this way? Would she even know this? So I get that. But writing a script for a show like ours is very different from writing a speech that's supposed to sound like it's coming from the heart and soul of a political leader. So I have to ask, was everything Barack Obama said to the public written by Sarada and other speechwriters?

Barack Obama:
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

Sarada Peri:
Well, first of all, I don't think I think it would be disingenuous for us to say that we wrote and write everything as speechwriters. The best speeches are collaborations. And so what we're really trying to do and certainly in the case of the president, but with anyone that you work with is to help them figure out what they want to say and then more often than not use their words to do that. So it's really a collaboration.

Hannah McCarthy:
Let's go back to John F. Kennedy. His speechwriter was Theodore Sorensen. Now, for one thing, Sorensen never would have admitted to being the originator of the famous ask not line. In actual fact, when asked if he wrote those words, his responses varied from Kennedy wrote it all himself to I simply don't remember to ask not. That said, here's Sorensen in an interview with WNYC back in 2008.

Theodore Sorensen:
JFK never read a speech verbatim in his life that he had not previously reviewed and revised.

Nick Capodice:
Which makes perfect sense. If you're a good politician. No matter how much you trust someone on your staff, you're still going to proofread your work and you're going to say, You know what? I wouldn't say it that way.

Hannah McCarthy:
But to answer your question, who is writing most of the words a president speaks to the public?

Theodore Sorensen:
Starting in the fall of 1956, we spent three or four years traveling the country together, just the two of us to every one of the 50 states, and you get to know somebody and his way of thinking and his way of speaking pretty well. When you do it day after day in all 50 states for three years or more. And so the ideas were his, the policies were his, the judgments and decisions were his. And when he expressed those decisions in the White House, it was not difficult to for me. Having participated in the meeting to go a few steps down the hall to my office and try to reflect, in words on paper, the first draft of the decision he wanted to convey to the public.

Nick Capodice:
So in other words, the answer is yes. The speechwriter is writing most of what a president says, but they have to get to know everything the president thinks and feels about the subject they're writing on

Hannah McCarthy:
And how that person would choose to speak about that subject. I got the sense that spending time with the president is crucial for a successful speechwriter to be able to write something for someone that they would reasonably say. You have to know them pretty well. Here's Sarada again.

Sarada Peri:
So I actually think it's less about getting how someone speaks and more about how someone thinks. And so you really want to spend time sort of immersing yourself in in their thinking, which is often in the form of, you know, talking to them and spending as much time as you can in the case of working for the president. You might get limited time with the person, but I had the good fortune of working for somebody who had been in office for a few years and so I could read every single thing President Obama had said, you know, read all of the transcripts of the interviews he had given his books, you know, even when he was on Jimmy Fallon or something.

Jimmy Fallon:
A democracy requires compromise even when you're 100 percent right.

Barack Obama:
Yeah.

Jimmy Fallon:
Did you get that from Michelle? Because I think because I've been married, I've been married.

Barack Obama:
It is. Yeah, that was a marital tip, as well as a tip about democracy...

Sarada Peri:
Really immersing yourself in all of their public comments and as well as conversations with them to kind of figure out how they see the world and use that to kind of develop your sense of their voice.

Nick Capodice:
Well, it's not just a person's voice or their personality that's on the line. If we're talking about political speechwriters, presidential speechwriters, we're talking about politics, we're talking diplomacy and foreign policy. That part that's got to originate with the politician themselves, right?

Sarada Peri:
With President Obama, we weren't making up policy. We weren't making up what he wanted to say. We got that direction from him. And you know, if you want credit for what you say that or what you write, then write it under your own byline and go and give the speech. But ultimately, you know, when President Obama gave a speech that I had worked with him on, it was he who was held accountable for it, right? Not me. And so my job is is to help him do that the best he can. But we're not there to take the credit for having helped them craft that. At least that's what I think, right?

Nick Capodice:
In terms of being held accountable, taking credit for the things you say. There are times when a president has to confront something that's difficult. It's not just the good stuff. I'm thinking about Ronald Reagan having to give a speech after the challenger disaster.

Ronald Reagan:
And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it's hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process. Sense of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted, belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future and we'll continue to follow.

Nick Capodice:
Or something that is much more nuanced, like George W. Bush's get on board speech after September 11th. I mean, how do you both condemn terrorism and encourage Americans to get back on airplanes?

George W. Bush:
And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry is to tell the traveling public, get on board, do your business around the country, fly and enjoy America's great destination spots.

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, why don't we take one of the least enviable speeches any presidential speechwriter would ever have to contend with?

The afternoon --

Ray Price:
On Tuesday afternoon, Al called me over to his office Tuesday, the 6th, and I came in and he was sitting there reading and just after a minute he looked up. We need a thousand words. He was going to resign. On Tuesday.

Hannah McCarthy:
August 1974, Richard Nixon and his staff decided the writing is on the wall. He is facing near certain impeachment and removal from office following the Watergate scandal. So as people call up his speechwriter, Ray Price, they tell him We need a thousand words on resigning.

Nick Capodice:
That pressure must have been unbelievable. This was the speech about something claiming personal responsibility and resigning because of their actions. How do you do that with someone else? Did did Ray Price work with Nixon to get it done right?

Hannah McCarthy:
Here's Price describing what it was like. This is from a C-SPAN interview that was done on the 15th anniversary of the August 9th, 1974 resignation.

Ray Price:
We went back and forth. He would call me, I would call him. We would revise and reedit, as we frequently did Wednesday night. We'd been through a couple of more drafts, meanwhile, and I was working in my office and I just checked back before we came in here. Some of the times I got a call from him at 8:30 with some more thoughts on the thing, and he had a quote from from from Teddy Roosevelt that he particularly wanted to use a man in the arena, which he did. And a couple of other things.

Richard Nixon:
And when my heart's dearest died, died, the light went from my life forever. That was T.R. in his 20s.

Hannah McCarthy:
That, by the way, is Nixon reading the tribute Teddy Roosevelt wrote following the death of his young wife.

Nick Capodice:
Wow, that is a very intense way of putting the end of your presidency. Was that Nixon's idea?

Hannah McCarthy:
Apparently.

Ray Price:
4:15 a.m., 4:30 a.m. he called again some more thoughts on that, working it out, 4:45, they called again. Still more thoughts on that, working it out and that section, which you'll see in a moment the whole toward the end of it, the whole section about what the important legacy is and the important thing is the world and the country must do near as it was essentially worked out in those early morning calls Thursday morning, the last call from was it seven minutes after 5:00 Thursday morning

Nick Capodice:
While we're on the subject? Hannah, what exactly is the process for the average speechwriter? I'm going to guess that writing a resignation speech involves significantly more back and forth and anxious phone calls than, say, a president's address at the Ford plant.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, to be clear, it all depends on the structure of the administration. Like Kennedy's speechwriter, who we heard from earlier, Ted Sorensen, he didn't work with a team. He was in addition to being Kennedy's speechwriter, a close presidential adviser, as well. So his process was pretty much right. It run it past Kennedy, make some edits and get it back to the president. Things tend not to work that way anymore. So let's talk about how it worked in the Obama White House.

Sarada Peri:
Every White House is different, although I, you know, think that the processes are probably kind of passed along. So in our case, our director of speechwriting, my boss Cody Keenan, would sit down with with us, with our team and kind of go through the schedule and help tell us what was coming up generally and then kind of divide up the speeches based on people's time, people's interest, you know, who had availability.

Nick Capodice:
So in the Obama White House, we're talking about a whole team of people devoted to speechwriting.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, over the years, presidential administrations have learned that that is what it takes to ensure that you've got a constant flow of speeches ready to go.

Sarada Peri:
So you get assigned a speech and it could be anything from this is happening in two days. Sorry, you better get going on it or it could be. This is happening. You know, this is a commencement address that's happening in a month and a half and you have some time. Typically, it was maybe a week ahead of time that we had. And then if it was a policy speech or something along those lines, you would meet with the relevant policy people. You learn about the policy, they tell you kind of generally what the message ought to be. And then you go back and you work on a draft. And from there I would, you know, we would write a draft. Let's say I was writing an education policy speech. I would do a draft, send it to my boss, who would then edit it, and then we would circulate it around the building.

Nick Capodice:
They circulate the speech around the building, how many people see this thing before the president presents it?

Sarada Peri:
The lawyers are seeing it. The fact checkers are seeing it, the policy, people are seeing it and everybody has an opportunity to weigh in with their thoughts. Make sure things are accurate. Make making sure that we're also appropriately reflecting the policy. And then it goes to the president who would make his edits usually by hand because he was a, you know, a writer in that way. And then we would take the draft from there and go final. There are some speeches, many actually, where we would get his input on the front end so we might meet with him as in advance as possible to get his thinking up front and then use that to incorporate into your draft and then you go back and forth with him from there. But it really depended on the nature of the speech.

Hannah McCarthy:
So Nick, I have to confess at first I was thinking to myself that would be really hard for me. You know, in the highly plausible universe in which I become president, I'm supposed to get up there and act as though the words that I'm communicating to the press and the American people and foreign nations are words that are my own. And then I realized, Oh yeah, speeches take days or weeks to work on what president has time for that?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah. Aren't they giving a speech basically every day?

Hannah McCarthy:
Pretty much. And then, you know, there's the fact that a speech isn't just given to convey information to the public. It's meant to stir emotion.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, you mentioned being riled up by Kennedy. That's that's part of the point. You're supposed to feel something to come away with some kind of inspiration or comfort. And that speech, Kennedy's inaugural, is famous in part because of how it made people feel. And that's the thing about speechwriters, Hannah, that leaves me a little bit in awe their ability to create something that makes the hair stand up on your arm, something that makes you lean forward in your seat. So what's the secret? How do you write something that makes someone's stomach flip?

Sarada Peri:
So when people think about what makes a great speech, they'll often think that it's sort of really beautiful, soaring language and a kind of rhetoric. But I actually think that if you were to strip all of that away, what you would really find in the best speeches is a clear and persuasive argument. And the way you get to that is by having a central purpose sort of knowing why you're giving this speech and what exactly you want to convey so that at the end of the speech, the audience knows what it ought to think and feel and do. And what often happens when we give a speech is that if the speaker has not identified what that is, why am I delivering this and what do I want the audience to think at the end? It can kind of become what we call a Christmas tree. You sort of put a lot of ornaments on the tree. It gets filled up with ideas, but there's no sort of driving animating idea behind it. And so it gets cluttered, but a great speech kind of strips all of that away and makes an argument for one central idea.

Nick Capodice:
All right. So while we're on the subject of good presidential speeches, I have to ask a question that I might not want to know the answer to. To me, there is one speech in particular that is the antithesis of the Christmas tree. It is content and style and meaning at its finest, and being written by the president is actually pretty essential to its power. So here I go. Are you going to break my heart, Hannah, and tell me that Abraham Lincoln did not dash off the Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope?

Hannah McCarthy:
I've got the answer to that, but I'm going to withhold it just a little till after the break, which is right now.

Nick Capodice:
But before we go to the break, dear listener, it is my quick weekly reminder that while this show is and always will be free to You, it's not free to make. We want to ensure that we can continue bringing you the ins and outs of American democracy for years to come. And if you can lend us a helping hand in that mission, we would be much obliged. If you can spare a little pocket change or a lot of pocket change, consider making a gift at our website. You can get there by clicking the Donate button at civics101podcast.org. Many, many, many, many thanks.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right, we're back.

Nick Capodice:
All right. Hannah, you were just about to tell me whether one of the more romantic stories about Abraham Lincoln and his towering genius is in fact true.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right, give me the story that you have heard.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, the story I know. And it's the only story that maybe I want to know is that Abraham Lincoln en route to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to dedicate a new national cemetery, wrote one of the greatest orators ever to be delivered on the back of a big envelope while sitting on a train.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, that story is not true.

Nick Capodice:
Why are you doing this?

Hannah McCarthy:
I why I read one of the most thorough historical deep dives into this question that I could find. The closest thing to truth that we have got is that Lincoln had a full two weeks to work on his remarks prior to arriving at Gettysburg, and he used them. The speech was mostly, if not entirely, completed by the time he arrived in Pennsylvania in 1863. There are some eyewitness accounts of his drafting a copy of the speech on the back of a yellow government envelope once at the hotel in Gettysburg. But this speech was not a stroke of sudden, impromptu genius.

Nick Capodice:
But he did, in fact, write it.

Hannah McCarthy:
Honest Abe? Yeah, he wrote it.

Nick Capodice:
All right, I can live with that. I just was worried I was going to hear that the Gettysburg Address was the work of a team of presidential ghostwriters

Colin Powell:
Four score, and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent

Colin Powell:
A new nation...

Hannah McCarthy:
Because that would have hurt, right?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy:
Because there's this image of Abraham Lincoln laboring over that speech. This sense that it was a part of him that he was conveying to the American public.

Colin Powell:
Or any nation so conceived. And so dedicated can long endure...

Hannah McCarthy:
If that isn't the case, then that speech somehow loses potency. It feels more like political messaging than it does a heartfelt message to the American people.

Nick Capodice:
Exactly. And which is so different from today. We just heard the ins and outs of political speechwriting from a recent administration, and I'm in no way wounded by the idea that Obama had people crafting his words didn't bother me at all. So what happened? At what point did presidents stop writing all their own speeches?

Hannah McCarthy:
At no point, George Washington's inaugural address was written in large part by James Madison. Alexander Hamilton contributed a lot to Washington's famous farewell address.

Nick Capodice:
I had no idea.

Hannah McCarthy:
You weren't supposed to have any idea because for a long time, it was totally taboo for a president to admit to having help with speechwriting. When William Henry Harrison ran for president in 1840, people were not happy that he had a correspondence committee to help him answer letters. Citizens wanted a leader who appeared genuine and human, not someone whose message was carefully cultivated by a team. Still, Mark Twain secretly helped President Grant to write his memoir. Warren Harding had a full time ghostwriter on the DL in the 1920s.

Nick Capodice:
All right, so my question is, was Lincoln just the exception to the rule? Did presidents leave speechwriting to the professionals from the very beginning?

Hannah McCarthy:
Not entirely. But then they really didn't have to consider the fact that Lincoln gave maybe sixteen speeches in a year, whereas Obama, in his first year of the presidency, gave over 400.

Nick Capodice:
That's outlandish. That's more than a speech a day, just constant speeches.

Hannah McCarthy:
That is the modern presidency. In the earlier days of governing the country, though, there was time to craft your own speeches or take a lot of time to work closely with people you trusted to get your message across. I mean, Woodrow Wilson, for example, is pretty widely accepted as having written all of his own speeches. It wasn't really until Franklin Delano Roosevelt that all of that changed the presidency had just gotten too big.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Harry Truman:
If we fail in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world, and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this nation.

Dwight D. Eisenhower:
It is what the book of history and not with isolated pages that the United States will ever wish to be identified.

Hannah McCarthy:
By the time Kennedy was in office, he was calling his speechwriter his intellectual blood bank.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
I am talking about genuine peace, a kind of peace that makes life on Earth worth living if the kind that enables men and nations to grow.

Nick Capodice:
In other words, Kennedy's speechwriter was the life support for a major component of the presidency.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, we should emphasize here that speeches are very high stakes thing. They are the most public and widely publicized thing that a president regularly does. Having a really good speechwriter can be a true boon to the presidency.

Nick Capodice:
It's interesting. And even though the public is aware and accepting of speechwriters nowadays, there does seem to be a lingering desire for the unpolished, un practiced, seemingly unwritten presidential speech. And we've got a really recent example of that in former President Donald Trump. He prided himself on riffing and was not one to admit to reading words other people had written for him. And a lot of people were totally enamored of that.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, I actually recently watched a montage that The Washington Post put together, illustrating some of Trump's most off the cuff speeches.

Donald Trump:
You have you had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that. But I'll say it right now. I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. It says, I love all of the people of our country. I didn't say, I love you because you're black or I love you because you're white or I love you because you're from Japan or you're from China, or you're from Kenya, or you're from Scotland or Sweden. I love all the people of our country,

Hannah McCarthy:
And I think, Nick, the reason you have voters who watch this kind of performance and really like it is that the one thing that did not die out with the modern presidency is this very American desire for seeming authenticity in a president. If a politician seems obviously staged, it gets our hackles up or the very least, it gets a heavy eye roll. And actually, this brings me back to this question I have about modern, definitely ghostwritten presidential speeches. What is going on in these operations that has an effect that is moving or calming or inspiring regardless of where it originated? Why is it OK that Kennedy did not write his Moon speech that his intellectual blood bank Ted Sorensen did?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things? Not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal...

Nick Capodice:
You want my honest take?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, please.

Nick Capodice:
Because that's a promise the president can make. The president has power. If Ted Sorensen promised us the Moon, it wouldn't mean a thing because he couldn't do it. And that power also means that the president can read someone else's words without penalty. Really, the question is, can the president perform well? Are they a good orator? Can they stir something in the hearts of the American people?

Hannah McCarthy:
Which Kennedy pretty much knocked out of the park, right? He was considered a consummate performer. And to your point about power, I want to play you one last thing, Nick.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
In short, both the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace. And in holding the arms race agreements to this end, are in the interests of the Soviet Union, as well as ours and even the most hostile nations.

Theodore Sorensen:
I know many people think the inaugural was his best, but this was better and more important because it said more in addition to the moratorium on nuclear testing in the atmosphere than what you mentioned. That speech called for a reexamination of the Cold War. No president had ever done that. It called for a reexamination of our relations with the Soviet Union. No president had ever done that. It called for a reexamination, part of which you heard of what we mean by peace itself. So it was an important speech and I had a lot to do with it. Yes. Uh, the president...

Nick Capodice:
So Sorensen is saying, Yeah, I wrote that. What does that matter? These are the president's ideas. This is the president breaking new ground because it's the president's ground to break. I am simply the arm of the administration that makes these ideas great on paper. The president is the one who makes the great speech,

Theodore Sorensen:
And on the way back, he made the decision and cleared it on the Air Force One telephone with Bob McNamara in Defense and Mac Bundy back in the White House to add to that speech, the moratorium on nuclear testing in the atmosphere, which he hoped would help bring the Soviets to the bargaining table. And it did. And later that same summer, a treaty was signed in Moscow, the first step toward arms control in the nuclear age the limited nuclear test ban treaty. So speeches can have consequences. They aren't just empty words.

Nick Capodice:
You know, you talked about speechwriters as these ghosts of the White House, Hannah. But when you think about it like this, the way they capture policy desires pinned them to a page, make them beautiful or funny and then hand them back to the leader of the free world to present to the American people. They're more like mediums than they are ghosts. The president needs to say something, and they have the time and the writing chops to make those words happen.

Hannah McCarthy:
This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode by Ketsa, Xylo Zico and Evan Schaefer. If you like this episode and want more, you can check out our whole catalog of adventures in American democracy and history at civics101podcast.org. And there is a really easy way to never miss a Civics episode. Follow us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. Civic 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including automated subtitles, collaboration tools, advanced search, secure transcription and file storage, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: The faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, are you familiar with John F. Kennedy's inaugural address?

 

Nick Capodice: I think so. You don't want me to take a crack at it, do you?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Sure.

 

Nick Capodice: Ask not what your country can do for you.

 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: You can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. That's terrible.

 

Nick Capodice: That's right. Sorry, everyone. [00:00:30] I do love that speech.

 

Hannah McCarthy: My fellow citizens of the world. So I have to admit here, I'm not sure I ever actually listened to the whole thing. I just knew that line. Ask what you can do for your country, right? But to hear this youngish guy who just narrowly won the presidency speak with so much urgency and energy and certainty in his voice. I could feel the echoes in the air, you know, I could feel [00:01:00] the change. It riled me up.

 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: Grief can sacrifice when we ask of you with a good conscience. Our only your reward. With history, the final judge of our deed. Let us go forth to lead the land we love. And I'm just watching this speech and thinking, who wrote that gold?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Th [00:01:30]is is Civics 101, I'm Hannah McCarthy.

 

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And today we're talking about the political professionals behind the words of the politicians. We're talking about speechwriters, in other words, Nick. We're talking about ghosts.

 

Sarada Peri: We're ghosts for a reason.

 

Hannah McCarthy: This is Sarada Peri. She was special assistant and senior speechwriter for President Barack Obama, and she spoke with former host Virginia Prescott back in 2017.

 

Nick Capodice: All right, when you and Sarah to say ghosts, you really just mean a ghost writer, [00:02:00] right?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Well, weirdly, I get the sense that it goes deeper than that. A presidential speechwriter is like this spirit of the White House crafting the words that will come out of someone else's mouth.

 

Sarada Peri: I would joke that I kind of started to kind of inhabit the mind and soul of Barack Obama in some way, right? So, you know, whenever something happened in the world, my first question wasn't, what do I think it was? What does Barack Obama think about this?

 

Nick Capodice: All right. Hannah, I'm going to pull back the curtain for good or for ill here. But [00:02:30] you and I do this all the time. We write a script for a show and we write one another's voices. And when I write your voice, I have to think, What would Hannah actually think about this? Would she say it this way? Would she even know this? So I get that. But writing a script for a show like ours is very different from writing a speech that's supposed to sound like it's coming from the heart and soul of a political leader. So I have to ask, was everything Barack Obama said to the public written [00:03:00] by Sarada and other speechwriters?

 

Barack Obama: It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

 

Sarada Peri: Well, first of all, I don't think I think it would be disingenuous for us to say that we wrote and write everything as speechwriters. The best speeches are collaborations. And so what we're really trying to do and certainly [00:03:30] in the case of the president, but with anyone that you work with is to help them figure out what they want to say and then more often than not use their words to do that. So it's really a collaboration.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Let's go back to John F. Kennedy. His speechwriter was Theodore Sorensen. Now, for one thing, Sorensen never would have admitted to being the originator of the famous ask not line. In actual fact, when asked if he wrote those words, his responses varied from Kennedy wrote it all himself to I [00:04:00] simply don't remember to ask not. That said, here's Sorensen in an interview with WNYC back in 2008.

 

Theodore Sorensen: JFK never read a speech verbatim in his life that he had not previously reviewed and revised.

 

Nick Capodice: Which makes perfect sense. If you're a good politician. No matter how much you trust someone on your staff, you're still going to proofread your work and you're going to say, You know what? I wouldn't say it that way.

 

Hannah McCarthy: But to answer your question, who is writing most of [00:04:30] the words a president speaks to the public?

 

Theodore Sorensen: Starting in the fall of 1956, we spent three or four years traveling the country together, just the two of us to every one of the 50 states, and you get to know somebody and his way of thinking and his way of speaking pretty well. When you do it day after day in all 50 states for three years or more. And so the ideas [00:05:00] were his, the policies were his, the judgments and decisions were his. And when he expressed those decisions in the White House, it was not difficult to for me. Having participated in the meeting to go a few steps down the hall to my office and try to reflect, in words on paper, the first draft of the decision he wanted to convey to the public.

 

Nick Capodice: So [00:05:30] in other words, the answer is yes. The speechwriter is writing most of what a president says, but they have to get to know everything the president thinks and feels about the subject they're writing on

 

Hannah McCarthy: And how that person would choose to speak about that subject. I got the sense that spending time with the president is crucial for a successful speechwriter to be able to write something for someone that they would reasonably say. You have to know them pretty well. Here's Sarada again.

 

Sarada Peri: So I actually [00:06:00] think it's less about getting how someone speaks and more about how someone thinks. And so you really want to spend time sort of immersing yourself in in their thinking, which is often in the form of, you know, talking to them and spending as much time as you can in the case of working for the president. You might get limited time with the person, but I had the good fortune of working for somebody who had been in office for a few years and so I could read every single thing President Obama had said, you know, read all of the transcripts of the interviews he had given [00:06:30] his books, you know, even when he was on Jimmy Fallon or something.

 

Jimmy Fallon: A democracy requires compromise even when you're 100 percent right.

 

Barack Obama: Yeah.

 

Jimmy Fallon: Did you get that from Michelle? Because I think because I've been married, I've been married.

 

Barack Obama: It is. Yeah, that was a marital tip, as well as a tip about democracy...

 

Sarada Peri: Really immersing yourself in all of their public comments and as well as conversations with them to kind of figure out how they see the world and [00:07:00] use that to kind of develop your sense of their voice.

 

Nick Capodice: Well, it's not just a person's voice or their personality that's on the line. If we're talking about political speechwriters, presidential speechwriters, we're talking about politics, we're talking diplomacy and foreign policy. That part that's got to originate with the politician themselves, right?

 

Sarada Peri: With President Obama, we weren't making up policy. We weren't making up what he wanted to say. We got that direction from him. And you know, if you want credit for [00:07:30] what you say that or what you write, then write it under your own byline and go and give the speech. But ultimately, you know, when President Obama gave a speech that I had worked with him on, it was he who was held accountable for it, right? Not me. And so my job is is to help him do that the best he can. But we're not there to take the credit for having helped them craft that. At least that's what I think, right?

 

Nick Capodice: In terms of being held accountable, taking credit for the things you say. There are times when a president has to confront something that's difficult. It's not just the good stuff. [00:08:00] I'm thinking about Ronald Reagan having to give a speech after the challenger disaster.

 

Ronald Reagan: And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it's hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process. Sense of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted, belongs to the brave. The Challenger [00:08:30] crew was pulling us into the future and we'll continue to follow.

 

Nick Capodice: Or something that is much more nuanced, like George W. Bush's get on board speech after September 11th. I mean, how do you both condemn terrorism and encourage Americans to get back on airplanes?

 

George W. Bush: And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry is to tell the traveling public, get on board, do your business [00:09:00] around the country, fly and enjoy America's great destination spots.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Well, why don't we take one of the least enviable speeches any presidential speechwriter would ever have to contend with?

 

The afternoon --

 

Ray Price: On Tuesday afternoon, Al called me over to his office Tuesday, the 6th, and I came in and he was sitting there reading and just after a minute he looked up. We need a thousand words. He was going to resign. On Tuesday.

 

Hannah McCarthy: August [00:09:30] 1974, Richard Nixon and his staff decided the writing is on the wall. He is facing near certain impeachment and removal from office following the Watergate scandal. So as people call up his speechwriter, Ray Price, they tell him We need a thousand words on resigning.

 

Nick Capodice: That pressure must have been unbelievable. This was the speech about something claiming personal responsibility and resigning because of [00:10:00] their actions. How do you do that with someone else? Did did Ray Price work with Nixon to get it done right?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Here's Price describing what it was like. This is from a C-SPAN interview that was done on the 15th anniversary of the August 9th, 1974 resignation.

 

Ray Price: We went back and forth. He would call me, I would call him. We would revise and reedit, as we frequently did Wednesday night. We'd been through a couple of more drafts, meanwhile, and I was working in my office and I just checked back [00:10:30] before we came in here. Some of the times I got a call from him at 8:30 with some more thoughts on the thing, and he had a quote from from from Teddy Roosevelt that he particularly wanted to use a man in the arena, which he did. And a couple of other things.

 

Richard Nixon: And when my heart's dearest died, died, the light went from my life forever. That [00:11:00] was T.R. in his 20s.

 

Hannah McCarthy: That, by the way, is Nixon reading the tribute Teddy Roosevelt wrote following the death of his young wife.

 

Nick Capodice: Wow, that is a very intense way of putting the end of your presidency. Was that Nixon's idea?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Apparently.

 

Ray Price: 4:15 a.m., 4:30 a.m. he called again some more thoughts on that, working it out, 4:45, they called again. Still more thoughts on that, working it out and that section, which you'll see in a moment the whole toward the end of it, the whole section about what the important [00:11:30] legacy is and the important thing is the world and the country must do near as it was essentially worked out in those early morning calls Thursday morning, the last call from was it seven minutes after 5:00 Thursday morning

 

Nick Capodice: While we're on the subject? Hannah, what exactly is the process for the average speechwriter? I'm going to guess that writing a resignation speech involves significantly more back and forth and anxious phone calls than, say, a president's address at the Ford plant.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, to [00:12:00] be clear, it all depends on the structure of the administration. Like Kennedy's speechwriter, who we heard from earlier, Ted Sorensen, he didn't work with a team. He was in addition to being Kennedy's speechwriter, a close presidential adviser, as well. So his process was pretty much right. It run it past Kennedy, make some edits and get it back to the president. Things tend not to work that way anymore. So let's talk about how it worked in the Obama White House.

 

Sarada Peri: Every White House is different, although I, you know, think that the processes are probably [00:12:30] kind of passed along. So in our case, our director of speechwriting, my boss Cody Keenan, would sit down with with us, with our team and kind of go through the schedule and help tell us what was coming up generally and then kind of divide up the speeches based on people's time, people's interest, you know, who had availability.

 

Nick Capodice: So in the Obama White House, we're talking about a whole team of people devoted to speechwriting.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, over the years, presidential administrations have learned that that is what it takes to ensure that you've got a constant flow of speeches [00:13:00] ready to go.

 

Sarada Peri: So you get assigned a speech and it could be anything from this is happening in two days. Sorry, you better get going on it or it could be. This is happening. You know, this is a commencement address that's happening in a month and a half and you have some time. Typically, it was maybe a week ahead of time that we had. And then if it was a policy speech or something along those lines, you would meet with the relevant policy people. You learn about the policy, they tell you kind of generally what the message ought to be. And then you go back and you work on a draft. And [00:13:30] from there I would, you know, we would write a draft. Let's say I was writing an education policy speech. I would do a draft, send it to my boss, who would then edit it, and then we would circulate it around the building.

 

Nick Capodice: They circulate the speech around the building, how many people see this thing before the president presents it?

 

Sarada Peri: The lawyers are seeing it. The fact checkers are seeing it, the policy, people are seeing it and everybody has an opportunity to weigh in with their thoughts. Make sure things are accurate. Make making sure that we're also appropriately [00:14:00] reflecting the policy. And then it goes to the president who would make his edits usually by hand because he was a, you know, a writer in that way. And then we would take the draft from there and go final. There are some speeches, many actually, where we would get his input on the front end so we might meet with him as in advance as possible to get his thinking up front and then use that to incorporate into your draft and then you go back and forth with him from there. But it really depended on the nature of the speech. [00:14:30]

 

Hannah McCarthy: So Nick, I have to confess at first I was thinking to myself that would be really hard for me. You know, in the highly plausible universe in which I become president, I'm supposed to get up there and act as though the words that I'm communicating to the press and the American people and foreign nations are words that are my own. And then I realized, Oh yeah, speeches take days or weeks to work on what president has time for that?

 

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Aren't they giving a speech basically every day? [00:15:00]

 

Hannah McCarthy: Pretty much. And then, you know, there's the fact that a speech isn't just given to convey information to the public. It's meant to stir emotion.

 

Nick Capodice: Yeah, you mentioned being riled up by Kennedy. That's that's part of the point. You're supposed to feel something to come away with some kind of inspiration or comfort. And that speech, Kennedy's inaugural, is famous in part because of how it made people feel. And that's the thing about speechwriters, Hannah, that leaves me a little bit in awe [00:15:30] their ability to create something that makes the hair stand up on your arm, something that makes you lean forward in your seat. So what's the secret? How do you write something that makes someone's stomach flip?

 

Sarada Peri: So when people think about what makes a great speech, they'll often think that it's sort of really beautiful, soaring language and a kind of rhetoric. But I actually think that if you were to strip all of that away, what you would really find in the best [00:16:00] speeches is a clear and persuasive argument. And the way you get to that is by having a central purpose sort of knowing why you're giving this speech and what exactly you want to convey so that at the end of the speech, the audience knows what it ought to think and feel and do. And what often happens when we give a speech is that if the speaker has not identified what that is, why am I delivering [00:16:30] this and what do I want the audience to think at the end? It can kind of become what we call a Christmas tree. You sort of put a lot of ornaments on the tree. It gets filled up with ideas, but there's no sort of driving animating idea behind it. And so it gets cluttered, but a great speech kind of strips all of that away and makes an argument for one central idea.

 

Nick Capodice: All right. So while we're on the subject of good presidential speeches, I have to ask a question that I might not want to know the answer to. To me, there is one speech in particular [00:17:00] that is the antithesis of the Christmas tree. It is content and style and meaning at its finest, and being written by the president is actually pretty essential to its power. So here I go. Are you going to break my heart, Hannah, and tell me that Abraham Lincoln did not dash off the Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope?

 

Hannah McCarthy: I've got the answer to that, but I'm going to withhold it just a little till after the break, which is right now.

 

Nick Capodice: But [00:17:30] before we go to the break, dear listener, it is my quick weekly reminder that while this show is and always will be free to You, it's not free to make. We want to ensure that we can continue bringing you the ins and outs of American democracy for years to come. And if you can lend us a helping hand in that mission, we would be much obliged. If you can spare a little pocket change or a lot of pocket change, consider making a gift at our website. You can get there by clicking the Donate button at civics101podcast.org. Many, many, many, many thanks. [00:18:00]

 

Hannah McCarthy: All right, we're back.

 

Nick Capodice: All right. Hannah, you were just about to tell me whether one of the more romantic stories about Abraham Lincoln and his towering genius is in fact true.

 

Hannah McCarthy: All right, give me the story that you have heard.

 

Nick Capodice: Ok, the story I know. And it's the only story that maybe I want to know [00:18:30] is that Abraham Lincoln en route to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to dedicate a new national cemetery, wrote one of the greatest orators ever to be delivered on the back of a big envelope while sitting on a train.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, that story is not true.

 

Nick Capodice: Why are you doing this?

 

Hannah McCarthy: I why I read one of the most thorough historical deep dives into this question that I could find. The closest thing to truth that we have got is that Lincoln had a full two weeks [00:19:00] to work on his remarks prior to arriving at Gettysburg, and he used them. The speech was mostly, if not entirely, completed by the time he arrived in Pennsylvania in 1863. There are some eyewitness accounts of his drafting a copy of the speech on the back of a yellow government envelope once at the hotel in Gettysburg. But this speech was not a stroke of sudden, impromptu genius.

 

Nick Capodice: But he did, in fact, write it.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Honest Abe? Yeah, he wrote [00:19:30] it.

 

Nick Capodice: All right, I can live with that. I just was worried I was going to hear that the Gettysburg Address was the work of a team of presidential ghostwriters

 

Colin Powell: Four score, and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent

 

Colin Powell: A new nation...

 

Hannah McCarthy: Because that would have hurt, right?

 

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Because there's this image of Abraham Lincoln laboring over that speech. This sense that it was a part of him that he was conveying to the American public.

 

Colin Powell: Or any nation so conceived. And so dedicated can long endure...

 

Hannah McCarthy: If that [00:20:00] isn't the case, then that speech somehow loses potency. It feels more like political messaging than it does a heartfelt message to the American people.

 

Nick Capodice: Exactly. And which is so different from today. We just heard the ins and outs of political speechwriting from a recent administration, and I'm in no way wounded by the idea that Obama had people crafting his words didn't bother me at all. So what happened? At what point did presidents stop writing all their own speeches? [00:20:30]

 

Hannah McCarthy: At no point, George Washington's inaugural address was written in large part by James Madison. Alexander Hamilton contributed a lot to Washington's famous farewell address.

 

Nick Capodice: I had no idea.

 

Hannah McCarthy: You weren't supposed to have any idea because for a long time, it was totally taboo for a president to admit to having help with speechwriting. When William Henry Harrison ran for president in 1840, people were not happy that he had a correspondence committee to help him [00:21:00] answer letters. Citizens wanted a leader who appeared genuine and human, not someone whose message was carefully cultivated by a team. Still, Mark Twain secretly helped President Grant to write his memoir. Warren Harding had a full time ghostwriter on the DL in the 1920s.

 

Nick Capodice: All right, so my question is, was Lincoln just the exception to the rule? Did presidents leave speechwriting to the professionals from the very beginning?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Not entirely. But then they really [00:21:30] didn't have to consider the fact that Lincoln gave maybe sixteen speeches in a year, whereas Obama, in his first year of the presidency, gave over 400.

 

Nick Capodice: That's outlandish. That's more than a speech a day, just constant speeches.

 

Hannah McCarthy: That is the modern presidency. In the earlier days of governing the country, though, there was time to craft your own speeches or take a lot of time to work closely with people you trusted to get your message across. I [00:22:00] mean, Woodrow Wilson, for example, is pretty widely accepted as having written all of his own speeches. It wasn't really until Franklin Delano Roosevelt that all of that changed the presidency had just gotten too big.

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

 

Harry Truman: If we fail in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world, and we shall surely [00:22:30] endanger the welfare of this nation.

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower: It is what the book of history and not with isolated pages that the United States will ever wish to be identified.

 

Hannah McCarthy: By the time Kennedy was in office, he was calling his speechwriter his intellectual blood bank.

 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: I am talking about genuine peace, a kind of peace that makes life on Earth worth living if the kind that enables men and nations to grow.

 

Nick Capodice: In other words, Kennedy's speechwriter was the life support for a major [00:23:00] component of the presidency.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, we should emphasize here that speeches are very high stakes thing. They are the most public and widely publicized thing that a president regularly does. Having a really good speechwriter can be a true boon to the presidency.

 

Nick Capodice: It's interesting. And even though the public is aware and accepting of speechwriters nowadays, there does seem to be a lingering desire for the unpolished, un practiced, seemingly [00:23:30] unwritten presidential speech. And we've got a really recent example of that in former President Donald Trump. He prided himself on riffing and was not one to admit to reading words other people had written for him. And a lot of people were totally enamored of that.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I actually recently watched a montage that The Washington Post put together, illustrating some of Trump's most off the cuff speeches.

 

Donald Trump: You have you had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to [00:24:00] say that. But I'll say it right now. I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. It says, I love all of the people of our country. I didn't say, I love you because you're black or I love you because you're white or I love you because you're from Japan or you're from China, [00:24:30] or you're from Kenya, or you're from Scotland or Sweden. I love all the people of our country,

 

Hannah McCarthy: And I think, Nick, the reason you have voters who watch this kind of performance and really like it is that the one thing that did not die out with the modern presidency is this very American desire for seeming authenticity in a president. If a politician seems obviously staged, it gets our hackles up or the very least, it gets a heavy eye roll. [00:25:00] And actually, this brings me back to this question I have about modern, definitely ghostwritten presidential speeches. What is going on in these operations that has an effect that is moving or calming or inspiring regardless of where it originated? Why is it OK that Kennedy did not write his Moon speech that his intellectual blood bank Ted Sorensen did?

 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: We choose [00:25:30] to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things? Not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal...

 

Nick Capodice: You want my honest take?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, please.

 

Nick Capodice: Because that's a promise the president can make. The president has power. If Ted Sorensen promised us the Moon, it wouldn't mean a thing because he couldn't do it. And that power also means that the president can read someone else's words without penalty. [00:26:00] Really, the question is, can the president perform well? Are they a good orator? Can they stir something in the hearts of the American people?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Which Kennedy pretty much knocked out of the park, right? He was considered a consummate performer. And to your point about power, I want to play you one last thing, Nick.

 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: In short, both the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies have a mutually deep interest in a [00:26:30] just and genuine peace. And in holding the arms race agreements to this end, are in the interests of the Soviet Union, as well as ours and even the most hostile nations.

 

Theodore Sorensen: I know many people think the inaugural was his best, but this was better and more important because it said more in addition to the moratorium on nuclear testing in the atmosphere than what you mentioned. That [00:27:00] speech called for a reexamination of the Cold War. No president had ever done that. It called for a reexamination of our relations with the Soviet Union. No president had ever done that. It called for a reexamination, part of which you heard of what we mean by peace itself. So it was an important speech and I had a lot to do with it. Yes. Uh, the president...

 

Nick Capodice: So Sorensen is saying, Yeah, [00:27:30] I wrote that. What does that matter? These are the president's ideas. This is the president breaking new ground because it's the president's ground to break. I am simply the arm of the administration that makes these ideas great on paper. The president is the one who makes the great speech,

 

Theodore Sorensen: And on the way back, he made the decision and cleared it on the Air Force One telephone with Bob McNamara in Defense and Mac Bundy back [00:28:00] in the White House to add to that speech, the moratorium on nuclear testing in the atmosphere, which he hoped would help bring the Soviets to the bargaining table. And it did. And later that same summer, a treaty was signed in Moscow, the first step toward arms control in the nuclear age the limited nuclear test [00:28:30] ban treaty. So speeches can have consequences. They aren't just empty words.

 

Nick Capodice: You know, you talked about speechwriters as these ghosts of the White House, Hannah. But when you think about it like this, the way they capture policy desires pinned them to a page, make them beautiful or funny and then hand them back to the leader of the free world to present to the American people. [00:29:00] They're more like mediums than they are ghosts. The president needs to say something, and they have the time and the writing chops to make those words happen.

 

Hannah McCarthy: This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode by Ketsa, Xylo Zico [00:29:30] and Evan Schaefer. If you like this episode and want more, you can check out our whole catalog of adventures in American democracy and history at civics101podcast.org. And there is a really easy way to never miss a Civics episode. Follow us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. Civic 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

 


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

How Does Security Clearance Work?

From top secret (the names and locations of intelligence agents) to confidential (the drinking habits of a prime minister) the federal government has a lot of sensitive information. What are the different levels of security clearance, and how does clearance work?

Helping us untangle this web is Juliette Kayyem, professor of international security at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and national security analyst for CNN. She formerly served as Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama. 

 

Security Clearance - Final1.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

Security Clearance - Final1.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Nick Capodice:
Hannah, if you had top secret clearance and you could access any classified government information. What would you want to know about?

Hannah McCarthy:
I think I would want to know what the real plan is in the event of nuclear war.

Dr. Strangelove clip:
No point in you getting hysterical at a moment like this.

Hannah McCarthy:
I bet it's a little more grim than we think it is. What about you?

Nick Capodice:
The Mary Celeste.

Hannah McCarthy:
Is it the ghost ship?

Nick Capodice:
When it was discovered no one was on board and there was no sign of a scuffle. It was like the eighteen hundreds, though I don't think that top secret, top secret clearance is going to tell me about the Mary Celeste. I have another question for you, though. How good are you at keeping secrets?

Hannah McCarthy:
I think I'm pretty good. But then at the same time, when I buy someone something fun for their birthday, like I could just tell you right now. I've always prided myself on the idea that I think I would be able to keep any secret if I really had to, if the stakes were high enough and it was like people will get hurt if you share the secret. Yeah, I'm taking it to my grave. Like, what a privilege.

Top Gun clip:
It's classified. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Nick Capodice:
Well, there's a job, Hannah, that requires that kind of dedication, and I think you just might be the person for it.

Bridesmaids clip:
I work for the government. I have the highest possible security clearance. Don't repeat that. I can't protect you

Nick Capodice:
Because the federal government has a huge amount of sensitive information, from military movements to criminal investigations to scientific and technological developments to information about individuals. Close to three million people have some form of security clearance, which gives them access to that classified information.

The Post clip:
Must be precious cargo. Yeah, it's just government secrets.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy,

Nick Capodice:
And I'm Nick Capodice. Today, we're talking about how the government keeps its secrets and what it takes to get into the classified club.

The Simpsons:
Mr. Simpson, please cover your ears while I say the secret access word. Geez.

Nick Capodice:
Today's guest is Juliette Kayyem, professor of international security at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and National Security Analyst for CNN. She formerly served as assistant secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama, and she spoke with her former host, Virginia Prescott, in Twenty Seventeen.

Juliette Kayyem:
Ok, so there's three levels, at least for the federal government. The top level is, of course, top secret. That's information that, if disclosed, would cause exceptionally grave damage, that's the standard.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok. Hang on. What does she mean by exceptionally grave damage?

Nick Capodice:
Some examples of exceptionally grave damage include armed hostilities against the United States or its allies. The compromise of vital national defense plans. Or complex cryptologic and communications intelligence systems. The revelation of sensitive intelligence operations. And finally, the disclosure of scientific or technological developments vital to national security.

Hannah McCarthy:
But is that... Just boil it down for me?

Nick Capodice:
Basically, top secret information is the most important information, and that classification is used relatively sparingly.

Hannah McCarthy:
So how does the government decide what rises to that very highest level of top secret?

Nick Capodice:
There is a way to distinguish between top secret and everything else.

Juliette Kayyem:
The key difference between the top secret and the other classification levels is that top secret tends to show to the reader, say the president or secretary of defense, what we call sources and methods. How are we getting that information? You know, we have a spy in an ISIS ring in Germany, and he's telling us this. And so gosh, if that were disclosed or made public, You basically someone that person would die.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right. Got it. Top secret is the highest clearance. What are the other two?

Juliette Kayyem:
The next is secret, which is, if disclosed or released, would cause serious damage and then confidential. It just tends to be. These are things that the government needs to know for a variety of reasons, and it could be expected to cause damage.

Hannah McCarthy:
It's so interesting that you've got these qualifications of exceptionally serious, serious and just damage, right? Like someone in the government had to sit down and define that. What does that mean? I wouldn't even know how to define that for my own self. So you've got top secret, that's exceptionally grave damage, right? Secret is serious damage, but what is the difference between exceptionally grave and serious damage?

Nick Capodice:
This is information that is still pretty important, but without those sources and methods. So it could be intel about an ISIS ring in Germany, but it wouldn't include the people who got the information or how they got it.

Hannah McCarthy:
But OK, when it comes to confidential, right? Juliette said it could just cause damage. So is that like, you know, like casual, callous gossip,

Nick Capodice:
You're actually not far off!

Juliette Kayyem:
A good example of that would be maybe a memo from someone in the State Department discussing the, you know, the drinking habits of the prime minister of some country. You just don't want, you know, you don't want that out there.

Hannah McCarthy:
My question is if someone has top secret security clearance. Are they able to know all of the government secrets about anything?

Nick Capodice:
That would be cool, wouldn't it? But it's a little more complicated than that.

Juliette Kayyem:
It's very compartmentalized and rightfully so so that the fact that you have the access does not grant you the right to see all materials that are designated as, say, top secret. In other words, if I have top secret clearance as relates to, say, Homeland Security issues, I can't just email, you know, or call someone in the department security offices and say, I'm really interested in North Korea's nuclear policy. Can I see those top secret materials?

Nick Capodice:
And that's where the phrase "need to know" comes in.

The Rock clip:
You're on a need to know basis. And you don't need to know.

Nick Capodice:
Even if someone has the clearance for certain intelligence, they may not have access to it unless they need that information for a specific purpose. This is important because, as we said earlier, around three million people have some sort of security clearance, and that group isn't just made up of government employees and military personnel.

Juliette Kayyem:
For example, the Department of Defense may ask a team of cyber experts to come in and and give them advice on cybersecurity. So that's why outsiders sometimes have security clearances.

Nick Capodice:
However, the majority of people who have clearance about 70 percent in 2013 were military and government employees like Juliette, who worked for the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama.

Hannah McCarthy:
So I've heard a lot, especially in the past, like six to eight years or so about applying for security clearance, right. And how it can be this long, massive process.

Nick Capodice:
If you've been invited to do work that requires a clearance, you have to undergo an investigation. The government digs into your personal information and your background to determine if you're trustworthy.

Hannah McCarthy:
That sounds stressful. So who is in charge of approving or denying security clearance?

Nick Capodice:
Most agencies and departments of the government, they conduct their own investigations using the same basic procedures and an investigation service provider or ISP. The main ISP is the Office of Personnel and Management, which is an independent agency in the executive branch. And you want to take a guess, Hanna, as to which department has the most security clearances.

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm going to guess the one that's conducting secret, dangerous operations all over the world that they don't want people to know about, a.k.a. the Department of Defense.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, you got it. The Department of Defense holds over 80 percent of security clearances, and the DOD has its own investigation, service provider called the Defense Investigative Service.

Hannah McCarthy:
When you say investigation, like what does that actually mean?

Nick Capodice:
Well, essentially the government is trying to create a timeline of your life, including all the big moments and all the people in it.

Juliette Kayyem:
So in my case, and in most cases, what you do is you, you know, fill out the famous forms with lots of details about where you've lived, your debt, your marital status, your husband or wife or partners, actions where you've traveled, who you've known, who you've talked to, any questions about drug use about your, you know, support of the United States and its government. It is painful from any from any perspective.

Nick Capodice:
The form she's talking about is called the SF 86. It's got all your identifying information, including your proof of citizenship. By the way, Hannah, only U.S. citizens can get security clearance, though in some circumstances a non-U.S. citizen can receive a limited access authorization.

Hannah McCarthy:
A lifetime in America has taught me that government forms are boring enough as it is, so I can only imagine that this is the epitome of the boring government form.

Nick Capodice:
You also have to provide information about your parents and your siblings, including step parents, half and step siblings, children and in-laws.

Hannah McCarthy:
So if you have any kind of family drama which is every human being on the planet, I can imagine that can get a little tough or awkward.

Nick Capodice:
And then there is a record of your mental and psychological health, your criminal record and a history of drug and alcohol use. And here's one that is super interesting to me your financial record. What I was most shocked to learn is that over half of the people who are denied security clearance are denied because of financial issues like significant debt,

Hannah McCarthy:
Like my student loans might hurt my chances.

Nick Capodice:
Yes, any unpaid bills.

Hannah McCarthy:
I understand that, though, because if you're on the hook for a great deal of money to some other organization, you're kind of a liability.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, if you owe a large amount of money to someone, to anyone, it's much easier for outside forces to manipulate you, to give you favors to take care of that debt.

Hannah McCarthy:
How long does this whole process take?

Nick Capodice:
Like a lot of things, it depends on the level of urgency and who the person is.

Juliette Kayyem:
Let's use someone like Rex Tillerson a perfect example, probably someone who who may have had security clearances in the past. He's a private citizen. He's got complicated financial dynamics.

News clip :
Rex Tillerson, CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil, now tapped to be Trump's secretary of state, a man with no government experience but decades of dealmaking and international business ties. Those ties include extensive relations with Russia and most notably, Vladimir Putin ties.

Juliette Kayyem:
They can probably get through that one in two to three weeks, but they're putting a lot of resources behind it. For a lot of people like, say, my students who may be coming in as a CIA analyst just, you know, looking at things online and doing analysis for the CIA. It can take anywhere from six to eight months.

Hannah McCarthy:
I want to come back to this fact that over half of the people who don't get security clearance are denied because of debt. But what are some of the other reasons someone might be denied?

Nick Capodice:
Things like personal conduct, like if you're telling fibs on an application or you have a history of conduct issues, another issue is quote foreign influence like you have foreign family members or a financial stake in other countries.

Juliette Kayyem:
I think it's more common that the agents will come back to you and say, we have some questions about this. So my parents, my mother, was born in Lebanon. You know, there's greater concern about people with foreign born relatives, especially a mother or father or a spouse. That seems fair since these are national security issues. And so then they did need me to go back and sort of validate or verify not just her, but her nine brothers and sisters. So we're sort of diving into the depths of your own history

Nick Capodice:
And drug use. For example, marijuana use, though it is legal in many states, is still a red flag for security clearance.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right, once the government has finished combing through your personal life and decided that you are trustworthy enough to get clearance, what happens next? Do you have a special badge? Do you have a card that you keep in your wallet?

Nick Capodice:
All right, we'll get to that, and we're going to talk about how security clearance works in the day to day operations of the government and what it's like to have it right after this.

Hannah McCarthy:
But before the break, this is your weekly reminder that we have a newsletter. It's called Extra Credit. It comes out every two weeks, and I warmly recommend that if you haven't subscribed yet, you take a moment to subscribe right now at civics101podcast.org. Basically, the newsletter is the place where we put all of the stuff that we had to cut from the episode. So if you want to know, for example, about the different classified information that has been leaked or see some pictures of the secure rooms where top secret meetings take place, you can get all that, but only if you are subscribed to extra credit again. Go to Civics101podcast.org to subscribe today, and I swear it's not annoying. It's just a really great newsletter. Welcome back. You're listening to Civics 101 and we are attacking security clearance. Ok, so Nic, let's just say that I just got top secret security clearance, basically my dream. How do I prove that I have that clearance?

Juliette Kayyem:
You don't walk around with a badge all the time that says TS for top security clearance. You carry that clearance everywhere you go. And so you will be invited or not invited to various briefings, depending on that security level. Most government agencies have what's called security offices. That's people designated to ensure that government employees who get access to certain information are allowed to get access to that information. So that's essentially how it works in terms of functioning of government.

Nick Capodice:
And this gets back to what Juliette said earlier about how there's a lot of need to know and compartmentalization top secret clearance doesn't automatically get you into any briefing.

Juliette Kayyem:
So most of the time you will meet in rooms that are designated by the classification. So the meeting will be designated a certain classification level. So you're actually can't go unless you have that classification level. So you meet and you don't meet in, you know, the hallway you meet in what's called a SCIF,

Nick Capodice:
That's S-C-I-F.

Juliette Kayyem:
That's a secure, compartmentalized information facility. So those are spread throughout the federal government, for example, at Homeland Security, there are, I think, a couple dozen skiffs within the facility, including the secretary's office. And so in that way, there are processes that keep the wrong people out well before you're sitting in the room. So it would be it would mean it was bad planning if someone in the room were given top secret information and they didn't have that classification.

Nick Capodice:
Another big no-no in the skiff is cell phones.

Hannah McCarthy:
The cell phone things make sense. I mean, you can use a cell phone to record anything, right? And what about the president? Does the president just automatically have the highest security clearance? Are there any restrictions on the president's access?

Juliette Kayyem:
No, none. I mean, none that I know of. You know, maybe there's some super squirrely world. No. If the president wanted any information, he could be subject to it. I think people should know, though, is each principle, whether it's, you know, lower assistant secretary, high or secretary or a president. Each principal likes their information given to them in certain ways,

Nick Capodice:
The principals or those officials who have security clearance and the staff who prepare intelligence reports for them. They're known as briefers.

Juliette Kayyem:
And so what will happen is the briefers will amend how they present classified information to the principal, depending on their issues. Great anecdote that I wrote about about Secretary Napolitano, my boss at the Department of Homeland Security. People forget this, but she wanted her first part of her classified briefing. Most of this is not classified to be weather reports because for her before she got to the classified stuff, she wanted her briefings to include unclassified weather reports. And so that's what the agents did.

News clip :
I would encourage you not to focus too much on whether it's a category two or three if you are in the storm path. You won't be able to tell much difference.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now, I have heard that you can have your security clearance revoked, which would be such a bummer. How does that happen?

Juliette Kayyem:
So one is the obvious one, which is you abuse the the obligations you have for having that security clearance and you either abuse it purposefully leaks or whatever else or even on accident.

News clip :
A federal judge today ordered the New York Times to suspend temporarily publication of a series of reports based on a secret Pentagon study of how the United States became involved in the Vietnamese war.

Nick Capodice:
The Pentagon Papers. It is one example of deliberate leaking of top secret information. Nineteen seventy one Daniel Ellsberg smuggled thousands of pages of a classified report about the war in Vietnam, which showed that President Johnson had engaged in expanded secret military operations and lied about it to Congress and the public.

News clip :
I can't regret having done what I knew at the time to be what I ought to do my duty as a citizen. I have no no way that I can regret that.

Nick Capodice:
Ellsberg was charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property. But it doesn't have to be that big. Even small mistakes can cost you your clearance.

Juliette Kayyem:
You know, there are rules about how we treat classified information for a reason, and I'm I'm incredibly unsympathetic to people who even make mistakes. I mean, you are you are briefed on this stuff. You don't take stuff home. You don't put stuff in your briefcase.

Hannah McCarthy:
One of the things we always see in TV shows and movies are people with security clearance getting in trouble for spilling secrets to their partners or spouses. Is that a thing?

Nick Capodice:
Apparently it is Hannah, because there are rules about it.

Juliette Kayyem:
The thing that they tell you, which I always take to heart because my husband also had top secret clearance at a different part of federal government is pillow talk. You cannot casually say, Oh, we're dealing with this, like you actually have to have, you know, sort of enough devotion to your service, to the country, to not disclose to a spouse because the worry is, is someone says to their spouse, you know, oh, we're we're doing x, y and Z or I'm really nervous about that. That spouse casually says to someone else. And then that person ends up being married to a reporter.

Nick Capodice:
For example, former CIA director David Petraeus was investigated after an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, came to light. Meanwhile, FBI

News clip:
Investigators continue to pore over Broadwell's computer and boxes of evidence taken from her Charlotte home to determine if she had classified information she was not entitled to possess.

Nick Capodice:
This morning?

Juliette Kayyem:
The other way it gets revoked is obviously termination. You've got to sign a whole bunch of stuff giving up your security clearance hand in anything that you might have in your office that's designated as secure and be escorted off the facilities.

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm curious about Juliette's opinion on this. Does she believe that the security clearance system works?

Juliette Kayyem:
I do. I do. I mean, I think you hear a lot about it now because there's a certain casualness about classified information or top secret information that you saw in the early days of the Trump administration. He's he's getting briefed at Mar a Lago or they're having meetings that aren't exactly skiffs

News clip :
In Trump and Japan's Prime Minister Abe dining in public at Mar a Lago this weekend, learning North Korea just launched a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan, the two appearing to handle the preliminary response right there in front of other diners.

Juliette Kayyem:
You know, it's not so much. You worry that the people in the room are talking to reporters is that, you know, unless you have a secure room, whatever is being discussed, including top secret information, could be eavesdropped on by foreign agencies.

Nick Capodice:
However, there was one thing we mentioned earlier that Juliet said, is a challenge for security clearance.

Juliette Kayyem:
Government contractors remember a lot of government work, especially in national security. Intelligence is done by contractors because you just really need a lot of bodies and it's sometimes easier to get them outside. Those people do go through security clearance reviews, but you know, if you look at Edward Snowden and some cases since, that seems to be where there is a loophole.

News clip :
Government investigators thought they knew Edward Snowden. He went through a background check, took a polygraph test and sat through personal interviews. And then the government gave him access to some of its biggest secrets from Edward.

Nick Capodice:
Snowden was the contractor who leaked classified information from the NSA, the National Security Agency, revealing government surveillance programs that had secretly monitored individuals through their phones.

Hannah McCarthy:
I also remember how after President Trump was elected, there was some controversy about his son in law, right? Jared Kushner being given clearance.

Nick Capodice:
Right. Kushner, like Rex Tillerson, had, quote, foreign interests those personal or financial ties to other countries and Kushner's case. He had met with Russian contacts, including the ambassador and the head of a Russian owned bank, in the months leading up to his security clearance investigation.

Juliette Kayyem:
Any other human being who did what he did. And just to remind your listeners, he failed to disclose a lot of these meetings and his first round of disclosures through the classified screening process. Any normal person like you and me who was going through this process, who did that like, you're like so not going to get your security clearance or it's going to be revoked. In other words, if I got security clearance and then it was later learned that I had recent, that's what I have to remind people. These were recent meetings between myself and Russia. My my security clearance would be revoked.

Hannah McCarthy:
It's interesting because you have this ostensibly airtight process to grant someone security clearance and a person like me, or you would have to jump through so many hoops to get there. Right, right. But someone with potentially more red flags than either of us combined. Given how close they are to power, how much power they themselves have can find the loophole into that elite world of security clearance. People have entirely different experiences on getting security clearance based on how much power they have.

Nick Capodice:
This is a system that was put into place to ensure that only people who could be trusted with sensitive information are able to have access to it, especially information that could impact our safety and security. But as with most systems of government, it is designed and run by people, so it's only as strong and secure as the individuals who uphold it.

Hannah McCarthy:
This episode was produced by Christina Phillips are staff includes Jacqui Fulton, Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer.

Nick Capodice:
Music In this episode by Pro Reese First Bassists, The Waiting World at Large Knoy. Commodity Cats, Blue Note Sessions, Chris Zabriskie and Animal Weapon.

Hannah McCarthy:
You can find every episode of Civics 101 at Civics101podcast.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

Nick Capodice:
Civic's one on one is production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including collaboration tools, enterprise-grade admin tools, automated transcription, world-class support, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

 

Transcript

Nick Capodice: [00:00:00] Hannah, if you had top secret clearance and you could access any classified government information. What would you want to know about?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:09] I think I would want to know what the real plan is in the event of nuclear war.

 

Dr. Strangelove clip: [00:00:15] No point in you getting hysterical at a moment like this.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:18] I bet it's a little more grim than we think it is. What about you?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:00:23]  The Mary Celeste.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:25] Is it the ghost ship?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:00:26] When it was discovered no one was on board and there was no sign of a scuffle. It was like the eighteen hundreds, though I don't think that top secret, top secret clearance is going to tell me about the Mary Celeste. I have another question for you, though. How good are you at keeping secrets?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:43] I think I'm pretty good. But then at the same time, when I buy someone something fun for their birthday, like I could just tell you right now. I've always prided myself on the idea that I think I would be able to keep any secret if I really had to, if the stakes were high enough and it was like people will get hurt if you share the secret. Yeah, I'm taking it to my grave. Like, what a privilege.

 

Top Gun clip: [00:01:12] It's classified. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:01:16] Well, there's a job, Hannah, that requires that kind of dedication, and I think you just might be the person for it.

 

Bridesmaids clip: [00:01:21] I work for the government. I have the highest possible security clearance. Don't repeat that. I can't protect you

 

Nick Capodice: [00:01:28] Because the federal government has a huge amount of sensitive information, from military movements to criminal investigations to scientific and technological developments to information about individuals. Close to three million people have some form of security clearance, which gives them access to that classified information.

 

The Post clip: [00:01:50]  Must be precious cargo. Yeah, it's just government secrets.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:57] This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:01:59] And I'm Nick Capodice. Today, we're talking about how the government keeps its secrets and what it takes to get into the classified club.

 

The Simpsons: [00:02:07] Mr. Simpson, please cover your ears while I say the secret access word. Geez.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:02:13] Today's guest is Juliette Kayyem, professor of international security at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and National Security Analyst for CNN. She formerly served as assistant secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama, and she spoke with her former host, Virginia Prescott, in Twenty Seventeen.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:02:32] Ok, so there's three levels, at least for the federal government. The top level is, of course, top secret. That's information that, if disclosed, would cause exceptionally grave damage, that's the standard.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:46] Ok. Hang on. What does she mean by exceptionally grave damage?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:02:51] Some examples of exceptionally grave damage include armed hostilities against the United States or its allies. The compromise of vital national defense plans. Or complex cryptologic and communications intelligence systems. The revelation of sensitive intelligence operations. And finally, the disclosure of scientific or technological developments vital to national security.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:14] But is that... Just boil it down for me?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:03:16] Basically, top secret information is the most important information, and that classification is used relatively sparingly.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:29] So how does the government decide what rises to that very highest level of top secret?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:03:34] There is a way to distinguish between top secret and everything else.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:03:39] The key difference between the top secret and the other classification levels is that top secret tends to show to the reader, say the president or secretary of defense, what we call sources and methods. How are we getting that information? You know, we have a spy in an ISIS ring in Germany, and he's telling us this. And so gosh, if that were disclosed or made public, You basically someone that person would die.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:05] All right. Got it. Top secret is the highest clearance. What are the other two?

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:04:09] The next is secret, which is, if disclosed or released, would cause serious damage and then confidential. It just tends to be. These are things that the government needs to know for a variety of reasons, and it could be expected to cause damage.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:23] It's so interesting that you've got these qualifications of exceptionally serious, serious and just damage, right? Like someone in the government had to sit down and define that. What does that mean? I wouldn't even know how to define that for my own self. So you've got top secret, that's exceptionally grave damage, right? Secret is serious damage, but what is the difference between exceptionally grave and serious damage?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:04:49] This is information that is still pretty important, but without those sources and methods. So it could be intel about an ISIS ring in Germany, but it wouldn't include the people who got the information or how they got it.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:02] But OK, when it comes to confidential, right? Juliette said it could just cause damage. So is that like, you know, like casual, callous gossip,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:05:12] You're actually not far off!

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:05:14] A good example of that would be maybe a memo from someone in the State Department discussing the, you know, the drinking habits of the prime minister of some country. You just don't want, you know, you don't want that out there.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:26] My question is if someone has top secret security clearance. Are they able to know all of the government secrets about anything?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:05:33] That would be cool, wouldn't it? But it's a little more complicated than that.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:05:37] It's very compartmentalized and rightfully so so that the fact that you have the access does not grant you the right to see all materials that are designated as, say, top secret. In other words, if I have top secret clearance as relates to, say, Homeland Security issues, I can't just email, you know, or call someone in the department security offices and say, I'm really interested in North Korea's nuclear policy. Can I see those top secret materials?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:06:06] And that's where the phrase "need to know" comes in.

 

The Rock clip: [00:06:10] You're on a need to know basis. And you don't need to know.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:06:13] Even if someone has the clearance for certain intelligence, they may not have access to it unless they need that information for a specific purpose. This is important because, as we said earlier, around three million people have some sort of security clearance, and that group isn't just made up of government employees and military personnel.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:06:32] For example, the Department of Defense may ask a team of cyber experts to come in and and give them advice on cybersecurity. So that's why outsiders sometimes have security clearances.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:06:44] However, the majority of people who have clearance about 70 percent in 2013 were military and government employees like Juliette, who worked for the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:02] So I've heard a lot, especially in the past, like six to eight years or so about applying for security clearance, right. And how it can be this long, massive process.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:07:14] If you've been invited to do work that requires a clearance, you have to undergo an investigation. The government digs into your personal information and your background to determine if you're trustworthy.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:26] That sounds stressful. So who is in charge of approving or denying security clearance?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:07:31] Most agencies and departments of the government, they conduct their own investigations using the same basic procedures and an investigation service provider or ISP. The main ISP is the Office of Personnel and Management, which is an independent agency in the executive branch. And you want to take a guess, Hanna, as to which department has the most security clearances.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:55] I'm going to guess the one that's conducting secret, dangerous operations all over the world that they don't want people to know about, a.k.a. the Department of Defense.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:08:06] Yeah, you got it. The Department of Defense holds over 80 percent of security clearances, and the DOD has its own investigation, service provider called the Defense Investigative Service.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:18] When you say investigation, like what does that actually mean?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:08:21] Well, essentially the government is trying to create a timeline of your life, including all the big moments and all the people in it.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:08:29] So in my case, and in most cases, what you do is you, you know, fill out the famous forms with lots of details about where you've lived, your debt, your marital status, your husband or wife or partners, actions where you've traveled, who you've known, who you've talked to, any questions about drug use about your, you know, support of the United States and its government. It is painful from any from any perspective.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:08:57] The form she's talking about is called the SF 86. It's got all your identifying information, including your proof of citizenship. By the way, Hannah, only U.S. citizens can get security clearance, though in some circumstances a non-U.S. citizen can receive a limited access authorization.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:14] A lifetime in America has taught me that government forms are boring enough as it is, so I can only imagine that this is the epitome of the boring government form.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:09:26] You also have to provide information about your parents and your siblings, including step parents, half and step siblings, children and in-laws.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:37] So if you have any kind of family drama which is every human being on the planet, I can imagine that can get a little tough or awkward.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:09:45] And then there is a record of your mental and psychological health, your criminal record and a history of drug and alcohol use. And here's one that is super interesting to me your financial record. What I was most shocked to learn is that over half of the people who are denied security clearance are denied because of financial issues like significant debt,

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:08] Like my student loans might hurt my chances.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:10:10] Yes, any unpaid bills.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:13] I understand that, though, because if you're on the hook for a great deal of money to some other organization, you're kind of a liability.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:10:21] Yeah, if you owe a large amount of money to someone, to anyone, it's much easier for outside forces to manipulate you, to give you favors to take care of that debt.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:32] How long does this whole process take?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:10:34] Like a lot of things, it depends on the level of urgency and who the person is.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:10:38] Let's use someone like Rex Tillerson a perfect example, probably someone who who may have had security clearances in the past. He's a private citizen. He's got complicated financial dynamics.

 

News clip : [00:10:49] Rex Tillerson, CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil, now tapped to be Trump's secretary of state, a man with no government experience but decades of dealmaking and international business ties. Those ties include extensive relations with Russia and most notably, Vladimir Putin ties.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:11:09] They can probably get through that one in two to three weeks, but they're putting a lot of resources behind it. For a lot of people like, say, my students who may be coming in as a CIA analyst just, you know, looking at things online and doing analysis for the CIA. It can take anywhere from six to eight months.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:26] I want to come back to this fact that over half of the people who don't get security clearance are denied because of debt. But what are some of the other reasons someone might be denied?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:35] Things like personal conduct, like if you're telling fibs on an application or you have a history of conduct issues, another issue is quote foreign influence like you have foreign family members or a financial stake in other countries.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:11:48] I think it's more common that the agents will come back to you and say, we have some questions about this. So my parents, my mother, was born in Lebanon. You know, there's greater concern about people with foreign born relatives, especially a mother or father or a spouse. That seems fair since these are national security issues. And so then they did need me to go back and sort of validate or verify not just her, but her nine brothers and sisters. So we're sort of diving into the depths of your own history

 

Nick Capodice: [00:12:18] And drug use. For example, marijuana use, though it is legal in many states, is still a red flag for security clearance.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:32] All right, once the government has finished combing through your personal life and decided that you are trustworthy enough to get clearance, what happens next? Do you have a special badge? Do you have a card that you keep in your wallet?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:12:44] All right, we'll get to that, and we're going to talk about how security clearance works in the day to day operations of the government and what it's like to have it right after this.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:52] But before the break, this is your weekly reminder that we have a newsletter. It's called Extra Credit. It comes out every two weeks, and I warmly recommend that if you haven't subscribed yet, you take a moment to subscribe right now at civics101podcast.org. Basically, the newsletter is the place where we put all of the stuff that we had to cut from the episode. So if you want to know, for example, about the different classified information that has been leaked or see some pictures of the secure rooms where top secret meetings take place, you can get all that, but only if you are subscribed to extra credit again. Go to Civics101podcast.org to subscribe today, and I swear it's not annoying. It's just a really great newsletter. Welcome back. You're listening to Civics 101 and we are attacking security clearance. Ok, so Nic, let's just say that I just got top secret security clearance, basically my dream. How do I prove that I have that clearance?

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:14:12] You don't walk around with a badge all the time that says TS for top security clearance. You carry that clearance everywhere you go. And so you will be invited or not invited to various briefings, depending on that security level. Most government agencies have what's called security offices. That's people designated to ensure that government employees who get access to certain information are allowed to get access to that information. So that's essentially how it works in terms of functioning of government.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:14:46] And this gets back to what Juliette said earlier about how there's a lot of need to know and compartmentalization top secret clearance doesn't automatically get you into any briefing.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:14:57] So most of the time you will meet in rooms that are designated by the classification. So the meeting will be designated a certain classification level. So you're actually can't go unless you have that classification level. So you meet and you don't meet in, you know, the hallway you meet in what's called a SCIF,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:15:15] That's S-C-I-F.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:15:17] That's a secure, compartmentalized information facility. So those are spread throughout the federal government, for example, at Homeland Security, there are, I think, a couple dozen skiffs within the facility, including the secretary's office. And so in that way, there are processes that keep the wrong people out well before you're sitting in the room. So it would be it would mean it was bad planning if someone in the room were given top secret information and they didn't have that classification.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:15:48] Another big no-no in the skiff is cell phones.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:51] The cell phone things make sense. I mean, you can use a cell phone to record anything, right? And what about the president? Does the president just automatically have the highest security clearance? Are there any restrictions on the president's access?

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:16:08] No, none. I mean, none that I know of. You know, maybe there's some super squirrely world. No. If the president wanted any information, he could be subject to it. I think people should know, though, is each principle, whether it's, you know, lower assistant secretary, high or secretary or a president. Each principal likes their information given to them in certain ways,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:16:30] The principals or those officials who have security clearance and the staff who prepare intelligence reports for them. They're known as briefers.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:16:38] And so what will happen is the briefers will amend how they present classified information to the principal, depending on their issues. Great anecdote that I wrote about about Secretary Napolitano, my boss at the Department of Homeland Security. People forget this, but she wanted her first part of her classified briefing. Most of this is not classified to be weather reports because for her before she got to the classified stuff, she wanted her briefings to include unclassified weather reports. And so that's what the agents did.

 

News clip : [00:17:13] I would encourage you not to focus too much on whether it's a category two or three if you are in the storm path. You won't be able to tell much difference.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:28] Now, I have heard that you can have your security clearance revoked, which would be such a bummer. How does that happen?

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:17:35] So one is the obvious one, which is you abuse the the obligations you have for having that security clearance and you either abuse it purposefully leaks or whatever else or even on accident.

 

News clip : [00:17:47] A federal judge today ordered the New York Times to suspend temporarily publication of a series of reports based on a secret Pentagon study of how the United States became involved in the Vietnamese war.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:58] The Pentagon Papers. It is one example of deliberate leaking of top secret information. Nineteen seventy one Daniel Ellsberg smuggled thousands of pages of a classified report about the war in Vietnam, which showed that President Johnson had engaged in expanded secret military operations and lied about it to Congress and the public.

 

News clip : [00:18:19] I can't regret having done what I knew at the time to be what I ought to do my duty as a citizen. I have no no way that I can regret that.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:18:30] Ellsberg was charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property. But it doesn't have to be that big. Even small mistakes can cost you your clearance.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:18:40] You know, there are rules about how we treat classified information for a reason, and I'm I'm incredibly unsympathetic to people who even make mistakes. I mean, you are you are briefed on this stuff. You don't take stuff home. You don't put stuff in your briefcase.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:54] One of the things we always see in TV shows and movies are people with security clearance getting in trouble for spilling secrets to their partners or spouses. Is that a thing?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:19:05] Apparently it is Hannah, because there are rules about it.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:19:11] The thing that they tell you, which I always take to heart because my husband also had top secret clearance at a different part of federal government is pillow talk. You cannot casually say, Oh, we're dealing with this, like you actually have to have, you know, sort of enough devotion to your service, to the country, to not disclose to a spouse because the worry is, is someone says to their spouse, you know, oh, we're we're doing x, y and Z or I'm really nervous about that. That spouse casually says to someone else. And then that person ends up being married to a reporter.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:19:52] For example, former CIA director David Petraeus was investigated after an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, came to light.

 

News clip: [00:20:00]Meanwhile, FBI investigators continue to pore over Broadwell's computer and boxes of evidence taken from her Charlotte home to determine if she had classified information she was not entitled to possess.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:20:16] The other way it gets revoked is obviously termination. You've got to sign a whole bunch of stuff giving up your security clearance hand in anything that you might have in your office that's designated as secure and be escorted off the facilities.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:32] I'm curious about Juliette's opinion on this. Does she believe that the security clearance system works?

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:20:37] I do. I do. I mean, I think you hear a lot about it now because there's a certain casualness about classified information or top secret information that you saw in the early days of the Trump administration. He's he's getting briefed at Mar a Lago or they're having meetings that aren't exactly skiffs

 

News clip : [00:20:55] In Trump and Japan's Prime Minister Abe dining in public at Mar a Lago this weekend, learning North Korea just launched a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan, the two appearing to handle the preliminary response right there in front of other diners.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:21:12] You know, it's not so much. You worry that the people in the room are talking to reporters is that, you know, unless you have a secure room, whatever is being discussed, including top secret information, could be eavesdropped on by foreign agencies.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:21:25] However, there was one thing we mentioned earlier that Juliet said, is a challenge for security clearance.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:21:32] Government contractors remember a lot of government work, especially in national security. Intelligence is done by contractors because you just really need a lot of bodies and it's sometimes easier to get them outside. Those people do go through security clearance reviews, but you know, if you look at Edward Snowden and some cases since, that seems to be where there is a loophole.

 

News clip : [00:21:54] Government investigators thought they knew Edward Snowden. He went through a background check, took a polygraph test and sat through personal interviews. And then the government gave him access to some of its biggest secrets from Edward.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:22:06] Snowden was the contractor who leaked classified information from the NSA, the National Security Agency, revealing government surveillance programs that had secretly monitored individuals through their phones.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:18] I also remember how after President Trump was elected, there was some controversy about his son in law, right? Jared Kushner being given clearance.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:22:26] Right. Kushner, like Rex Tillerson, had, quote, foreign interests those personal or financial ties to other countries and Kushner's case. He had met with Russian contacts, including the ambassador and the head of a Russian owned bank, in the months leading up to his security clearance investigation.

 

Juliette Kayyem: [00:22:44] Any other human being who did what he did. And just to remind your listeners, he failed to disclose a lot of these meetings and his first round of disclosures through the classified screening process. Any normal person like you and me who was going through this process, who did that like, you're like so not going to get your security clearance or it's going to be revoked. In other words, if I got security clearance and then it was later learned that I had recent, that's what I have to remind people. These were recent meetings between myself and Russia. My my security clearance would be revoked.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:21] It's interesting because you have this ostensibly airtight process to grant someone security clearance and a person like me, or you would have to jump through so many hoops to get there. Right, right. But someone with potentially more red flags than either of us combined. Given how close they are to power, how much power they themselves have can find the loophole into that elite world of security clearance. People have entirely different experiences on getting security clearance based on how much power they have.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:23:57] This is a system that was put into place to ensure that only people who could be trusted with sensitive information are able to have access to it, especially information that could impact our safety and security. But as with most systems of government, it is designed and run by people, so it's only as strong and secure as the individuals who uphold it.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:38] This episode was produced by Christina Phillips are staff includes Jacqui Fulton, Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:24:45] Music In this episode by Pro Reese First Bassists, The Waiting World at Large Knoy. Commodity Cats, Blue Note Sessions, Chris Zabriskie and Animal Weapon.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:54] You can find every episode of Civics 101 at Civics101podcast.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:25:01] Civic's one on one is production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

 


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

The President and the Price of Gas

When this episode was recorded, gasoline prices in the US averaged $3.28 a gallon. Stickers of President Biden saying "I did that" decorated gas pumps across the country. What handles, if any, does a president have to lower the price of gas? How responsible are they for high prices? 

Today we get to the bottom of the oil barrel with two specialists; Robert Rapier from Proteum Energy and Irina Ivanova from CBS News. They guide us through a purely economic, scientific, and historical analysis of the powers of the chief executive, from the 70s to now, and the price of gasoline. 

Link to Robert’s article, How a President Can Impact Gas Prices

Link to Irina’s article, Can President Biden Do Anything to Lower Gas Prices?

Click here to find more charts of Civics 101 episodes from Periodic Presidents!

 

presidents and gas 2.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

presidents and gas 2.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Archival:
All righty, folks, check this out. You see that. That's all me. "I did that." Yeah, he did it. That's what's killing my business.

Nick Capodice:
You ever see one of those, Hannah

Hannah McCarthy:
And "I did that" sticker?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah.

Nick Capodice:
Would you describe it for me?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, it's just Biden pointing, the sticker says, "I did that" and people will slap it on, like the gas pump at a gas station.

Archival:
Next person who gets their gas and they they get sticker shock. They get to remember that. President Biden did that. Here we go. Right next to that four Dollar and sixty seven cents a gallon gasoline.

Nick Capodice:
I was looking around for videos of these stickers at gas stations to make this episode, and you can buy them anywhere, by the way. One recent gas pump display I saw had three stickers. It had Joe Biden pointing and saying, I did that. And then a picture of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi saying I helped. And then Vice President Kamala Harris saying, I just blank; the blank being a rude word I don't want to say on this podcast. And if we were like a hip, fast paced political talk show, we could make today's episode, Well, did he do that? Did Joe Biden make gas prices go up? And while we will answer that question today, we're going to frame it a bit differently because you're listening to Civics 101, I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm Hannah McCarthy,

Nick Capodice:
And today we're talking about the president and the price of gasoline. What is the relationship throughout American history between our chief executive and what we pay at the pump? And to start our journey, Hannah, I want to introduce you to Robert Rapier.

Robert Rapier:
So, yeah, my name is Robert Rapier. I'm a chemical engineer. I work for Proteum Energy. We take oilfield flare gas and other supplies, and we convert that into hydrogen. On the side, I write for Forbes.

Nick Capodice:
Just to reiterate, Robert is not a political scientist. He has worked in engineering in the fuel and oil industry for about 30 years. And March of 2021 he wrote an article called "Who is to blame for rising gas prices?" And I spoke with him and he let me in on a little secret.

Go on.

He told me the name of the person actually responsible for high gas prices.

Hannah McCarthy:
Who is it?

Nick Capodice:
Yoweri Museveni. He's the president of Uganda.

Robert Rapier:
So a friend of mine that lives in Uganda, he wrote to me about, you know, a few months ago, and he said gas prices here are up 50 percent. And I said, Wow. I said, Who do people blame? And he said, our politicians. And I said, OK, so now we know who to blame for gas prices. Uganda's politicians.

Nick Capodice:
He's joking, I'm joking, we're all joking. Please don't go putting stickers on Ugandan gas pumps.

Robert Rapier:
so I think that's, you know, it's universal. When gas prices go up, people blame the politicians. Basically, the underlying oil price movement is responsible for nearly all of gasoline price movement. So if you want to know why gas prices increase, it's almost always, well, oil prices increase. And what I said in that article is there are very few handles that a president has to influence gas prices in the short term.

Hannah McCarthy:
So what I'm getting here is that the short answer to is the president responsible for the price of gasoline is no.

Nick Capodice:
Correct. It is no. We can end the episode right now.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now this is such a touchy topic. Nick, what was the response to Robert's article?

Nick Capodice:
It was not pleasant. The reason I reached out to him specifically was because his analysis was explicitly nonpartisan. I wanted to talk to someone who would take the political fuel out of this debate.

Robert Rapier:
Yeah, I try to do that. But people will still say, Oh, you're being political, and I say, No, I'm not. I'm just telling you what's happening. You can view it that way if you want. But I'm telling you what's actually happening. And I got a lot of nasty, nasty messages from people who were like, Oh, you must be an idiot. Any idiot can see that Biden became president, and then we had this big surge in gas prices. How could he not be responsible? And then people would say, How can you spend all this stimulus money and not expect inflation? He canceled the Keystone Pipeline. How can you not see? And all these things? I mean, none of them. None of them have much of an impact on gas prices.

Nick Capodice:
And I'm going to get back to the Keystone pipeline because that is relevant to this topic. But it's not just President Biden. These accusations have happened to whomever has been president when gas was expensive. But as Robert said, the price of gas is ruthlessly firmly permanently tied to the price of oil.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, like how tied?

Nick Capodice:
I want to show you this graph, and I'm going to put it on our website if anyone wants to see it. Civics101podcast.org It is a chart of the price of oil and the price of gasoline in the U.S. since 1946.

Hannah McCarthy:
Oh, they track almost exactly.

Nick Capodice:
Exactly, yeah. And it is hard sometimes to look outside of our star spangled shell. But the rise and fall of the price of gas in the U.S. over the years is the same in the U.K., Canada, Portugal, et cetera.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, so yes, you've made it very clear that the price of gas mirrors the price of oil, but can you answer for me why it is so expensive right now in January 2022?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, but first I have to put this in the broader historical picture.

Irina Ivanova:
People are really upset now because gas is over three dollars a gallon. You know, this does not even compare to what was going on in the 70s.

Nick Capodice:
This is Irina Ivanova, she's an economic reporter for CBS News, and she recently wrote an article called Can President Biden Do Anything to lower gas prices?

Irina Ivanova:
Right now we have. We have gas. It's expensive, it's definitely hurting people. You know, we need our cars. And if you're on a tight budget, it hurts your budget. In the seventies, I mean, we we had like gas lines around the block.

Archival:
This gas line at one station on the Upper West Side ran from Ninety Sixth Street and West End Avenue, all the way up to one hundred and Second Street. This is unreal. Isn't this disgusting? Why doesn't anybody contact the president? Why is he letting this happen to us?

Nick Capodice:
When I say energy crisis in the nineteen seventies, who's the first person that jumps into your mind? Who do people blame.

Hannah McCarthy:
Jimmy Carter? No?

Archival:
We face a problem, a problem with regard to energy heating. For example, this winter, just as we thought, we faced a problem of gasoline this summer and the possibility of brownouts.

Nick Capodice:
Carter popped into my head, too, but it started with Richard Nixon. The energy crises, plural, by the way, in the nineteen seventies were massive and complicated. They dominated the headlines. But to summarize. Are you familiar with OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries?

Hannah McCarthy:
Isn't it a group of countries that produce a lot of oil and so they agree on prices and production so that we don't run out of oil and so the market is not wildly unstable?

Nick Capodice:
Absolutely. And there's also OAPEC, which is the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries. And a long story short, OAPEC created an embargo. They refused to sell oil to countries that had supported Israel in what is called the Yom Kippur War. The United States was one of the eight nations embargoed, and it was devastating.

Irina Ivanova:
The U.S. didn't have domestic oil production at that point, or if they did it, it was really minimal. You know, we were importing oil mostly from the Middle East. So there was this real sense of, you know, the U.S. being at the mercy of foreign powers and then the president not being able to to do anything about it. I mean, you know, what are what are what are you going to what are you going to do, say, like, Hey, guys, like create more oil, you know, it was a whole geopolitical crisis.

Nick Capodice:
And gas wasn't just expensive after this embargo, there just wasn't enough of it.

Irina Ivanova:
I mean, this is this is literally like, you need fuel. You cannot get it. People had to fill their tank based on the number on their license plate. And then, of course, you had people swapping around license plates so that on this day it was only plates ending and even numbers could get filled up. On the next day, it was, you know, plates ending in odd numbers.

Nick Capodice:
President Nixon established price controls on domestic oil. He asked gas stations to not sell gas on Saturday nights and Sundays. And Congress created the 55 mile per hour speed limit on federal highways, which was the inspiration for Sammy Hagar's hard rock anthem. I can't drive 55.

Hannah McCarthy:
The fifty five mile an hour speed limit was to control use of gas??

Nick Capodice:
Gas consumption, absolutely, you save gas when you drive slower. This was the issue in the Nixon administration. In a poll conducted in New York, seventy six percent of people said the energy crisis was the most important problem facing the country versus Watergate, which got about 15 percent. And then it was the issue in Gerald Ford's administration. And then Jimmy Carter made the energy crisis his own personal Waterloo. He gave speeches and how we all just have to use less gas. He installed solar panels on the White House. He asked Americans to just do more with less, which you can imagine was an extremely unpopular concept.

Archival:
If we learn to live truthfully and remember the importance of helping our neighbors, then we can find ways to adjust.

Nick Capodice:
It was so unpopular that it was parodied by Archie Bunker in all in the family.

Archival:
Bet you won't find none of them congressmen turning down their electric blankets tonight.

Nick Capodice:
And then things started to shift in the 1980s. Oil started to flow more freely from the Middle East. Ronald Reagan came in, removed those price controls that Nixon and created stopped pushing Carter's automobile efficiency standards, removed all environmental restrictions on local gas production and deployed soldiers in the Persian Gulf. And the last thing he did was to take the solar panels off the grid for the White House. Gas prices came down.

Hannah McCarthy:
Wow. Ok. All of that history brings up the question from the beginning of this episode. Can a president or a Congress do anything to lower the price of oil and therefore gasoline? Are there any executive powers that President Biden can use or has used?

Nick Capodice:
There are sort of, and we're going to talk about three of the things a president can do to lower the price of gas, along with the breakdown of what's going on right now. And finally, how the Keystone XL pipeline is tied to all of this right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy:
But before we break, just your friendly weekly reminder that we have a newsletter and it's not one of those annoying things, we're not going to bombard you with emails. It's just the place where we put all of the fun stuff that we learned about episodes while we were working on it. It is just a way to get to know us better and get to know more about civics. If you're into that, you can subscribe. Right now, it's at Civics101podcast.org. It comes out every other week and it's fun. All right.

Nick Capodice:
Civics 101 is a listener supported show, support the show with whatever you can, depending on the price of gas right now at our website civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy:
As of this recording, January twenty fifth, 2022 gas in the U.S. is at an average of three dollars and twenty two cents a gallon, up from a dollar and 80 cents in spring of twenty twenty. So how Nick, do we get here so fast?

Nick Capodice:
All right, here's Robert Rapier again.

Robert Rapier:
Okay, so as the pandemic was starting to get heated up, Saudi Arabia and Russia decided to engage in a price war over over oil that started prices dipping.

Nick Capodice:
Hannah, something I didn't know about was the concept of futures and investing. Don't turn off the podcast. It's interesting, I promise. People invest in oil futures, which is a lot riskier than just buying stocks, because what you're doing is you're committing to owing an infinite amount of money. If you invest a thousand dollars in oil futures and the price goes way down. You don't just earn zero, you're on the hook to owe a lot of money. Isn't that scary?

Hannah McCarthy:
I don't know anything about investing. It's a good thing I don't do it.

Robert Rapier:
And that's what happened, and a lot of people got caught. It caused some marginal producers to shut down. It caused some producers to go bankrupt. And then the pandemic hit and the stay at home orders and the demand for oil in the U.S. plummeted.

Hannah McCarthy:
Oh, I remember this period, nobody was driving. We all had stay at home orders and so nobody was buying gas and it was something like under $2 a gallon.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah. And then slowly Americans started going back to work and back to school

Robert Rapier:
After the stay at home order started to expire, demand started to recover and it recovered much faster than supply did. And so from negative prices, we saw prices start to take off. And then over the next year, supply was short. Demand increased back to about where it was and supply which had fallen by two or three million barrels a day. It took a much longer time to come back online. If people say why and I said, well, some of the companies don't even exist anymore. Some of the marginal wells were shut in, and you can't bring those back online. If you've got a stripper well, producing a few barrels a day and suddenly prices are negative. You might permanently shut that well down and you're not going to bring it back online. And that is the primary reason oil prices skyrocketed and gasoline prices followed. That is the single biggest reason, much bigger factor than anything Trump did or anything that Biden has done.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, I'm ready for it. What can the president do to lower gas prices?

Nick Capodice:
Alright, I got three for you. Three things. Here is Irina Ivanova again with number one.

Irina Ivanova:
There's one specific thing that the president could do and that Biden actually has done. That has a little bit of an impact that it can create a little blip in gas prices. And that is to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Hannah McCarthy:
What is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Just like a massive tank of gas somewhere?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, it's a system of caverns along the Gulf Coast, massive underground salt domes that are full of oil and that oil can be turned into gasoline. It was created in 1975 in response to the oil embargo, and it can hold seven hundred and fourteen million barrels of crude. Some caverns hold sweet crude, some caverns hold sour crude. I'm going to get into that in the newsletter. But recently, Congress has been selling the oil in the reserve since 2015 to fund the deficit. And President Biden released 50 million barrels from it in November 2021.

Robert Rapier:
Presidents frequently do it leading up to elections because high gas prices are not a prescription for getting, getting reelected. And so that's one. It's not a, I mean, you can't just keep doing that. We have a strategic petroleum reserve for a reason, so there is a risk in doing it. But presidents have used that handle time and time again.

Irina Ivanova:
And the main reason is really signaling right. And voters, voters love it, you know? So there is there is that effect of like, Oh, the president's looking out for me. In the grand scheme of things just to sort of put it into numbers, you know, we rereleased something like 50 million barrels of oil, that is roughly what the entire U.S. uses in a single day.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right, sounds like number one, tap the piggy bank. It's a gesture, but a relatively ineffective one, right? So what's number two?

Nick Capodice:
Number two, it's to ban exports. Stop selling oil that we produce to other countries. Keep it all to ourselves, which we did for 40 years until 2015.

Robert Rapier:
President Obama agreed to end that ban on oil exports, and what was happening at the time is fracking had had increased oil supplie dramatically in the US.

Nick Capodice:
Fracking by the way, or hydraulic fracturing is a method of extracting oil and natural gas from deep underground, and we were getting a lot more gas from fracking in 2015.

Robert Rapier:
But there's a ban on exports, and so all of that had to go through domestic refineries. And that was depressing the price of oil. And what was happening is domestic refiners were then refining the oil, but there was no ban on finished product exports. So finished product exports went through the roof. Refiners were printing money. And in reality, it didn't really affect gas prices because gas prices still were set by the global market. And so it just shifted who made who was making the money. So you could make an argument that maybe it might have some influence because it would depress oil prices in the US? But, you know, unless you're banning finished product exports to its just, refiners are going to make a lot more money.

Hannah McCarthy:
So Robert is saying that if we stop exporting, oil refineries will just export the gas and diesel they make from that oil, and nothing will change, except refiners make more money.

Nick Capodice:
Yes. And there's another problem with stopping exports. Kind of an oil cold war.

Irina Ivanova:
The bigger issue, which a lot of people brought up with this idea of banning oil exports, is that it would cause other oil producing countries to use a technical term to completely flip out and lose their cool and and retaliate. I mean, if the U.S. can ban oil exports, other people can say, Well, we can't have your oil, you can't have our oil, you know, so, so so their their analysis is that it would just it would just lead to an arms race metaphorically where everybody's withholding their gasoline and we don't actually have, you know, more oil globally.

Nick Capodice:
And finally, action number three, cut taxes. There is a federal tax of about 18 cents per gallon of gasoline, but the much bigger tax comes from your state.

Irina Ivanova:
Different states have very, very different amounts of taxes. There's Texas. Tennessee have very low fuel taxes. California famously has extremely high fuel taxes. On average, the tax that the state imposes accounts for roughly 15 percent of the price at the pump. State governors could potentially try to make this stuff cheaper, and they, you know, they would work, especially in a place like California where you know, you're talking about 450 or more for for gas. You know, if, if, if you shave off 15 percent, that's that could be significant.

Hannah McCarthy:
We're calling this episode the president and the price of gas, but it sounds like you could just as easily call it the governor and the price of gas.

Nick Capodice:
You could indeed, your state's own little president. Or maybe it'd be better to call the episode your state legislature and the price of gas, since they're the ones who actually write the laws.

Hannah McCarthy:
Last thing I have heard a lot of criticism of President Biden's handling of the price of gasoline being tied to his decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline. Can we get into that?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Archival:
Well, we have thousands of young people here in the streets of Washington, D.C., marching to the White House to risk arrest, to demand the President Obama say no to Keystone XL...

Nick Capodice:
So, briefly, the Keystone Pipeline project, it's a proposed pipeline that transported oil from Canada to Texas. It was the subject of years of protests by indigenous activists, landowners and environmental groups. It was a protest that spanned three presidential administrations, and it was a successful protest as the project was abandoned in June 2021 after President Biden issued an executive order to ban the permit for it. Hannah, this is the talking point on conservative talk radio that the canceling of the pipeline increase the price of gas. So did it. Roberts says no.

Robert Rapier:
Why wouldn't that influence oil prices? Because the Keystone pipeline, that supply wasn't going to come along for years, and we don't know what the demand situation is like in years. So so this doesn't have a short term influence on oil prices. I said before, if scientists say we're going to have 50 percent more hurricanes in the Gulf Coast over the next two decades, that's not going to move oil prices. But if one is rolling through the Gulf Coast right now, it will. I mean, there's short term factors that increase the price, but longer term, these things just don't move the needle much. So a lot of the actions President Biden has taken, although they can influence the price in the long run, people mistakenly assume that's why prices are moving now. And for a lot of people, I point out between the time of the election and the time Biden was sworn in, oil prices moved up 40 percent. Do you blame Trump for that?

Hannah McCarthy:
Did people blame Trump for that?

Nick Capodice:
House and Senate Democrats sure did. They blamed it on his recent sanctions of Iran. President Trump tweeted at OPEC and said that they were to blame and they had to increase production. That didn't do much. So then he tweeted that it was Obama's fault because Obama had conspired with Saudi Arabia to lower prices before his reelection. Anyways, this is a playbook both parties have used. But to reiterate the effect of the Keystone Pipeline project, Irina spoke to Tom Kloza from OPIS, which is a major market analysis firm. And Tom said "The Keystone decision is something that might come back and haunt the administration in 2023. But it has absolutely nothing to do with why crude oil prices now have rallied so much since April 2020."

Hannah McCarthy:
Okay, this is making me think about the fact that no matter how much power we perceive our chief executive as having, sometimes we lose sight of the fact that there are instances where they are not the most important person in the room. And when I look at how the price of gas here tracks exactly with oil prices globally, it's also clear that just like a lot of issues when it comes to the price of oil, the United States is not the most important person in the room, either.

Nick Capodice:
We should make a new sticker.

Hannah McCarthy:
Oh, yeah, what should we put on it?

Nick Capodice:
It like a huge sticker that is an illustrated embodiment of the global crude oil market saying, I did that! And then like much smaller, a sticker that's got like the House and the Senate. And like 50 different state legislatures and all the governors, the department who runs the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and you've got to like, have Nixon and Carter on it too, maybe actually every president thus far sort of all holding hands like it's a small world and they're all singing "and we all kind of helped."

Hannah McCarthy:
I'll call the print shop.

Nick Capodice:
Well, that'll just about do it. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jcqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and doesn't need to heat her home because of her coat. Because of her amazing jacket. Music In this episode by the inimitable Chris Zabriskie, Kevin McCleod, Lobo Loco, Dyalla, broke for free, Nico Staf, Bobby Renz, and this track playing here. We love it so much. Whispering through by Asura. Civics 101 is a production of NPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including world-class support, automated transcription, transcribe multiple languages, advanced search, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

 

Transcript

presidents and gas 2.mp3

Archival: All righty, folks, check this out. You see that. That's all me. "I did that." Yeah, he did it. That's what's killing my business.

Nick Capodice: You ever see one of those, Hannah

Hannah McCarthy: And "I did that" sticker?

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Nick Capodice: Would you describe it for me?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, it's just Biden pointing, the sticker says, "I did that" and people will slap it on, like the gas pump at a gas station.

Archival: Next [00:00:30] person who gets their gas and they they get sticker shock. They get to remember that. President Biden did that. Here we go. Right next to that four Dollar and sixty seven cents a gallon gasoline.

Nick Capodice: I was looking around for videos of these stickers at gas stations to make this episode, and you can buy them anywhere, by the way. One recent gas pump display I saw had three stickers. It had Joe Biden pointing and saying, I did that. And then a picture of Speaker of the House Nancy [00:01:00] Pelosi saying I helped. And then Vice President Kamala Harris saying, I just blank; the blank being a rude word I don't want to say on this podcast. And if we were like a hip, fast paced political talk show, we could make today's episode, Well, did he do that? Did Joe Biden make gas prices go up? And while we will answer that question today, we're going to frame it a bit differently because you're listening to Civics 101, I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy,

Nick Capodice: And today we're talking about the president [00:01:30] and the price of gasoline. What is the relationship throughout American history between our chief executive and what we pay at the pump? And to start our journey, Hannah, I want to introduce you to Robert Rapier.

Robert Rapier: So, yeah, my name is Robert Rapier. I'm a chemical engineer. I work for Proteum Energy. We take oilfield flare gas and other supplies, and we convert that into hydrogen. On the side, I write for Forbes.

Nick Capodice: Just [00:02:00] to reiterate, Robert is not a political scientist. He has worked in engineering in the fuel and oil industry for about 30 years. And March of 2021 he wrote an article called "Who is to blame for rising gas prices?" And I spoke with him and he let me in on a little secret.

Go on.

He told me the name of the person actually responsible for high gas prices.

Hannah McCarthy: Who is it?

Nick Capodice: Yoweri Museveni. He's [00:02:30] the president of Uganda.

Robert Rapier: So a friend of mine that lives in Uganda, he wrote to me about, you know, a few months ago, and he said gas prices here are up 50 percent. And I said, Wow. I said, Who do people blame? And he said, our politicians. And I said, OK, so now we know who to blame for gas prices. Uganda's politicians.

Nick Capodice: He's [00:03:00] joking, I'm joking, we're all joking. Please don't go putting stickers on Ugandan gas pumps.

Robert Rapier: so I think that's, you know, it's universal. When gas prices go up, people blame the politicians. Basically, the underlying oil price movement is responsible for nearly all of gasoline price movement. So if you want to know why gas prices increase, it's almost always, well, oil prices increase. And what I said in that article is there are very few handles that a president [00:03:30] has to influence gas prices in the short term.

Hannah McCarthy: So what I'm getting here is that the short answer to is the president responsible for the price of gasoline is no.

Nick Capodice: Correct. It is no. We can end the episode right now.

Hannah McCarthy: Now this is such a touchy topic. Nick, what was the response to Robert's article?

Nick Capodice: It was not pleasant. The reason I reached out to him specifically was because his analysis was explicitly nonpartisan. I wanted to talk to someone who would [00:04:00] take the political fuel out of this debate.

Robert Rapier: Yeah, I try to do that. But people will still say, Oh, you're being political, and I say, No, I'm not. I'm just telling you what's happening. You can view it that way if you want. But I'm telling you what's actually happening. And I got a lot of nasty, nasty messages from people who were like, Oh, you must be an idiot. Any idiot can see that Biden became president, and then we had this big surge in gas prices. How could he not be responsible? And then people would say, How [00:04:30] can you spend all this stimulus money and not expect inflation? He canceled the Keystone Pipeline. How can you not see? And all these things? I mean, none of them. None of them have much of an impact on gas prices.

Nick Capodice: And I'm going to get back to the Keystone pipeline because that is relevant to this topic. But it's not just President Biden. These accusations have happened to whomever has been president when gas was expensive. But as Robert [00:05:00] said, the price of gas is ruthlessly firmly permanently tied to the price of oil.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, like how tied?

Nick Capodice: I want to show you this graph, and I'm going to put it on our website if anyone wants to see it. Civics101podcast.org It is a chart of the price of oil and the price of gasoline in the U.S. since 1946.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, they track almost exactly.

Nick Capodice: Exactly, yeah. And it is hard sometimes to look outside of our star spangled shell. But the [00:05:30] rise and fall of the price of gas in the U.S. over the years is the same in the U.K., Canada, Portugal, et cetera.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, so yes, you've made it very clear that the price of gas mirrors the price of oil, but can you answer for me why it is so expensive right now in January 2022?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, but first I have to put this in the broader historical picture.

Irina Ivanova: People are really upset now because gas is over three dollars a gallon. You know, this does not even [00:06:00] compare to what was going on in the 70s.

Nick Capodice: This is Irina Ivanova, she's an economic reporter for CBS News, and she recently wrote an article called Can President Biden Do Anything to lower gas prices?

Irina Ivanova: Right now we have. We have gas. It's expensive, it's definitely hurting people. You know, we need our cars. And if you're on a tight budget, it hurts your budget. In the seventies, I mean, we we had like gas lines around the block.

Archival: This [00:06:30] gas line at one station on the Upper West Side ran from Ninety Sixth Street and West End Avenue, all the way up to one hundred and Second Street. This is unreal. Isn't this disgusting? Why doesn't anybody contact the president? Why is he letting this happen to us?

Nick Capodice: When I say energy crisis in the nineteen seventies, who's the first person that jumps into your mind? Who do people blame.

Hannah McCarthy: Jimmy Carter? No?

Archival: We face a problem, a problem with regard to energy heating. For example, this winter, just as we thought, we faced a problem [00:07:00] of gasoline this summer and the possibility of brownouts.

Nick Capodice: Carter popped into my head, too, but it started with Richard Nixon. The energy crises, plural, by the way, in the nineteen seventies were massive and complicated. They dominated the headlines. But to summarize. Are you familiar with OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries?

Hannah McCarthy: Isn't it a group of countries that produce a lot of oil and so they agree on prices and production so that we don't run out of oil and so the market is not wildly [00:07:30] unstable?

Nick Capodice: Absolutely. And there's also OAPEC, which is the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries. And a long story short, OAPEC created an embargo. They refused to sell oil to countries that had supported Israel in what is called the Yom Kippur War. The United States was one of the eight nations embargoed, and it was devastating.

Irina Ivanova: The U.S. didn't have domestic oil production at that point, or if they did it, it was really minimal. You know, we were importing oil mostly [00:08:00] from the Middle East. So there was this real sense of, you know, the U.S. being at the mercy of foreign powers and then the president not being able to to do anything about it. I mean, you know, what are what are what are you going to what are you going to do, say, like, Hey, guys, like create more oil, you know, it was a whole geopolitical crisis.

Nick Capodice: And gas wasn't just expensive after this embargo, there just wasn't enough of it.

Irina Ivanova: I mean, this is this is literally like, you need fuel. [00:08:30] You cannot get it. People had to fill their tank based on the number on their license plate. And then, of course, you had people swapping around license plates so that on this day it was only plates ending and even numbers could get filled up. On the next day, it was, you know, plates ending in odd numbers.

Nick Capodice: President Nixon established price controls on domestic oil. He asked gas stations to not sell gas on Saturday nights and Sundays. And Congress created the 55 mile per hour speed [00:09:00] limit on federal highways, which was the inspiration for Sammy Hagar's hard rock anthem. I can't drive 55.

Hannah McCarthy: The fifty five mile an hour speed limit was to control use of gas??

Nick Capodice: Gas consumption, absolutely, you save gas when you drive slower. This was the issue in the Nixon administration. In a poll conducted in New York, seventy six percent of people said [00:09:30] the energy crisis was the most important problem facing the country versus Watergate, which got about 15 percent. And then it was the issue in Gerald Ford's administration. And then Jimmy Carter made the energy crisis his own personal Waterloo. He gave speeches and how we all just have to use less gas. He installed solar panels on the White House. He asked Americans to just do more with less, which you can imagine was an extremely unpopular concept.

Archival: If we learn to live truthfully [00:10:00] and remember the importance of helping our neighbors, then we can find ways to adjust.

Nick Capodice: It was so unpopular that it was parodied by Archie Bunker in all in the family.

Archival: Bet you won't find none of them congressmen turning down their electric blankets tonight.

Nick Capodice: And then things started to shift in the 1980s. Oil started to flow more freely from the Middle East. Ronald Reagan came in, removed those price controls that Nixon and created stopped pushing Carter's automobile efficiency [00:10:30] standards, removed all environmental restrictions on local gas production and deployed soldiers in the Persian Gulf. And the last thing he did was to take the solar panels off the grid for the White House. Gas prices came down.

Hannah McCarthy: Wow. Ok. All of that history brings up the question from the beginning of this episode. Can a president or a Congress do anything to lower the price of oil and therefore gasoline? Are [00:11:00] there any executive powers that President Biden can use or has used?

Nick Capodice: There are sort of, and we're going to talk about three of the things a president can do to lower the price of gas, along with the breakdown of what's going on right now. And finally, how the Keystone XL pipeline is tied to all of this right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy: But before we break, just your friendly weekly reminder that we have a newsletter and it's not one of those annoying things, we're not going to bombard you with emails. It's just the place where we put all of the fun [00:11:30] stuff that we learned about episodes while we were working on it. It is just a way to get to know us better and get to know more about civics. If you're into that, you can subscribe. Right now, it's at Civics101podcast.org. It comes out every other week and it's fun. All right.

Nick Capodice: Civics 101 is a listener supported show, support the show with whatever you can, depending on the price of gas right now at our website civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy: As [00:12:00] of this recording, January twenty fifth, 2022 gas in the U.S. is at an average of three dollars and twenty two cents a gallon, up from a dollar and 80 cents in spring of twenty twenty. So how Nick, do we get here so fast?

Nick Capodice: All right, here's Robert Rapier again.

Robert Rapier: Okay, so as the pandemic was starting to get heated up, Saudi Arabia and Russia decided to engage in a price war over [00:12:30] over oil that started prices dipping.

Nick Capodice: Hannah, something I didn't know about was the concept of futures and investing. Don't turn off the podcast. It's interesting, I promise. People invest in oil futures, which is a lot riskier than just buying stocks, because what you're doing is you're committing to owing an infinite amount of money. If you invest a thousand dollars in oil futures and the price goes way down. You don't just earn zero, you're on the hook [00:13:00] to owe a lot of money. Isn't that scary?

Hannah McCarthy: I don't know anything about investing. It's a good thing I don't do it.

Robert Rapier: And that's what happened, and a lot of people got caught. It caused some marginal producers to shut down. It caused some producers to go bankrupt. And then the pandemic hit and the stay at home orders and the demand for oil in the U.S. plummeted.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, I remember this period, nobody was driving. We all had stay at home orders and so nobody was buying gas [00:13:30] and it was something like under $2 a gallon.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And then slowly Americans started going back to work and back to school

Robert Rapier: After the stay at home order started to expire, demand started to recover and it recovered much faster than supply did. And so from negative prices, we saw prices start to take off. And then over the next year, supply was short. Demand increased back to about where it was and supply which had fallen by two [00:14:00] or three million barrels a day. It took a much longer time to come back online. If people say why and I said, well, some of the companies don't even exist anymore. Some of the marginal wells were shut in, and you can't bring those back online. If you've got a stripper well, producing a few barrels a day and suddenly prices are negative. You might permanently shut that well down and you're not going to bring it back online. And that is the primary reason oil prices skyrocketed and gasoline prices followed. That is the single biggest reason, much bigger factor than [00:14:30] anything Trump did or anything that Biden has done.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, I'm ready for it. What can the president do to lower gas prices?

Nick Capodice: Alright, I got three for you. Three things. Here is Irina Ivanova again with number one.

Irina Ivanova: There's one specific thing that the president could do and that Biden actually has done. That has a little bit of an impact that it can create a little blip in gas prices. And that [00:15:00] is to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Hannah McCarthy: What is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Just like a massive tank of gas somewhere?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, it's a system of caverns along the Gulf Coast, massive underground salt domes that are full of oil and that oil can be turned into gasoline. It was created in 1975 in response to the oil embargo, and it can hold seven hundred and fourteen million barrels of crude. Some caverns hold sweet crude, some caverns hold sour crude. I'm going [00:15:30] to get into that in the newsletter. But recently, Congress has been selling the oil in the reserve since 2015 to fund the deficit. And President Biden released 50 million barrels from it in November 2021.

Robert Rapier: Presidents frequently do it leading up to elections because high gas prices are not a prescription for getting, getting reelected. And so that's one. It's not a, I mean, you can't just keep doing that. We have a strategic petroleum reserve for a reason, so there is a risk in doing [00:16:00] it. But presidents have used that handle time and time again.

Irina Ivanova: And the main reason is really signaling right. And voters, voters love it, you know? So there is there is that effect of like, Oh, the president's looking out for me. In the grand scheme of things just to sort of put it into numbers, you know, we rereleased something like 50 million barrels of oil, that is roughly what the entire U.S. uses in a single day.

Hannah McCarthy: All [00:16:30] right, sounds like number one, tap the piggy bank. It's a gesture, but a relatively ineffective one, right? So what's number two?

Nick Capodice: Number two, it's to ban exports. Stop selling oil that we produce to other countries. Keep it all to ourselves, which we did for 40 years until 2015.

Robert Rapier: President Obama agreed to end that ban on oil exports, and what was happening at the time is fracking had had increased [00:17:00] oil supplie dramatically in the US.

Nick Capodice: Fracking by the way, or hydraulic fracturing is a method of extracting oil and natural gas from deep underground, and we were getting a lot more gas from fracking in 2015.

Robert Rapier: But there's a ban on exports, and so all of that had to go through domestic refineries. And that was depressing the price of oil. And what was happening is domestic refiners were then refining the oil, but there was no ban on finished product exports. [00:17:30] So finished product exports went through the roof. Refiners were printing money. And in reality, it didn't really affect gas prices because gas prices still were set by the global market. And so it just shifted who made who was making the money. So you could make an argument that maybe it might have some influence because it would depress oil prices in the US? But, you know, unless you're banning finished product exports to its just, refiners are going to make a lot more money. [00:18:00]

Hannah McCarthy: So Robert is saying that if we stop exporting, oil refineries will just export the gas and diesel they make from that oil, and nothing will change, except refiners make more money.

Nick Capodice: Yes. And there's another problem with stopping exports. Kind of an oil cold war.

Irina Ivanova: The bigger issue, which a lot of people brought up with this idea of banning oil exports, is that it would cause other oil producing countries to use a technical term to completely flip [00:18:30] out and lose their cool and and retaliate. I mean, if the U.S. can ban oil exports, other people can say, Well, we can't have your oil, you can't have our oil, you know, so, so so their their analysis is that it would just it would just lead to an arms race metaphorically where everybody's withholding their gasoline and we don't actually have, you know, more oil globally.

Nick Capodice: And [00:19:00] finally, action number three, cut taxes. There is a federal tax of about 18 cents per gallon of gasoline, but the much bigger tax comes from your state.

Irina Ivanova: Different states have very, very different amounts of taxes. There's Texas. Tennessee have very low fuel taxes. California famously has extremely high fuel taxes. On average, the tax that the [00:19:30] state imposes accounts for roughly 15 percent of the price at the pump. State governors could potentially try to make this stuff cheaper, and they, you know, they would work, especially in a place like California where you know, you're talking about 450 or more for for gas. You know, if, if, if you shave off 15 percent, that's that could be significant.

Hannah McCarthy: We're calling this episode the president and the price of gas, but [00:20:00] it sounds like you could just as easily call it the governor and the price of gas.

Nick Capodice: You could indeed, your state's own little president. Or maybe it'd be better to call the episode your state legislature and the price of gas, since they're the ones who actually write the laws.

Hannah McCarthy: Last thing I have heard a lot of criticism of President Biden's handling of the price of gasoline being tied to his decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline. Can we get into that?

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Archival: Well, we have thousands of young people [00:20:30] here in the streets of Washington, D.C., marching to the White House to risk arrest, to demand the President Obama say no to Keystone XL...

Nick Capodice: So, briefly, the Keystone Pipeline project, it's a proposed pipeline that transported oil from Canada to Texas. It was the subject of years of protests by indigenous activists, landowners and environmental groups. It was a protest that spanned three presidential administrations, and it was a successful protest [00:21:00] as the project was abandoned in June 2021 after President Biden issued an executive order to ban the permit for it. Hannah, this is the talking point on conservative talk radio that the canceling of the pipeline increase the price of gas. So did it. Roberts says no.

Robert Rapier: Why wouldn't that influence oil prices? Because the Keystone pipeline, that supply wasn't going to come along for years, and we don't know what the demand situation is like [00:21:30] in years. So so this doesn't have a short term influence on oil prices. I said before, if scientists say we're going to have 50 percent more hurricanes in the Gulf Coast over the next two decades, that's not going to move oil prices. But if one is rolling through the Gulf Coast right now, it will. I mean, there's short term factors that increase the price, but longer term, these things just don't move the needle much. So a lot of the actions President Biden [00:22:00] has taken, although they can influence the price in the long run, people mistakenly assume that's why prices are moving now. And for a lot of people, I point out between the time of the election and the time Biden was sworn in, oil prices moved up 40 percent. Do you blame Trump for that?

Hannah McCarthy: Did people blame Trump for that?

Nick Capodice: House and Senate Democrats sure did. They blamed it on his recent sanctions of Iran. President Trump tweeted [00:22:30] at OPEC and said that they were to blame and they had to increase production. That didn't do much. So then he tweeted that it was Obama's fault because Obama had conspired with Saudi Arabia to lower prices before his reelection. Anyways, this is a playbook both parties have used. But to reiterate the effect of the Keystone Pipeline project, Irina spoke to Tom Kloza from OPIS, which is a major market analysis firm. And Tom said "The Keystone decision is something [00:23:00] that might come back and haunt the administration in 2023. But it has absolutely nothing to do with why crude oil prices now have rallied so much since April 2020."

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, this is making me think about the fact that no matter how much power we perceive our chief executive as having, sometimes we lose sight of the fact that there are instances where they are not the most important person in the room. And when I look at how the price of gas here tracks exactly with oil prices [00:23:30] globally, it's also clear that just like a lot of issues when it comes to the price of oil, the United States is not the most important person in the room, either.

Nick Capodice: We should make a new sticker.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, yeah, what should we put on it?

Nick Capodice: It like a huge sticker that is an illustrated embodiment of the global crude oil market saying, I did that! And then like much smaller, a sticker that's got like the House and the Senate. And like 50 different state legislatures and all the governors, [00:24:00] the department who runs the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and you've got to like, have Nixon and Carter on it too, maybe actually every president thus far sort of all holding hands like it's a small world and they're all singing "and we all kind of helped."

Hannah McCarthy: I'll call the print shop.

Nick Capodice: Well, that'll just about do it. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jcqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and doesn't [00:24:30] need to heat her home because of her coat. Because of her amazing jacket. Music In this episode by the inimitable Chris Zabriskie, Kevin McCleod, Lobo Loco, Dyalla, broke for free, Nico Staf, Bobby Renz, and this track playing here. We love it so much. Whispering through by Asura. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

The Politics Of The Olympics

The Olympics are a global event. They take years of planning, negotiation and convincing -- not to mention billions of dollars -- to stage. This is how the games are used by the United States and others around the world. This is what it takes to host, what the games do for  a nation and what it means when you refuse to attend. Welcome to the Olympics. 

Our guests for this episode are Jules Boykoff, professor of government and politics at Pacific University and author of several books on the politics of the Olympics, and Nancy Qian, Professor of Managerial Economics & Decision Sciences at Northwestern University.

 

Transcript:

Note: This transcript was AI-generated and may contain errors

Nick Capodice: Can I do the John Williams Olympic theme of mouth trumpet?

Hannah McCarthy: Of course.

Nick Capodice: I think the Olympics theme is one of the unsung heroes of the John Williams repertoire. It's one of my favorites. It's up there with Raiders of the Lost Ark. My TV, when I was a kid, couldn't get any channels like local or cable or anything. All we could do is watch the VCR. So my grandmother every four years would mail about 20 tapes of the Olympics to me and my sister, and we'd watch them religiously.

Hannah McCarthy: What was your favorite year?

Nick Capodice: 1988, Seoul. Reebok. Reebok, Reebok. And you thought everything was happening in Seoul? We know all the commercials. Great Run winners give their best all the way to the finish line.

Hannah McCarthy: Did you love it for the commercials or for the athletes?

Nick Capodice: For both? Because we didn't have TVs, so the commercials were just as joyous.

Archival Seoul 1988 Olympics Commercial: And you thought everything was happening in Seoul?

Hannah McCarthy: Every two years, people who represent the absolute best in their field, the best in the world descend on one of the globe's cities and show us exactly what they can do.

Archival: Usain Bolt!

Archival: A perfect score, 10.0 for Nadia Comaneci, a perfect score. Cannot be, no one can run that fast. He's done it!

Hannah McCarthy: Billions of people tune in to watch the celebration of athleticism, of commitment and excellence. And that's what the Olympics are all about, right? The athletes.

Jules Boykoff: The Olympics are political. They have been political for a very long time, and they go back to being political all the way to the beginning.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Jules Boykoff. The guy who shattered my understanding of the Olympic Games. He's also professor of politics and government at Pacific University in Oregon and author of four books on the politics of the Olympic Games.

Jules Boykoff: In fact, if anybody tells you that the Olympics are not political, there is a very good chance that they are making their living off of the Olympic Games.

Hannah McCarthy: And that, my friends, is what we are digging into today. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: And this is Civics 101. Today we are exploring the global games and how they are used by the United States and others around the world. We'll talk about what it takes to host the games, what the games do for a nation and what it means when you refuse to attend. Welcome to the Olympics.

Nick Capodice: Now, I always thought the Olympics were a pretty wholesome affair. So can we get into this whole Olympics being shattered for you thing?

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Let's just say I have a lot more to think about when I binge watch floor routines.

Jules Boykoff: 1936, there was the Berlin Olympics where Hitler made the games extremely political, and he used the games as a trampoline for his invasion into Europe after those games

Archival: the German team as hosts come last and then Germany's Führer declares the 11th

Jules Boykoff: Olympiad officially open.

fall forward from there to the Cold War era, where basically the Olympics became a proxy battlefield between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Hannah McCarthy: United States Olympic Committee voted to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow.

Jules Boykoff: Shimmy forward from there. 2014. The Olympics happened in Sochi, Russia. Incredibly political. I mean, the host there in Russia had just passed an anti LGBTQ law that was very much clashing with principles in the Olympic Charter.

Archival: President Vladimir Putin wants to make it clear that gay visitors are welcome, but he's also keen to stress the country's ban on promoting homosexuality among minors.

Jules Boykoff: And so that was political, and it raised the political hackles of numerous athletes from the United States, for example, and diplomats from around the world. Then you go forward a little bit further. 2018 the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics in South Korea, where the International Olympic Committee played an active role, bringing together the governments of North Korea and South Korea to form a united team for those games.

Archival: Setting foot in South Korea tonight, these North Korean Olympians are making history.

Jules Boykoff: Obviously, every one of those examples show that the Olympics are political.

Hannah McCarthy: By the way, the modern Olympic Games were started in the 1890s by a French aristocrat as a nod to the ancient Greek sporting event. So we've been at this for well over 100 years. And if you're listening to this thinking, excuse me, Hitler used the games to pave the way to his European invasion? I promise you we will come back to that. But the point is, if you embark, as I did on a happy go lucky investigation of the world's greatest celebration of athleticism, you will find that there is a lot simmering just under the five ring surface. And to get there, we have to start here.

Jules Boykoff: If you want to understand the Olympics, looking at the International Olympic Committee as a great place to start, the International Olympic Committee oversees the Olympic Games. This is a nonprofit organization based in Lausanne, Switzerland. It might be a nonprofit, but it's incredibly profitable. It brings in billions and billions of dollars. It makes the rules for who gets to participate in the Olympics, which sports are in the Olympics, which games will be featured, where who will host the Olympics? They make those decisions.

Hannah McCarthy: The International Olympic Committee, otherwise known as the IOC, gets that tax exempt nonprofit status. And because it's a non-disclosure Switzerland, I can't give you a breakdown of what it spends its money on, but it's worth noting that Olympic athletes receive very little financial support from the IOC. It's also worth noting that committee membership comprises a fair number of royals and corporate executives, and then you have the two hundred and six countries who participate in the Olympics. Each has a National Olympic Committee. Ours is called the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee.

Nick Capodice: Team USA.

Hannah McCarthy: Team USA. Oh, and just as an aside, we are one of the very few nations in the world that does not have a Ministry of Sports and does not federally fund our Olympic Committee, in part because we are one of the only countries in the world that debates the connection between politics and sports in other countries. That connection is explicitly acknowledged. There are, for example, left and right wing soccer clubs worldwide.

Nick Capodice: I mean, our president throws the first pitch of the baseball season. We sing the national anthem at sporting events.

Hannah McCarthy: We're about due, by the way, for quick dive into why we call elections races.

Nick Capodice: Oh, absolutely, it is a sports metaphor.

Hannah McCarthy: It is one hundred percent the sports metaphor. In Great Britain they called it a "standing." Anyway, the IOC would agree with all those politicians and franchise owners in the U.S. who assert that politics has no place in sports. It's literally on the books. You can find it in their charter, and we're going to get to that later. The Olympic Charter, by the way, that's the rules governing all Olympic operations. So here's how the Olympics have traditionally gone from a glint in a city's eye to the big event.

Jules Boykoff: For many decades, cities would vie against each other for the right to host the Olympic Games. And often you'd see multiple cities going for one Olympics and they would make bids. They put together candidature files that said what they were going to do should they get the right to host the Olympics. And what would happen was after they would make their pitches. The International Olympic Committee members, the whole body around a hundred or so members currently would vote on which City gets to host the Olympic Games, and in years where it was competitive, it could be a really tight vote.

Nick Capodice: You said the way they traditionally happen, so I'm going to guess that something changed.

Jules Boykoff: This changed massively in 2017, when again, numerous cities were going for the 2024 Olympics, but one after the other dropped out. Here in the United States, we saw in Boston a vigorous and rigorous activist community teamed up with local politicos to raise big questions about the idea of hosting the Olympics.

Archival: If you're like me, the idea of a Boston

Archival: Olympics at first is kind of exciting. So why the only 40 percent of Massachusetts voters support Boston 2024.

Jules Boykoff: Ultimately, decision makers elected officials in Boston handed back the bid that they had been handed by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee.

Hannah McCarthy: I remember this in part because I grew up near Boston, and to be honest, I got a little thrill by the idea of the Olympics coming to town. But the public polling was bad enough to convince the city to withdraw its bid. So Boston backed out and nearly everyone else had already dropped out at this point.

Jules Boykoff: Only Los Angeles and Paris were still standing. And so at that time in 2017, they allocated the 2024 Olympics to Paris and the 2028 Olympics to Los Angeles.

Nick Capodice: To how is it that the Olympics were just handed to Paris and L.A? Did residents of those two cities say they really wanted it?

Jules Boykoff: Neither city had had a ballot measure where everyday residents of those cities were given an opportunity to weigh in to say whether they wanted to host the Olympics or not.

Hannah McCarthy: It turns out that around a dozen Olympic bids were revoked between 2013 and 2018. The reason voting ballot measures at demands for a vote or someone winning office on an Anti-Olympic platform.

Jules Boykoff: And so what the general trend is, whenever you see an outburst of democracy that tends to not benefit the International Olympic Committee, then all my days studying the Olympic Games. I have never once seen a grassroots democratic bid come from the ground up in society, where everyday working people in the city say, Hey, we really want to host the Olympics. Never have I seen that. Instead, it's always well-connected political and economic elites who figure they can use the Olympics to trampoline their careers or to make some money. I mean, there really is a lot of money sloshing through the system.

Nick Capodice: But how does that work, exactly? If the Olympics are indeed largely unpopular with citizens, why would someone hoping to help their career even put in a bid?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, it's still the Olympics. It's still a prestigious major event that draws the attention of nearly the entire world. I mean, if you're the mayor who brought the summer games to your city, you are someone who got something enormous done. And by the way, you're networking with the other elite folks in your city and people who work at the International and National Olympic Committees, you're meeting important people. You're also probably not going to be the person in charge anymore. By the time the Olympics come to town, so you are unlikely to be blamed for the downsides of hosting the Olympics.

Nick Capodice: All right. And this is the part I need some help on. Jules is saying essentially that when you ask the voters if they want the Olympics, they tend to say, Heck, no. So why? What is so unappealing about hosting the Olympics in your hometown?

Jules Boykoff: This goes all the way back to a really interesting case that a lot of people don't think about in the 1970s, when Denver was handed the 1976 Winter Olympics.

Archival: The Denver Olympic story starts in a land of Olympian proportions.

Jules Boykoff: Your listeners might be saying Denver 1976 Olympics. I don't remember those. That's because they never happened, because people across the political spectrum, from fiscal conservatives to more a left of center environmentalists got on the ballot, a measure that said we will give no public money to host these Olympic Games and guess what? They won. Conservatives, liberals and everyone in between turned out and voted down. Hosting the Olympics in Denver with public money. And so those games never happened in Denver, the International Olympic Committee was forced to move them to Innsbruck, Austria.

Nick Capodice: Ok, I get that it's a money thing that's relatively easy to understand. We're going to spend massive amounts of public money is rarely a popular proposition with voters.

Hannah McCarthy: That's only part of it. But yeah, hosting the Olympics means investing a huge amount of money into infrastructure. After all, you need somewhere to host the competitions so we can start there. Jules broke it down for me like this. There are four major issues that citizens worry about when it comes to hosting the Olympics.

Jules Boykoff: Every single Olympics for which there is reliable data going all the way back to nineteen sixty has had cost overruns. In other words, I call this Etch-A-Sketch economics where in the bid phase of the Olympics, the people putting forth the bid say that it will only cost, say in the case of Tokyo, seven point three billion dollars. Then they get approved by the International Olympic Committee. They take that Etch A Sketch, they shake it up and they put a brand new number on it that is inevitably higher. In the case of Tokyo is around four times higher. I mean, estimates are in the neighborhood of $30 billion were spent on the Tokyo Olympics. So from 7.3 Billion to $30 billion.

Nick Capodice: 30 billion.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. It's -

Nick Capodice: 30 billion. 30.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Nick Capodice: With a B.

Hannah McCarthy: Yes. It's an immense amount of money. But I got to be clear here, the IOC does provide a chunk of that budget, but host cities are still responsible for the cost of venue construction, security, transport, medical services, customs and immigration and a bunch of other operational stuff.

Nick Capodice: Oh, I remember 2016 watching the Brazil opening ceremony, and there's this moment when it was just supermodel Gisele Bundchen walking the length of the stadium. And the announcer is like, yeah, they had some last minute budget cuts.

Jules Boykoff: A second trend the social scientists have identified is the militarization of public space

Hannah McCarthy: In recent years. In particular, the Olympics have become an explicit terrorist target, not to mention the standard security risk that comes with a massive infusion of people, teams and spectators.

Jules Boykoff: Essentially, local security forces use the Olympics like their own private cash machine, getting all the special weapons that they would never be able to get during normal political times. And they don't just return those after the Olympics. In fact, they keep them and they become part of everyday policing.

Hannah McCarthy: And then there's this factor that I think often flies under the radar when a city wins an Olympic bid. The Olympic Village, the competition venues, those are going to have to go somewhere in that city, and that means moving people around.

Jules Boykoff: There's also the displacement and eviction of everyday working people in the city. So when China hosted the Olympics back in 2008, one point five million people were displaced from their homes in order to make way for Olympic venues in Rio de Janeiro. For the twenty sixteen Olympics, there were seventy seven thousand people who were displaced to make way for the Olympics, even when the numbers aren't really high. The human cost is still very real. I visited Tokyo in July 2019, where I interviewed two women who are displaced by the 2020 Olympics. But not only were they displaced by the Twenty Twenty Olympics, they had actually previously been displaced by the nineteen sixty four Olympics, the same women. And so that social public housing complex of working people and working families was decimated. A community was decimated in Tokyo.

Hannah McCarthy: On top of all this, cities will often make promises about how the Olympics will benefit a city long term, widespread improvements to housing and other infrastructure. And if you look at Atlanta, for example, that City really did see a boon from the 1996 Olympics. Certain areas improved and stayed that way, but long neglected low income communities tended not to see that same benefit. In fact, it was only those communities closest to the action of the games that got a makeover back in ninety six. Finally, the last major concern for cities, especially for activists equipped to push back against the Olympics.

Jules Boykoff: The last trend that social scientists have pointed to more and more is the tendency to engage in greenwashing. In other words, promising big ecological gains in society by hosting the Olympics, but not really having much follow through. And again, Tokyo is really instructive in that sense. Originally, when they were to get the Olympics, they were telling the International Olympic Committee that these would be the quote recovery games that would help the affected areas around Fukushima that had been slammed by the triple whammy earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown to recover more quickly.

Hannah McCarthy: The thing is, Jules interviewed people in Japan, elected officials, scholars, people on the street, and they said that hosting the Olympics actually slowed down the green recovery process. A lot of the equipment and materials needed to deal with that crisis in Fukushima were sent to Tokyo, where the Olympics were being held instead of staying where they were pretty desperately needed.

Jules Boykoff: So because of those four trends, there are just simply fewer and fewer cities that are game to host the Olympic Games anymore.

Nick Capodice: Wow. So at this stage, Hannah, I'm starting to cast about looking for the upside. We've heard the Olympics are expensive. They militarize public space. They displace communities and they fail to deliver on environmental improvements. So what does a successful Olympic season look like? Do we even have them?

Jules Boykoff: So I've done a lot of research around the nineteen eighty four Olympics in Los Angeles. This is one that Olympic boosters often point to as one of the more successful Olympics, if you will.

Archival: Welcome to the opening ceremonies of the Games at the 23rd Olympiad at Los Angeles.

Jules Boykoff: First of all, we didn't lose a ton of money. They ended up with a small surplus. And if you talk to people in Los Angeles, some of them really do have a positive feeling about that.

Hannah McCarthy: Some people, though, Jules means like the mayor of L.A., Eric Garcetti and fellow Olympic supporters media tycoon Casey Wasserman. So yeah, there are people who will say that there's a major upside, but there's always the other side of the coin.

Jules Boykoff: I also interviewed lots of Latin X and African-American residents of Los Angeles who felt very different about those games. What they said when they thought about the nineteen eighty four Olympics was they remembered the words of the helicopter blades above their neighborhoods. They remember the machinery, the military. Her eyes, machinery that was brought in to keep activists at bay during the Olympics, who are trying to raise big questions about the spending around the 1984 Games and other elements. And so there's a real racialized remembrance of the Los Angeles Olympics, and we can't just brush the feelings and experiences of those folks under the table. We need to think about that as well.

Hannah McCarthy: By the way, those same marginalized communities are looking at the 2028 L.A. Olympics with the memory of how they did not benefit and were in fact negatively impacted back in nineteen eighty four, which is why you see groups like no Olympics L.A. taking a stand against their city's games.

Archival: And you know, our main mission is to stop the Olympic Games, not just from happening here in L.A, but just to educate people on why that's the thing that needs to happen.

Hannah McCarthy: But I want to pivot here, Nick, because the way a city's residents feel about hosting the Olympics, that is just one piece of the political puzzle. What are the other motivating factors for hosting the Olympic Games? How are these games used as a political tool and what do the athletes remember them? Think about this? That's all coming up after the break. Before we dive back into the international intrigue that is the Olympic Games, I am here to tell you that there is a great deal of stuff that did not make it into this episode and it is good stuff. The Olympics have layers upon layers of complicated dynamics, and that makes sense because this is a global event. But the point is the stuff that didn't make it in. You want to hear it? Trust me. For example, what does it mean for one TV network to have exclusive broadcast rights for the Olympic Games? It means a lot, people and I want to tell you and I will and our next extra credit newsletter, we send it out every other week, and it's packed with the other stuff we are learning and the clips from the cutting room floor. You can subscribe right this very moment at our website civics101podcast.org. All right. Let the games begin.

Nick Capodice: All right. Hannah, before the break, we heard about how the Olympics end up in a city and the impact of hosting for good or for ill. But it seems to me that the power of the Olympics extends beyond political hobnobbing and justifying major spending. So what else motivates cities to host them? What does it for them?

Nancy Qian: For over a year now, I've actually been working on a research project about the motivation that governments have for holding the Olympics.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Nancy Qian. She's a professor of economics and decision sciences at Northwestern. I spoke with her after reading an article she wrote called Good and Bad Olympic Nationalism. And she told me that over the course of her research, she's found that democracies tend to bid on the Olympic Games when they're doing well, economically speaking. But autocracies, a.k.a. governments where power is concentrated in one person's hand, are the opposite.

Nancy Qian: Autocracies are more likely to bid for the Olympics bid and win, I should say so. These are meaningful bids when things aren't going well economically.

Nick Capodice: Wow. So it's like, Hey, citizens pay no mind to the fact that things aren't going so well right now. We're going to try to host this flashy, distracting, prestigious event, which, by the way, is exactly what a bread and circus is. It's basically anything that superficially pleases people.

Nancy Qian: Obviously, most bids are not successful, right? So the vast majority of bids are just signals that the country is interested. And maybe it gives the country some news headlines like, you know, we're going for it. This is something interesting to do. And maybe it distracts the country from other types of news. But most bids are not serious bids, right? They don't have a chance.

Hannah McCarthy: This is an important factor. We can talk about the politics of hosting the Olympic Games and we will do more of that in just a moment. But that distinction is reserved for those nations who actually make the cut.

Nancy Qian: I think so often we just focus all of our attention on the big power players, right? Like the economic political superpowers who are also the one getting the most medals. And also most often they host the Olympics more often than the other countries, right? So there's good reason for focus. But there's so many countries, most countries, there's over one hundred countries that go to the Olympics. Most of them will never host the Olympics. Most countries don't win medals actually like any medals. And then for these countries, the Olympics are an entirely different experience,

Hannah McCarthy: And it's in that entirely different experience that you can find the difficult to measure positive vibes principle. What good can the Olympics do, especially when you are not the one hosting the games?

Nancy Qian: Researchers have shown using data from soccer games that, for example, for African countries competing together is really good for national unity, so it is still about patriotism and national unity. But it doesn't seem to have that negative element of international competition with other countries, which makes sense because they're not really contenders, right?

Nick Capodice: I would imagine that there's this sense of being sort of the David to the Goliath of the world's best sports teams, and that's something to bond over with other nations who are in the same boat as you. And also, you do get to play with the major contenders, and that's got to feel good.

Nancy Qian: All countries that go to international sporting games can get a big boost of patriotism and nationalism and bonding. But the political effect of that binding differs depending on where on the political spectrum of power you are, right? So if you're a weak state, that's fractionalized coming out of years of civil war, you know, competing in the Olympics. This is a moment of building solidarity for your country, which is good, right? By and large.

Nick Capodice: Oh yeah Hannah, this makes me think of South Sudan joining the 2016 Olympics, it was a huge deal because here you had this newly independent nation asserting its place on the world stage.

Archival: And a person that never heard about South Sudan or never see South Sudanese, to see that we are a new country. And also we need...

Hannah McCarthy: I do want to touch on this contendere question this idea that some nations are simply not contenders? Developing nations might not be meaningful contenders because their economic and political environment is not conducive to training and supporting their athletes. And there have been calls for the IOC to create a separate Olympic Games for developing nations or to build central training grounds for athletes who don't have access to them at home. Still, as it is now, these non contenders do stand to get something out of participation in the Olympic Games.

Nancy Qian: So really, it's it's more about a shared experience of being at the Games together, something that you've been doing, something you've been training for years that can actually build solidarity between people from different countries as well as different groups within countries, right?

Hannah McCarthy: For example, take the infamous divide of the Cold War. It was enough for the U.S. to boycott the Olympics in the Soviet Union and then for the Soviet Union to turn around and do the same to us. When the Cold War came to an end, Soviet and American athletes were face to face for the first time in a long time.

Archival: They're not one of the better serving teams in the world, and they can put a little pressure on the Soviets. They can make some points...

Nancy Qian: All of a sudden, you know, athletes who weren't allowed to talk to each other before, like the floodgates were open, and it turned out that all they had were like, these really positive feelings about the other athlete. So this sort of gives you the sense that a lot of the politics surrounding it is manufactured by the government and the media. My sense is that it's easier for the smaller countries because there's there's less incentives for governments and media to create tension, create political tension or magnify existing tensions.

Nick Capodice: Ok, Hannah, speaking of magnifying tensions, I have to ask about what is going on as we speak, which is a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, China.

Archival: A diplomatic boycott now of the Beijing Olympics over China's crackdown on democracy and human rights abuses.

Nick Capodice: The United States announced it first and then Canada, Australia and the UK followed suit. And from what I understand, China was not happy about it.

Archival: Yeah, David, they are calling this one pure political provocation, and they are now threatening countermeasures, though they are not specifying what those are....

Nick Capodice: So my first question is this does a boycott mean that we're not going to go to the Olympics at all?

Hannah McCarthy: Great question. It did. Once upon a time, I mentioned the U.S. boycott of the Soviet Olympic Games during the Cold War. That was a boycott in which even athletes were not permitted to attend the games, and we're not doing that this time.

Nancy Qian: I actually talked to some former Olympians about it. I just happened to have an opportunity and they were like, This is nothing like the Cold War, right? Because the Cold War, they didn't let the athletes go, and that was terrible for the athletes. That was a huge cost for the athlete. That was a price that was paid to make a huge political gesture.

Hannah McCarthy: In 1980, the Olympic Games were taking place in Moscow. The Soviet Union had recently invaded Afghanistan, and President Jimmy Carter set a deadline for Soviet troops to withdraw when they didn't make that deadline. Carter said, OK, we're boycotting the Olympics

Jimmy Carter: Human rights and who believe in peace. Let our voices be heard in an absolutely clear way and not add the imprimatur of approval to the Soviet Union and its government.

Hannah McCarthy: And not only that, any American athlete who attempted to attend the games under, say, a neutral banner would have their passport revoked.

Nick Capodice: And what does it move like that say to the rest of America?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, a lot of Americans pitied those athletes who couldn't compete. They were Olympians without the Olympics. Still, Carter was saying, we will in no way appear to support an anti-democratic regime. This was an acknowledgment of the political power gesture of going to the Olympics, of sitting with other leaders and diplomats and shaking hands and smiling while your country's athletes display their elite skill, which, by the way, brings me to a boycott that did not happen,

Nancy Qian: Such as the one in Berlin where people in hindsight thinks maybe someone should have banned it. But we all went. Everybody went the entire Western world who ended up at war with each other later all went and participated and celebrated.

Archival: And meanwhile, a packed

Speaker3: Stadium and flag draped cheering streets greet Chancellor Hitler on his way to perform the opening ceremony.

Hannah McCarthy: This is the 1936 Berlin Olympics, also known as Hitler's Olympics, and it started the first meaningful Olympic boycott movement in the United States. A lot of Americans were opposed to attending. Here's Jules Boykoff again.

Jules Boykoff: The boycott movement was widely supported in the United States, certainly by Jewish groups who could see the writing on the Wall already with what Hitler was doing after his rise in 1933. But it was really gaining steam even among certain athlete groups in the United States as well.

Hannah McCarthy: The quote boycott movement was widely publicly discussed leading up to the 1936 Berlin Olympics. What message will it send if we send our athletes to Berlin? Will that legitimize this burgeoning Nazi regime?

Jules Boykoff: So what happened was the American Olympic honchos decided to send over a guy named Avery Brundage on a Fact-Finding mission to Berlin to figure out what was actually going on there. Well, Brundage, it should be said, was very pro-Nazi, very pro Germany. He was wined and dined by the Germans. He had his own translators, which were, of course, Nazi approved translators. And guess what? He comes back to the United States and says there's nothing to see there. Everything is going to be fine. And of course, don't even need to worry about this anyways, because the Olympics are neutral, they are not political. And so we have nothing to fear here.

Hannah McCarthy: Of course, that wasn't true. And closer to the games, it became apparent that there was in fact vehement anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany leading up to the Berlin games.

Jules Boykoff: And in fact, the president of the International Olympic Committee at the time account, named Henry Bilat, later was alarmed by the anti-Jewish signage that he saw in the countryside as he traveled to those Winter Olympics in Garmisch-Partenkirchen. And he requested directly to Hitler that he get those signs down because they were going to do no good for the Olympic Games or really humanity more generally.

Hannah McCarthy: Mind you, Hitler was not really into sports. He was not convinced that he should go along with the IOC. Ultimately, Joseph Goebbels, his propaganda minister, convinced him to end. Germany then got to use the Olympic Games in a number of ways, for example, and this one blew my mind. It was the Germans who invented the modern Olympic torch relay.

Archival: Berlin's great day dawns with the arrival of the Olympic flame at the end of its 2000 mile journey from Greece.

Jules Boykoff: At that time, it was basically a scouting mission to figure out who are you are going to invade next for Germany and if you see where the torch went. Those were countries that were soon conquered, many of them.

Nick Capodice: Seriously? Why did I not know that little piece of information?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I hadn't either. Apparently, Hitler also saw this relay is a great way to tie the Olympic Games to their Greek roots, which was important to him because he saw a link between ancient Greece and the Aryan race. And then, of course, there's the fact that the Olympics meant major media coverage for Nazi Germany.

Jules Boykoff: The New York Times wrote glowingly of Hitler as one of the great leaders of our time after those Olympic Games. And so, you know, people who are following those Olympics were high on the five ring supply, if you will, at the time. And it really helped Hitler and gave him more space to maneuver politically moving forward.

Nick Capodice: All right. So if we want to look at exactly how politically powerful the Olympics are, this seems like the perfect example. The major power players of the world, including the United States, attend these games hobnob with Nazis, and it really helps that regime on the global scale.

Jules Boykoff: There's a lot of people wondering, are we essentially doing the same when we allow Russia to host the Olympics in twenty fourteen or China in twenty twenty two? And hey, there's plenty of people that are concerned about that. The Olympics are being held in the United States, which has eight hundred military bases around the world, it must be said, whereas China only has three who's the United States spends a huge amount of money on its military compared to these other countries. And so I think in fairness, that needs to be brought into the frame as well. When we're talking about these Olympic Games and the processes of democracy and how it can help forces in society that are anti-democratic gain a foothold through hosting the Olympic Games.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so now we're going to move away from the politicians, the nation states the potential invasions, the diplomacy to the athletes, the actual Olympians at the heart of these games. How did their politics fit or not within the Olympics? That's coming up after the break.

Nick Capodice: But first, just a quick reminder that Civics 101 is a listener-supported show. Go to our website civics101podcast.org, click the donate button with whatever amount is good for you and you'll get a gold medal in our eyes.

Hannah McCarthy: Welcome back to Civics 101. We're talking the politics of the Olympics, including the politics of the people at the very heart of these games, the athletes, we know these games are a way to connect with other great athletes that for the competitors, the political divides of their nation are insignificant in the face of their mutual respect for others who train as hard as they do, who are a part of their very small club. But Olympians themselves figure it out a while ago that they too can use these games as a platform just as their home countries do.

Jules Boykoff: That epic moment of political dissent where John Carlos and Tommie Smith stood on the medal stand in Mexico City and thrust their black gloved fists into the Mexico City sky, while the person who plays second to gentleman from Australia named Peter Norman, a white guy from Australia, stood in solidarity wearing a button that said, OK, Air Olympic project for human rights.

Archival: There were some boos in the stadium last night. ABC Sports Editor Howard Cosell spoke to Tommie Smith after he accepted his gold medal.

Tommie Smith: The right glove that I wore on my right hand signifies the power within Black America, the left glove. My teammate, John Carlos, who on his left hand made an arc, my right hand to his left hand also signify black unity.

Nick Capodice: Yes, I know this moment very well. Carlos and Smith gave the black power salute. Smith later said that for him, it was the human rights salute. And it turned out that despite not giving the same salute, Peter Norman from Australia was in full support of their demonstration,

Hannah McCarthy: And this is still considered one of the most overtly political moments of modern Olympic history. And it really damaged Carlos and Smith's careers.

Jules Boykoff: And so, of course, the International Olympic Committee was in freakout mode after that happened, and they put loads of pressure on the United States Olympic Committee to give Carlos and Smith the boot from the Olympic Village, which is exactly what happened.

Hannah McCarthy: This highlights, by the way, the dissonance between the way that nations use the games and the expectations that the games themselves will be nonpolitical, that sports are inherently neutral, an insistence that the IOC eventually put on the books. So you had the Carlos and Smith moment in 1968, and then in 1972, Wayne Vincent Matthews and Wayne Collette stood on the medal stand and sort of disinterestedly spun their medals around on their fingers.

Jules Boykoff: The point is, after those two outbursts by U.S. African-American athletes in comradeship with other athletes, the IOC decided to put this rule on the books.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter. It bans any form of political demonstration during the games.

Jules Boykoff: And athletes are more and more aware of it, especially today, because I think it's fair to say we're living in what could be called the athlete empowerment era, where more athletes are standing up and socially conscious, politically motivated ways. And so the International Olympic Committee is certainly aware of that and is continuing to stand by this rule, even as it has made minor minor modifications along the way, which is what we saw in Tokyo, for example, when it allowed a little bit more space for athletes to express themselves. And what I mean by that is they adjusted the rule whereby athletes could speak out on issues or take a political stand before their competition began. And that's why you saw with some of the women's soccer games at the Tokyo Olympics, all the athletes taking a knee before the game. Now, you still couldn't do it during the game and you still couldn't do it on the medal stand.

Hannah McCarthy: Jules made this point near the end of our conversation, and for me, this really gets to the heart of, you know, how do we use the Olympics? What are they? Are they a celebration of athleticism, a deep commitment and sacrifice? Yes, absolutely. Do I drive an inimitable sense of awe when watching the world's greatest athletes do their thing? I do. Many of us do. And the Olympics are a platform participating nations find a way to use this platform. And some of the athletes at the heart of these games do the same thing or try to even if they're not really allowed,

Jules Boykoff: Even that didn't stop an amazing and I think epic act of political dissent from happening in Tokyo when the U.S. athlete Raven Saunders put her arms in a shape of an X on the medal stand to represent oppressed people across the world.

Raven Saunders: We kind of decided that the X was going to be like a sign of our sign of, you know, and what it stood for for us. And leading up to that podium standoff I was like, ehhh, all right I was like, all right, it's time.

Jules Boykoff: And it was a powerful, powerful moment. And fortunately, the International Olympic Committee did not crack down on Raven Saunders, in part because her mother was very ill at that time and they decided not to lash out with a penalty. It would have been even uncouth for them. And but the point is, you really can't put athlete activism into the bottle despite these kind of rules against it. It is not going to stop some athletes from taking a stand.

Nick Capodice: The IOC's position here sounds not totally dissimilar to what's happening in the U.S. right now with the intersection between sports and politics. You've got the people in power, which are politicians, sports league elites, franchise owners predominantly insisting that political demonstration or affiliation has no place on the field or the court. And then, on the other hand, you have athletes using their platform to take a stand. And specifically, in the U.S., these are athletes of color, and they're drawing attention to racial injustice.

Hannah McCarthy: Right? It's a raging debate. On the one hand, athletes are vilified for taking a knee during the national anthem at an NFL game. On the other hand, the NFL insists that the national anthem be played. On the one hand, the IOC demands athletes keep politics off the medal stand. On the other, the Olympics are a series of political decisions from beginning to end. And just a reminder, by the way, that other nations around the world make no buts about the connection between politics and sports.

Jules Boykoff: Let's not forget, despite everything I've been talking about with you here, Hannah. The Olympics are tremendously popular in the public sphere. So long as they are not happening in your city, then big questions tend to get raised, but otherwise they still are popular. Billions of people will tune in to watch them, which means that's a stage of billions of people that could see your political message if you're an athlete willing to share it on that big stage.

Hannah McCarthy: This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode by Ketsa, Metre, Xylo Zico, Mello-C and the inimitable John Williams. You can check out all of our episodes and more at Civics101podcast.org and make sure to never miss an update on how our democracy and government works. Follow our podcast on iTunes, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

The USDA

From seeds to SNAP, from the Food Pyramid to crop subsidies; the United States Department of Agriculture is one of the most complex collections of responsibilities our government has ever seen. Taking us through the labyrinth are Professor Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, and Professor Jennifer Ifft, Agricultural Policy at Kansas State University.

USDA final.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

USDA final.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Nick Capodice:
Hannah, there's a game people play who have worked at the United States Department of Agriculture and it's called, Does the USDA do it?

Hannah McCarthy:
How do you play?

Nick Capodice:
I read about it in the Fifth Risk, a book by Michael Lewis. It's not dissimilar from two truths and a lie. One person says a thing, right? A far out strange thing. And the other person has to guess whether or not it's something the USDA does.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right. Hit me.

Nick Capodice:
Fire a hundred and six millimeter recoilless rifle to control avalanches at Mammoth Mountain. Give you a loan to buy a house, maintain a fleet of aircraft, inspect every single piece of meat and poultry in the United States and dispose of mule deer corpses infected with chronic wasting disease, provide hot lunch for over 30 million schoolchildren, shoot fireworks at geese near airport runways, research improving algorithms in the wind erosion protection system model for temporal changes in the state of surface conditions.

Hannah McCarthy:
They do it all, don't they?

Nick Capodice:
They do it all Hannah. I wouldn't be surprised if they hosted this podcast. You're listening to civics one on one. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
And today we're breaking down a massive combination Instant Pot air fryer department, the USDA, how it began, what it does, what it spends, and how it affects the lives of everyone in this country.

Hannah McCarthy:
I guess I now know better than to ask what the USDA does. So can we start with its purpose instead?

Marion Nestle:
Well, I would say that from its inception, the USDA's function was to make sure that Americans have enough to eat.

Nick Capodice:
This is Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University Emerita and author of many wonderful books about food and politics, such as Food Politics.

Marion Nestle:
And so the big question is, how do you go about doing that? And over the years that the USDA was main food function was to promote industrial agriculture because industrial agriculture produces vast quantities of food and to make sure that that food was was available at a very low cost.

Nick Capodice:
Specifically, a cost low enough that people in all levels of income could afford it.

Hannah McCarthy:
So it was created to keep Americans fed, all Americans. And it did this through supporting farmers.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, though its genesis didn't start with farmers, it started with the patent office and seeds.

Hannah McCarthy:
Sees.

Nick Capodice:
Seeds.

Hannah McCarthy:
Seeds!

Nick Capodice:
Henry Leavitt Ellsworth, the commissioner of patents in the Department of State in the 1830s. He started to collect all these promising kinds of seeds, and he gave them to members of Congress to distribute to farmers in their states. And he's called the father of the Department of Agriculture, though he wouldn't live to see the creation of the USDA in 1862. Abraham Lincoln, a former farmhand himself who had run for president on a pro agriculture campaign, created the Department of Agriculture in the midst of the Civil War. This is a time when over half of Americans were involved with farming. Grover Cleveland incorporated it into the cabinet in 1889, and its purpose was to study seeds, animals, soil, anything to promote the production and support of the American farmer.

Hannah McCarthy:
So how did we get from seeds and soil to that exhaustive list that you had me earlier? When did the USDA start to do other things?

Marion Nestle:
It started in the Great Depression when two things were happening. People didn't have enough food and were on long lines to get food handouts, and farmers had no market for their food because people didn't have any money. And so instead of giving it away, they destroyed it,

Hannah McCarthy:
Destroyed it? Why would you destroy food in a time of hunger?

Nick Capodice:
This was not out of pure avarice. Politicians in the Roosevelt administration believed that the reason prices were so low for commodities like livestock and cotton was that farmers were just producing way too much. So to prevent further decline of prices, the government just bought 10 million acres of cotton crops in the south and plowed right under them.

The Triple A, the Agriculture Adjustment Act, seeks to bolster farm income by ordering crops plowed under and millions of acres of wheat, cotton, corn left unplanted. And yet men are hungry.

Marion Nestle:
And there were several shocking incidents during the depression of farmers destroying piglets and animals and just, you know, slaughtering them and throwing them in a big heap when there were people who were starving for lack of food.

Nick Capodice:
Millions upon millions of pigs and cows were bought by the government, killed, and just buried in the ground, and there was a huge scandal about it, naturally, farmers were horrified at how the livestock they'd raised was slaughtered and buried, and Americans were shocked that at a time of immense hunger, we buried food. And then if you or any of our listeners are horrified to hear this, you're not going to like the fact that in 2020, due to supply chain issues during the pandemic. Vegetables rotted on the fields. Millions of pigs and chickens were culled and millions of gallons of fresh milk were dumped down the drain every day. But back to when this happened in the nineteen thirties, the government stepped in and said it would buy food from farmers and distribute it to people who needed it. And this was the genesis of the food stamp program. And before we talk about the food stamp program and its modern day iteration of Snap, that's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, I want to talk quickly about the modern day budget of the USDA. Their total twenty twenty one budget was about one hundred and fifty billion dollars. That's the fourth largest budget of an executive department. And you know what percentage of that budget is devoted to nutrition and nutritional assistance?

Hannah McCarthy:
What percentage?

Nick Capodice:
Seventy five percent. And that's not just Snap, it's school lunch programs, which we're going to get to later. It's WIC women, infants and children. Fifteen programs in all

Hannah McCarthy:
They hearing about how it started, I would have expected the USDA to spend the majority of its budget on farming. So this is surprising. And by the way, how to snap benefits actually work, who is eligible to use them?

Nick Capodice:
Sure. We are scheduling a separate deep dive episode on governmental assistance programs, including the complex history of government cheese and what you can and can't get under these myriad programs. But briefly, families who make a certain income are entitled to snap benefits and currently a family of three with a combined income of twenty nine thousand dollars a month or less is eligible. And as an interesting aside, you know, there's all these programs that give rewards for using an EB or SNAP card at your local farmer's market.

Hannah McCarthy:
I've seen at farmers markets around the country you get an extra ten dollars worth of groceries or something when you use your EB card there.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, that is how food stamps initially worked in the nineteen thirties.

Marion Nestle:
If you want a certain number of food stamps, you've got extra stamps for buying commodities that farmers produced and that worked for a while and went on up to the Second World War when everybody was employed, and so poverty levels went right down. And after the Second World War poverty returned, there were proposals for a food stamp program where the stamps would be used at retail stores. The farmers got dropped out of the picture, and the the program ended up as a retail program where you had stamps that you could take to the store and use for pretty much anything that was in any retail grocery store.

Nick Capodice:
And they changed it from stamps to the debit card, partly to reduce stigma. They came in little books of multicolored stamps, and our producer Jacqui, who was once in the program, told me when you went to the store to use them, it was embarrassing because everybody knew you were using them and they would judge your purchases.

Hannah McCarthy:
Can we also talk about the criticism of the program?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah. The majority of criticism from lawmakers regarding Snap is related to fraud.

Archival:
Dozens more have warrants out for their arrest. The sheriff's office is going after those fraudulently using their EBT cards...

Marion Nestle:
Yeah. Well, as with any federal program, there are always the potentiality for fraud, and the investigations of fraud in Snap usually show that there's not much, but there is some. It would be irresponsible to argue that there isn't any. You can trade food stamps, you can sell food stamps, you can do all kinds or the benefit cards. You can do the same with the benefit cards.

Nick Capodice:
A study from 2017 found that 60 percent of Americans believe that people misrepresent their financial situation to get food benefits, and that is patently untrue. You and your family's Social Security numbers are run through numerous databases. It's next to impossible to lie to get SNAP benefits. And while there are some instances of fraud, it is far more frequently people selling their food stamps to, say, restaurants who use them to get the food that they will sell. In twenty fourteen there were about 40 million Americans using Snap and forty five thousand individuals disqualified for fraud. That's 0.1 percent.

Marion Nestle:
What always amazes me about it is the tens of millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent every year on fraud prevention. Because fraud prevention is a big issue, particularly for people who are against the government having a role in poverty reduction. And so there's a big focus on trying to prevent fraud. And I'm always astounded by the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars that's spent on fraud prevention every year. But the Department of Agriculture takes it very seriously because it has to take it very seriously for political reasons. And so, you know, for me, the political question is how much money do you want to spend on reducing a very tiny amount of fraud? And apparently you want to spend a lot.

Hannah McCarthy:
If one last question tied to nutrition and assistance, it's about something on the wall of my classroom in fourth grade,

Archival:
Good nutrition and physical activity Are fuel for your child's mind and body,and the food pyramid will help you find the right balance. Just remember every color, every day...

Nick Capodice:
Ok, yes, the USDA food pyramid. We're going to get into that and school lunches and the rest of the things the USDA does right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy:
But first, we always try to let our listeners know about our free newsletter. Extra credit. It is short. It's goofy, it shows up in your inbox every two weeks. Nick assures me that the next one will explain why milk and only milk is allowed as a non water beverage on the Senate floor. Sign up at civics101podcast.org.

Nick Capodice:
Civics 101 is supported in part by You You, right there, you listening? Donate to our show at civics101podcast.org or we'll cause an avalanche with the giant cannon.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, tell me about the food pyramid.

Nick Capodice:
So the USDA tells us what we should be eating. Here's Marion Nestle again.

Marion Nestle:
The USDA and Health and Human Services jointly produced dietary guidelines. Those are supposed to be for policy makers, even though everybody uses them as advice to the public. Then they've issued food guide since the early 1900s. The most recent one was in 2010, and that was the My Plate food guide. The thing with the squares on it, one of which is protein, drives me crazy. There's fruits, vegetables, grains and protein and milk off on the side. And, you know, vegetables and grains have proteins. Anyway, it's very confusing

Archival:
With as much drama as the Department of Agriculture could muster, and with help from the First Lady, America today got a new symbol for Good nutrition. What's more useful than a plate? What's more simple than a plate?

Marion Nestle:
The My Plate was designed to replace the 1992 pyramid, which was enormously controversial, I think, because everybody understood it. I thought they should have kept it and tweaked it a little bit, but they didn't listen to me.

Nick Capodice:
The food pyramid controversy was fairly epic, and it was a battle between nutritionists and the meat and dairy lobby. The guideline in 1977 from nutritionists was eat less meat. And now we've got a pyramid that says eat two to three servings of meat every day, and then we had huge scuffles around the graphic design, like the size of the glass of milk on the pyramid. What kind of meat is shown in the protein section? Is that a steak or a turkey leg? But the food pyramid is indeed gone. Now it is myplate, and while we're still in the mind frame of your fourth grade classroom, Hannah, the USDA funds school lunches across the country. This is one of the very rare ways the federal government gives money to schools through funding free and reduced hot lunch programs.

Marion Nestle:
And so the USDA determines the nutritional standards of the school meals, reimburses schools for the school meals and runs the show. And so once again, you're dealing with nutrition standards in an agency whose main responsibility is industrial agriculture. And so you have the Department of Agriculture. There's a small office that is issuing dietary guidelines to eat less saturated fat, salt and sugars at the same time that it's dealing with sugar production and sugar beets and cane and all of these other things. I mean, it's a crazy system.

Nick Capodice:
Do you remember the ketchup as a vegetable debate?

Hannah McCarthy:
Oh I Do. Was it the USDA that redefined things like ketchup and relish as a vegetable so schools could serve them?

Nick Capodice:
Yes. This was during the Carter administration and later the Reagan administration. They loosened food restrictions on federally funded school lunches, and it caused a huge backlash. Those restrictions, by the way, have since changed.

Marion Nestle:
But what happened with the Obama administration was that one of the accomplishments of Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign was to improve the nutrition standards for school meals. The lobbyists went to work, particularly the lobbyists for pizza, potatoes and tomato paste. I mean, kind of amazing, actually, and they just go straight to Congress and then Congress then passes regulations or instructs the Department of Agriculture to back off.

Nick Capodice:
And I don't know how much big potato and big tomato paste make on supplying schools with lunches every year. But I want to mention that under the old rules, there was a famous loophole where two tablespoons of tomato paste on a piece of pizza counted as eight tablespoons of vegetables because that tomato paste was at one time, a lot more fresh tomatoes.

Hannah McCarthy:
Come on! I wonder if we could get to the A part of the USDA at this point, I mean, you said that back when the USDA was created, more than half of America was involved with farming. But that's definitely not the case now, right? What's the percentage now?

Nick Capodice:
It's about one point three percent of the U.S. employed population. But even so, there is a lot of farming going on in the U.S., which I'll get to in a minute. The first off, the USDA decides how it supports farms in the U.S. via a massive piece of legislation called the Farm Bill.

Marion Nestle:
It's the agricultural act of whatever year it is. There's a new one about every five years, and this is a bill that's a thousand pages of small print, a table of contents that usually goes on for 10 or 15 pages of small print. It is so absolutely enormous that it's incomprehensible there may be people who have an overview of it that is reasonable, but I spent a year trying to deal with it and found it absolutely impossible. I just couldn't do it.

Nick Capodice:
Marion told me she came up with what I think is a very cool idea for a course to teach a piece of legislation to teach the farm bill. And she said, with utter humility and generosity that it was a catastrophic failure.

Marion Nestle:
I tried to make a list of all the programs that it covers, and I couldn't. I gave up after a hundred or so. Each of those programs has detailed requirements, its own set of lobbyists, its own set of constituents, its own target audience. I mean, each of them is a story in its own. And in discussing people on the Agriculture Committee of Congress, staff people and I had one of them come and talk to my class because I thought she was really remarkable in her understanding of the farm bill. My question for her was how did you learn it? And she said it took her about eight years and she learned it because lobbyists would come to the Department of Agriculture and she would sit in on the lobbying meetings and listen to the lobbyists, talk about the details of those programs, and that's how she learned the programs one by one.

Nick Capodice:
In twenty twenty one, agriculture related corporations spent $108 million on lobbyists. These are people they paid to speak with members of the House and the Senate to get things passed in the farm bill. That helped those companies immensely, and the benefit to the politicians is also staggering. For example, in Twenty Nineteen Representative Mike Conaway, he headed the House Committee on Agriculture, received $850000 in contributions from agribusinesses. And thus ends this episode's short aside on lobbying, which should never be far from any topic we discuss.

Hannah McCarthy:
So it sounds like the farm bill is Byzantine and deeply influenced by lobbyists, just like most legislation in the United States. Regardless, the outcome is a piece of legislation that helps American farms and farmers right? And how many farms do we have in the U.S., by the way?

Jennifer Ifft:
So today we have two million farms about, and it's been pretty stable for a couple of decades.

Nick Capodice:
This is Jennifer Ifft. She's a professor of agricultural policy at Kansas State University.

Jennifer Ifft:
The whole thing of what is a farm and we talk a lot about this a lot. What is a farm? You could do a whole episode on that. And I start off with my students. I say, Who cares what a farm is? If you want to call yourself a farmer, it doesn't matter, but it matters a lot for taxes, and it matters a lot for policy. So the USDA says a farm is if you have the capacity to produce a thousand dollars of sales within a year. Doesn't take much to get to a thousand. So you have two million farms, a half of them are very small and half of them lose money farming every year. They're not farming as a business. The majority of farms in the U.S. are not operated as a business because you can't run a business and lose money every year. They're reliant on other sources of income.

Nick Capodice:
And the USDA supports those small farms by giving them a vast array of grants and loans. The big farms they support via subsidies, government money paid to farms for growing things, and the most common subsidy is something called crop insurance.

Jennifer Ifft:
Crop insurance protects you against unexpected changes in revenue. So in the spring, let's say I'm going to plant a plant, some corn. I know how much I've produced in the past, so I have a a yield that I could expect in a normal year. I can buy a policy that says, OK if my revenue in the fall. Is less than 80 percent of what I expected, I'll get a payout to make up that difference, but crop insurance does not guarantee a profit for a farm operation. It has nothing to do with expenses. It has nothing to do with how efficient your operation is. It has nothing to do with non weather or sort of price related losses. If you're very inefficient, You high costs, if there's human failure, you could still lose money.

Hannah McCarthy:
So in other words, just because a farm gets support from the government, that doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to succeed.

Nick Capodice:
Absolutely not. And you'd be hard pressed to find an op ed from anyone claiming that farming is an easy and secure occupation, subsidized or not. But when it comes to those subsidies, Jennifer said there are three crops that dominate

Jennifer Ifft:
Corn, soybeans, wheat. Efforts to sort of broaden that are ongoing, but still dollar wise. Corn, soybeans and wheat.

Nick Capodice:
And there's a reason Jennifer started with corn. It is our biggest crop in the U.S. by far. In twenty nineteen two point seven billion dollars were paid in corn subsidies

Marion Nestle:
So much that it's not needed for food or even feed for animals, so that 40 percent of the amount that's grown again, that's not an exact percentage, but it's a big chunk of corn production is ethanol for automobiles and goes up in smoke. Most of what the USDA does is to support the production of food for animals and fuel for automobiles.

Nick Capodice:
Ethanol is mixed with gasoline to make a more efficient lower emission fuel. In December 2021, the USDA gave $800 million to ethanol producers who had lost income during the height of the pandemic, when people just weren't driving as much. And I have to add it's not just subsidies that help farmers. The USDA funds an enormous amount of research into sustainability see genetics, soil fertilizers, anything to help farms make food. So we have fewer farms in America now, but their output is exponentially greater.

Hannah McCarthy:
Nick, we have done a lot of shows together at this point, but this one feels more than any other like it is all over the place. And I get it. So too is the USDA. But how did that happen? How did a relatively simple mission involving seeds,

Nick Capodice:
Seeds.

Hannah McCarthy:
And the patent office turn into this?

Nick Capodice:
Remember when I told you about Marion's failed class, where she tried to teach the farm bill? She told me that the first activity she did in that class with her students was to come up with a new one.

Marion Nestle:
On the first day of class, I asked the students what they thought are reasonable agricultural policy would be. They laid it out. On the first day of class. I mean, these were these were masters students. They were in food studies. They knew exactly what a reasonable agricultural policy should do. It should provide enough food for people to eat it, to provide a living for the farmers who produce the food. It should be linked to health so that it's producing healthy food and promotes the health of the American population. It shouldn't be linked to climate change, so it doesn't make climate change worse. I mean, it should be kind to animals. I mean, it was not very hard to think up things that a a reasonable, thoughtful, integrated food policy ought to do and and then to look at the reality of it was absolutely astounding.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, why can students lay it out? But we can't make it a reality? What happened to the USDA?

Marion Nestle:
Well, it grew. It just grew. You know, it's these things were incremental.

Nick Capodice:
This is how you end up with USDA employees shooting fireworks at geese near airport runways. The USDA runs the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, preventing invasive species from endangering crops and livestock and such. And that department is made up of six other departments, one of which is wildlife services, which manages the relationship between us and wildlife. And they're the ones who have to keep the geese off the runways. So I'll reiterate what Marion said. It just grew.

Marion Nestle:
And so first of all, you have a bill that's so big that nobody can understand it. I mean, you're expecting a member of Congress to read this. No, that's an unreasonable that's an unreasonable expectation. What about the agriculture staff people on their committees? Well, some of them are going to be good and some of them aren't. But I'm arguing that no one person can possibly have a vision for all of this. So there's no vision in this and the people who are coming in and arguing for one or another policy or people with a vested interest in that policy and they're paid, lobbyists are paid. And if you don't understand why advocates for healthier policies don't get anywhere, you have to look at who's paid to do what. I mean, most food advocates aren't paid to do lobbying. It's really hard to get a job where you're paid to do that kind of thing because you're not the groups that you're working for aren't making the kind of money that big agricultural producers are.

Nick Capodice:
Well, that's the USDA.I could go on, I would go on, I've barely started, but I got to get working on this episode about executive powers and the price of gasoline. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Christina Philips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and definitely played percussion on the song she and all other former band participants call Rodeo. While much of the rest of the world calls it Beef, it's what's for dinner by Aaron Copeland, also featured in this episode. As for the rest of the music in this episode, it was by Kevin McCloud, Chris Zabriskie, Emily Sprague, Martin Shelekenns, DivKid, Sarah the Illstrumentalist, and this year is ProletR. I kind of like their style. Civics one on one is a production of NPR New Hampshire Public Radio. All right, see you next time.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including upload many different filetypes, world-class support, transcribe multiple languages, automated subtitles, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

 

Transcript

USDA final.mp3

Nick Capodice: Hannah, there's a game people play who have worked at the United States Department of Agriculture and it's called, Does the USDA do it?

Hannah McCarthy: How do you play?

Nick Capodice: I read about it in the Fifth Risk, a book by Michael Lewis. It's not dissimilar from two truths and a lie. One person says a thing, right? A far out strange thing. And the other person has to guess whether or not it's something the USDA does.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Hit me.

Nick Capodice: Fire [00:00:30] a hundred and six millimeter recoilless rifle to control avalanches at Mammoth Mountain. Give you a loan to buy a house, maintain a fleet of aircraft, inspect every single piece of meat and poultry in the United States and dispose of mule deer corpses infected with chronic wasting disease, provide hot lunch for over 30 million schoolchildren, shoot fireworks at geese near airport runways, research improving algorithms in the wind erosion protection system model for temporal changes in the state of surface conditions.

Hannah McCarthy: They do it all, don't they?

Nick Capodice: They do it all Hannah. I [00:01:00] wouldn't be surprised if they hosted this podcast. You're listening to civics one on one. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today we're breaking down a massive combination Instant Pot air fryer department, the USDA, how it began, what it does, what it spends, and how it affects the lives of everyone in this country.

Hannah McCarthy: I guess I now know better than to ask what the USDA does. So can we start with its purpose instead?

Marion Nestle: Well, I would say that [00:01:30] from its inception, the USDA's function was to make sure that Americans have enough to eat.

Nick Capodice: This is Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University Emerita and author of many wonderful books about food and politics, such as Food Politics.

Marion Nestle: And so the big question is, how do you go about doing that? And over the years that the USDA [00:02:00] was main food function was to promote industrial agriculture because industrial agriculture produces vast quantities of food and to make sure that that food was was available at a very low cost.

Nick Capodice: Specifically, a cost low enough that people in all levels of income could afford it.

Hannah McCarthy: So it was created to keep Americans fed, all Americans. And it did this through supporting farmers.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, [00:02:30] though its genesis didn't start with farmers, it started with the patent office and seeds.

Hannah McCarthy: Sees.

Nick Capodice: Seeds.

Hannah McCarthy: Seeds!

Nick Capodice: Henry Leavitt Ellsworth, the commissioner of patents in the Department of State in the 1830s. He started to collect all these promising kinds of seeds, and he gave them to members of Congress to distribute to farmers in their states. And he's called the father of the Department of Agriculture, though he wouldn't live to see the creation of the USDA in 1862. [00:03:00] Abraham Lincoln, a former farmhand himself who had run for president on a pro agriculture campaign, created the Department of Agriculture in the midst of the Civil War. This is a time when over half of Americans were involved with farming. Grover Cleveland incorporated it into the cabinet in 1889, and its purpose was to study seeds, animals, soil, anything to promote the production and support of the American farmer.

Hannah McCarthy: So how did we get from seeds [00:03:30] and soil to that exhaustive list that you had me earlier? When did the USDA start to do other things?

Marion Nestle: It started in the Great Depression when two things were happening. People didn't have enough food and were on long lines to get food handouts, and farmers had no market for their food because people didn't have any money. And so instead of giving it away, they destroyed [00:04:00] it,

Hannah McCarthy: Destroyed it? Why would you destroy food in a time of hunger?

Nick Capodice: This was not out of pure avarice. Politicians in the Roosevelt administration believed that the reason prices were so low for commodities like livestock and cotton was that farmers were just producing way too much. So to prevent further decline of prices, the government just bought 10 million acres of cotton crops in the south and plowed right under them.

The Triple A, [00:04:30] the Agriculture Adjustment Act, seeks to bolster farm income by ordering crops plowed under and millions of acres of wheat, cotton, corn left unplanted. And yet men are hungry.

Marion Nestle: And there were several shocking incidents during the depression of farmers destroying piglets and animals and just, you know, slaughtering them and throwing them in a big heap when there were people who were starving for lack of food.

Nick Capodice: Millions upon millions of pigs and [00:05:00] cows were bought by the government, killed, and just buried in the ground, and there was a huge scandal about it, naturally, farmers were horrified at how the livestock they'd raised was slaughtered and buried, and Americans were shocked that at a time of immense hunger, we buried food. And then if you or any of our listeners are horrified to hear this, you're not going to like the fact that in 2020, due to supply chain issues during the pandemic. Vegetables rotted on the fields. Millions [00:05:30] of pigs and chickens were culled and millions of gallons of fresh milk were dumped down the drain every day. But back to when this happened in the nineteen thirties, the government stepped in and said it would buy food from farmers and distribute it to people who needed it. And this was the genesis of the food stamp program. And before we talk about the food stamp program and its modern day iteration of Snap, that's [00:06:00] Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, I want to talk quickly about the modern day budget of the USDA. Their total twenty twenty one budget was about one hundred and fifty billion dollars. That's the fourth largest budget of an executive department. And you know what percentage of that budget is devoted to nutrition and nutritional assistance?

Hannah McCarthy: What percentage?

Nick Capodice: Seventy five percent. And that's not just Snap, it's school lunch programs, which we're going to get to later. It's WIC women, infants and children. Fifteen programs [00:06:30] in all

Hannah McCarthy: They hearing about how it started, I would have expected the USDA to spend the majority of its budget on farming. So this is surprising. And by the way, how to snap benefits actually work, who is eligible to use them?

Nick Capodice: Sure. We are scheduling a separate deep dive episode on governmental assistance programs, including the complex history of government cheese and what you can and can't get under these myriad programs. But briefly, families who make a certain income are entitled to snap benefits and [00:07:00] currently a family of three with a combined income of twenty nine thousand dollars a year or less is eligible. And as an interesting aside, you know, there's all these programs that give rewards for using an EB or SNAP card at your local farmer's market.

Hannah McCarthy: I've seen at farmers markets around the country you get an extra ten dollars worth of groceries or something when you use your EB card there.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, that is how food stamps initially worked in the nineteen thirties.

Marion Nestle: If you want a certain number of food stamps, you've got extra stamps for [00:07:30] buying commodities that farmers produced and that worked for a while and went on up to the Second World War when everybody was employed, and so poverty levels went right down. And after the Second World War poverty returned, there were proposals for a food stamp program where the stamps would be used at retail stores. The [00:08:00] farmers got dropped out of the picture, and the the program ended up as a retail program where you had stamps that you could take to the store and use for pretty much anything that was in any retail grocery store.

Nick Capodice: And they changed it from stamps to the debit card, partly to reduce stigma. They came in little books of multicolored stamps, and our producer Jacqui, who was once in the program, told me when you went to the store to use [00:08:30] them, it was embarrassing because everybody knew you were using them and they would judge your purchases.

Hannah McCarthy: Can we also talk about the criticism of the program?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. The majority of criticism from lawmakers regarding Snap is related to fraud.

Archival: Dozens more have warrants out for their arrest. The sheriff's office is going after those fraudulently using their EBT cards...

Marion Nestle: Yeah. Well, as with any federal program, there are always the potentiality for fraud, and the [00:09:00] investigations of fraud in Snap usually show that there's not much, but there is some. It would be irresponsible to argue that there isn't any. You can trade food stamps, you can sell food stamps, you can do all kinds or the benefit cards. You can do the same with the benefit cards.

Nick Capodice: A study from 2017 found that 60 percent of Americans believe that people misrepresent their financial situation to get food benefits, and that is [00:09:30] patently untrue. You and your family's Social Security numbers are run through numerous databases. It's next to impossible to lie to get SNAP benefits. And while there are some instances of fraud, it is far more frequently people selling their food stamps to, say, restaurants who use them to get the food that they will sell. In twenty fourteen there were about 40 million Americans using Snap and forty five thousand individuals disqualified for fraud. That's 0.1 percent.

Marion Nestle: What always [00:10:00] amazes me about it is the tens of millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent every year on fraud prevention. Because fraud prevention is a big issue, particularly for people who are against the government having a role in poverty reduction. And so there's a big focus on trying to prevent fraud. And I'm always astounded by the tens to hundreds of [00:10:30] millions of dollars that's spent on fraud prevention every year. But the Department of Agriculture takes it very seriously because it has to take it very seriously for political reasons. And so, you know, for me, the political question is how much money do you want to spend on reducing a very tiny amount of fraud? And apparently you want to spend a lot.

Hannah McCarthy: If one [00:11:00] last question tied to nutrition and assistance, it's about something on the wall of my classroom in fourth grade,

Archival: Good nutrition and physical activity Are fuel for your child's mind and body,and the food pyramid will help you find the right balance. Just remember every color, every day...

Nick Capodice: Ok, yes, the USDA food pyramid. We're going to get into that and school lunches and the rest of the things the USDA does right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy: But first, [00:11:30] we always try to let our listeners know about our free newsletter. Extra credit. It is short. It's goofy, it shows up in your inbox every two weeks. Nick assures me that the next one will explain why milk and only milk is allowed as a non water beverage on the Senate floor. Sign up at civics101podcast.org.

Nick Capodice: Civics 101 is supported in part by [00:12:00] You You, right there, you listening? Donate to our show at civics101podcast.org or we'll cause an avalanche with the giant cannon.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, tell me about the food pyramid.

Nick Capodice: So the USDA tells us what we should be eating. Here's Marion Nestle again.

Marion Nestle: The USDA and Health and Human Services jointly produced dietary guidelines. Those are supposed to be for policy makers, even though [00:12:30] everybody uses them as advice to the public. Then they've issued food guide since the early 1900s. The most recent one was in 2010, and that was the My Plate food guide. The thing with the squares on it, one of which is protein, drives me crazy. There's fruits, vegetables, grains and protein and milk off on the side. And, you know, vegetables and grains have proteins. Anyway, it's very confusing

Archival: With [00:13:00] as much drama as the Department of Agriculture could muster, and with help from the First Lady, America today got a new symbol for Good nutrition. What's more useful than a plate? What's more simple than a plate?

Marion Nestle: The My Plate was designed to replace the 1992 pyramid, which was enormously controversial, I think, because everybody understood it. I thought they should have kept it and tweaked it a little bit, but [00:13:30] they didn't listen to me.

Nick Capodice: The food pyramid controversy was fairly epic, and it was a battle between nutritionists and the meat and dairy lobby. The guideline in 1977 from nutritionists was eat less meat. And now we've got a pyramid that says eat two to three servings of meat every day, and then we had huge scuffles around the graphic design, like the size of the glass of milk on the pyramid. What kind of meat is shown in [00:14:00] the protein section? Is that a steak or a turkey leg? But the food pyramid is indeed gone. Now it is myplate, and while we're still in the mind frame of your fourth grade classroom, Hannah, the USDA funds school lunches across the country. This is one of the very rare ways the federal government gives money to schools through funding free and reduced hot lunch programs.

Marion Nestle: And so the USDA determines the nutritional standards of the school meals, reimburses schools for [00:14:30] the school meals and runs the show. And so once again, you're dealing with nutrition standards in an agency whose main responsibility is industrial agriculture. And so you have the Department of Agriculture. There's a small office that is issuing dietary guidelines to eat less saturated fat, salt and sugars at the same time that it's dealing with sugar production [00:15:00] and sugar beets and cane and all of these other things. I mean, it's a crazy system.

Nick Capodice: Do you remember the ketchup as a vegetable debate?

Hannah McCarthy: Oh I Do. Was it the USDA that redefined things like ketchup and relish as a vegetable so schools could serve them?

Nick Capodice: Yes. This was during the Carter administration and later the Reagan administration. They loosened food restrictions on federally funded school lunches, and it caused a huge backlash. [00:15:30] Those restrictions, by the way, have since changed.

Marion Nestle: But what happened with the Obama administration was that one of the accomplishments of Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign was to improve the nutrition standards for school meals. The lobbyists went to work, particularly the lobbyists for pizza, potatoes and tomato paste. I mean, kind of amazing, actually, and they just go straight to Congress and then Congress then passes [00:16:00] regulations or instructs the Department of Agriculture to back off.

Nick Capodice: And I don't know how much big potato and big tomato paste make on supplying schools with lunches every year. But I want to mention that under the old rules, there was a famous loophole where two tablespoons of tomato paste on a piece of pizza counted as eight tablespoons of vegetables because that tomato paste was at one time, a lot more fresh tomatoes.

Hannah McCarthy: Come on! I [00:16:30] wonder if we could get to the A part of the USDA at this point, I mean, you said that back when the USDA was created, more than half of America was involved with farming. But that's definitely not the case now, right? What's the percentage now?

Nick Capodice: It's about one point three percent of the U.S. employed population. But even so, there is a lot of farming going on in the U.S., which I'll get to in a minute. The first off, the USDA decides how it supports farms [00:17:00] in the U.S. via a massive piece of legislation called the Farm Bill.

Marion Nestle: It's the agricultural act of whatever year it is. There's a new one about every five years, and this is a bill that's a thousand pages of small print, a table of contents that usually goes on for 10 or 15 pages of small print. It is so absolutely enormous that it's incomprehensible there may be people [00:17:30] who have an overview of it that is reasonable, but I spent a year trying to deal with it and found it absolutely impossible. I just couldn't do it.

Nick Capodice: Marion told me she came up with what I think is a very cool idea for a course to teach a piece of legislation to teach the farm bill. And she said, with utter humility and generosity that it was a catastrophic failure.

Marion Nestle: I tried to make [00:18:00] a list of all the programs that it covers, and I couldn't. I gave up after a hundred or so. Each of those programs has detailed requirements, its own set of lobbyists, its own set of constituents, its own target audience. I mean, each of them is a story in its own. And in discussing people on the Agriculture [00:18:30] Committee of Congress, staff people and I had one of them come and talk to my class because I thought she was really remarkable in her understanding of the farm bill. My question for her was how did you learn it? And she said it took her about eight years and she learned it because lobbyists would come to the Department of Agriculture and she would sit in on the lobbying meetings and listen to the lobbyists, talk about the details [00:19:00] of those programs, and that's how she learned the programs one by one.

Nick Capodice: In twenty twenty one, agriculture related corporations spent $108 million on lobbyists. These are people they paid to speak with members of the House and the Senate to get things passed in the farm bill. That helped those companies immensely, and the benefit to the politicians is also staggering. For example, in Twenty Nineteen Representative Mike Conaway, he headed the House Committee on Agriculture, received [00:19:30] $850000 in contributions from agribusinesses. And thus ends this episode's short aside on lobbying, which should never be far from any topic we discuss.

Hannah McCarthy: So it sounds like the farm bill is Byzantine and deeply influenced by lobbyists, just like most legislation in the United States. Regardless, the outcome is a piece of legislation that helps American farms and farmers right? And how many farms do we have [00:20:00] in the U.S., by the way?

Jennifer Ifft: So today we have two million farms about, and it's been pretty stable for a couple of decades.

Nick Capodice: This is Jennifer Ifft. She's a professor of agricultural policy at Kansas State University.

Jennifer Ifft: The whole thing of what is a farm and we talk a lot about this a lot. What is a farm? You could do a whole episode on that. And I start off with my students. I say, Who cares what a farm is? If you want to call yourself a farmer, it doesn't matter, but it matters a lot for taxes, and it matters a lot for policy. So the USDA says a farm is [00:20:30] if you have the capacity to produce a thousand dollars of sales within a year. Doesn't take much to get to a thousand. So you have two million farms, a half of them are very small and half of them lose money farming every year. They're not farming as a business. The majority of farms in the U.S. are not operated as a business because you can't run a business and lose money every year. They're reliant on other sources of income.

Nick Capodice: And the USDA supports those small farms [00:21:00] by giving them a vast array of grants and loans. The big farms they support via subsidies, government money paid to farms for growing things, and the most common subsidy is something called crop insurance.

Jennifer Ifft: Crop insurance protects you against unexpected changes in revenue. So in the spring, let's say I'm going to plant a plant, some corn. I know how much I've produced in the past, so I have a a yield that I could expect in a normal year. I can buy a policy that [00:21:30] says, OK if my revenue in the fall. Is less than 80 percent of what I expected, I'll get a payout to make up that difference, but crop insurance does not guarantee a profit for a farm operation. It has nothing to do with expenses. It has nothing to do with how efficient your operation is. It has nothing to do with non weather or sort of price related losses. If you're very inefficient, You high costs, if there's [00:22:00] human failure, you could still lose money.

Hannah McCarthy: So in other words, just because a farm gets support from the government, that doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to succeed.

Nick Capodice: Absolutely not. And you'd be hard pressed to find an op ed from anyone claiming that farming is an easy and secure occupation, subsidized or not. But when it comes to those subsidies, Jennifer said there are three crops that dominate

Jennifer Ifft: Corn, soybeans, wheat. Efforts to sort of broaden that are ongoing, but still dollar wise. Corn, [00:22:30] soybeans and wheat.

Nick Capodice: And there's a reason Jennifer started with corn. It is our biggest crop in the U.S. by far. In twenty nineteen two point seven billion dollars were paid in corn subsidies

Marion Nestle: So much that it's not needed for food or even feed for animals, so that 40 percent of the amount that's grown again, that's not an exact percentage, but it's a big chunk of corn production is ethanol [00:23:00] for automobiles and goes up in smoke. Most of what the USDA does is to support the production of food for animals and fuel for automobiles.

Nick Capodice: Ethanol is mixed with gasoline to make a more efficient lower emission fuel. In December 2021, the USDA gave $800 million to ethanol producers who had lost income during the height of the pandemic, when people just weren't driving as much. And I have to add it's not just subsidies that help farmers. The USDA funds an enormous [00:23:30] amount of research into sustainability see genetics, soil fertilizers, anything to help farms make food. So we have fewer farms in America now, but their output is exponentially greater.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, we have done a lot of shows together at this point, but this one feels more than any other like it is all over the place. And I get it. So too is the USDA. But how did that [00:24:00] happen? How did a relatively simple mission involving seeds,

Nick Capodice: Seeds.

Hannah McCarthy: And the patent office turn into this?

Nick Capodice: Remember when I told you about Marion's failed class, where she tried to teach the farm bill? She told me that the first activity she did in that class with her students was to come up with a new one.

Marion Nestle: On the first day of class, I asked the students what they thought are reasonable agricultural policy would be. They laid it out. On the first day of class. I mean, these [00:24:30] were these were masters students. They were in food studies. They knew exactly what a reasonable agricultural policy should do. It should provide enough food for people to eat it, to provide a living for the farmers who produce the food. It should be linked to health so that it's producing healthy food and promotes the health of the American population. It shouldn't be linked to climate change, so it doesn't make climate change worse. [00:25:00] I mean, it should be kind to animals. I mean, it was not very hard to think up things that a a reasonable, thoughtful, integrated food policy ought to do and and then to look at the reality of it was absolutely astounding.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, why can students lay it out? But we can't make it a reality? What happened to the USDA?

Marion Nestle: Well, it grew. It [00:25:30] just grew. You know, it's these things were incremental.

Nick Capodice: This is how you end up with USDA employees shooting fireworks at geese near airport runways. The USDA runs the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, preventing invasive species from endangering crops and livestock and such. And that department is made up of six other departments, one of which is wildlife services, which manages the relationship between us and wildlife. And they're the ones who have to keep the geese off [00:26:00] the runways. So I'll reiterate what Marion said. It just grew.

Marion Nestle: And so first of all, you have a bill that's so big that nobody can understand it. I mean, you're expecting a member of Congress to read this. No, that's an unreasonable that's an unreasonable expectation. What about the agriculture staff people on their committees? Well, some of them are going to be good and some of them aren't. But I'm arguing that no one person can possibly [00:26:30] have a vision for all of this. So there's no vision in this and the people who are coming in and arguing for one or another policy or people with a vested interest in that policy and they're paid, lobbyists are paid. And if you don't understand why advocates for healthier policies don't get anywhere, you have to look at who's paid to do what. I mean, most food advocates aren't paid to do [00:27:00] lobbying. It's really hard to get a job where you're paid to do that kind of thing because you're not the groups that you're working for aren't making the kind of money that big agricultural producers are.

Nick Capodice: Well, that's the USDA.I could go on, I would go on, I've [00:27:30] barely started, but I got to get working on this episode about executive powers and the price of gasoline. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Christina Philips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and definitely played percussion on the song she and all other former band participants call Rodeo. While much of the rest of the world calls it Beef, it's what's for dinner by Aaron Copeland, also featured in this episode. As for the rest of the music in this episode, it was by Kevin McCloud, Chris Zabriskie, Emily [00:28:00] Sprague, Martin Shelekenns, DivKid, Sarah the Illstrumentalist, and this year is ProletR. I kind of like their style. Civics one on one is a production of NPR New Hampshire Public Radio. All right, see you next time.


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Congressional Investigations

They're meant to expose wrongdoing and corruption or find the cracks in the systems in order to remedy them. But what, exactly, is Congress allowed to investigate, what is the end goal and what does it mean to be held in contempt?  

Linda Fowler, Professor of Government and Policy at Dartmouth College, is our guide to congressional investigations -- how they happen, why they happen and what happens afterward.

 

Congressional Investigations: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

Congressional Investigations: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the This transcript may contain errors.

Hannah McCarthy:
Nick, I must have told you this about a dozen times at this point, but I will never forget when a British friend of mine and this was a few years ago heard of some recent turn of political events that she disagreed with in the United States. And she just goes, OK, so when does your secret shadow government step in? Isn't it about time for that?

Nick Capodice:
You have told me this story a dozen times.

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, I think when things go off the rails or seem to go off the rails, the question is often who is in charge here? Isn't anyone going to do anything about this?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, especially when you're talking about big federal business, national goings on. It's also high level and it's outside of our power.

Hannah McCarthy:
Part of the reason Civics 101 got started is that after the 2016 election, listeners kept writing in to ask us, Can that government official actually do that? Is that legal? And we were like, I don't know, we'll ask someone for you.

Nick Capodice:
That's true, and it's exactly what we do. And more often than not, the answer has been that person can do that unless someone else notices it and does something about it.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah. Well, today we're going to talk about what it looks like when someone does something about it or tries to. This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy:
And this is an investigation into... Exactly that. Investigations. Congressional investigations.

Archival:
Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last, have you left no sense of the fact that I wasn't involved in an obstruction of justice, the fact that I assisted another in perjured testimony, if those responsible are not held accountable and if Congress does not act responsibly, this will remain a cancer on our constitutional. I began by telling the president that there was a cancer growing on the presidency. I've come to that later, but I'll answer the question now. I wish you would. I have the witnesses, but I didn't have. And what?

Nick Capodice:
All right, first things first, let's define what a congressional investigation actually is

Hannah McCarthy:
A congressional investigation is when a committee of the House or Senate or both requests information and testimony about something that seems to be illegal or dangerous or done in bad faith, something that's going

Hannah McCarthy:
Wrong.

Linda Fowler:
It implies there was wrongdoing.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Linda Fowler, professor emeritus of government and policy studies at Dartmouth College and author of several books, most recently Watchdogs on the Hill. She spoke with former host Virginia Prescott back in 2017,

Nick Capodice:
And as we're having this conversation January 20 22, there is a congressional investigation that is getting a lot of attention.

Archival:
The House Select Committee on January six will hold public hearings in the New Year on the attack on the United States Capitol. The Washington

Hannah McCarthy:
Right. There's a House committee investigating the Jan. six insurrection in Washington, D.C. This committee is named for obvious reasons the U.S. House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol.

Nick Capodice:
A very fitting name, and here's something I've never really understood where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to conduct investigations?

Hannah McCarthy:
Nowhere.

Linda Fowler:
There's no specific language that says Congress has the power to investigate the executive branch, so it's an implied power. But basically, since Congress is charged with making all the laws, it needs to inquire whether the executive branch is following the laws that it passed and whether it's doing those things properly.

Hannah McCarthy:
Congress can essentially investigate anything as long as it is something that they can pass legislation or take action about.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, so Congress ability to investigate is tied to the fact that they have the ability to make laws and act as a check on the other branches.

Hannah McCarthy:
Exactly. These investigations are about keeping an eye on federal agencies about making sure legislation is appropriate, about looking into matters of national importance to see if legislation might need to be passed. The goal is to expose problems or wrongdoing by subpoenaing people to testify before Congress and by requesting documents. Woodrow Wilson once described congressional investigations as, quote a semi judicial examination into corners suspected to be dirty.

Nick Capodice:
It almost sounds like you're saying that Congress can investigate anything as long as it suspects something is afoot.

Hannah McCarthy:
Oh, these investigations run the gamut. Abuses of power in intelligence gathering at the CIA and FBI.

Archival:
There has never been a full public accounting of FBI domestic intelligence operations. Therefore, this committee has undertaken such an investigation.

Hannah McCarthy:
The sinking of the Titanic.

Nick Capodice:
Wow.

Hannah McCarthy:
The government response to Hurricane Katrina

Archival:
With the help of former FEMA director Michael Brown, we will attempt to construct, for the record, a timeline of what FEMA did and didn't do before, during and after the catastrophic

Archival:
storm.

Hannah McCarthy:
Delays and mismanagement of the Department of Veterans Affairs, even rigged game shows in the 1950s.

Archival:
Along the waterfront. No, I'm sorry. The answer is Marty Marty. You lose five points.

Hannah McCarthy:
I put you back. And since the beginning, these investigations have received resistance and pushback. Let's take the first one ever.

Linda Fowler:
Well, actually, it was in George Washington's presidency. There were troops engaged on the western border of fighting various tribes, and Congress had an inquiry about how that was going.

Hannah McCarthy:
Congress asked George Washington for paperwork pertaining to the fighting with these American Indian tribes. And Washington questioned whether he really needed to provide the documents. Ultimately, he gave Congress some, but not all this executive privilege was born.

Nick Capodice:
All right. And we saw this in the case of the January 6th investigation. I know that President Trump sued to prevent the National Archives from turning over White House documents claiming executive privilege,

Hannah McCarthy:
Which as of early December was denied by a circuit court of Appeals. Historically, not a whole lot has been done on the part of the courts to limit Congress's ability to investigate.

Nick Capodice:
All right, I got rigged game shows and the sinking of the Titanic. But what are the big ones? What are the real monumental ones that have affected America in the last hundred years?

Linda Fowler:
Well, a really famous one was on war profiteering during World War Two that was led by then-Senator Harry Truman. Of course, the Watergate investigations in the nineteen seventies by Sam Ervin, a southern Democrat from North Carolina who chaired the Judiciary Committee.

Speaker3:
Now, the evidence in this case shows that seven men were indicted for burglarizing and bugging the Watergate, including three employees of the committee to reelect the

Linda Fowler:
President.

Linda Fowler:
We've also had recent investigation about conditions at Walter Reed Hospital, the in addition to Watergate, many people may remember the McCarthy investigations of domestic communism.

Nick Capodice:
Wait, wait a minute. I would like to pause here. I know the courts haven't done much to limit congressional investigations, but weren't the McCarthy hearings the House un-American Activities Committee investigations considered universally to be pretty bad?

Archival:
Communists subversive activities has developed into hysterical frenzy, which grows daily. Appointed by Congress to investigate. Chairman Parnell Thomas opens the hearing investigating alleged communist influence and infiltration in the moving picture industry must not be considered.

Hannah McCarthy:
This one is actually trickier than it seems. A lot of people were opposed to these investigations, but the meaningful question here is what the courts had to say when Congress started investigating private citizens in the 1930s for suspected disloyalty, a.k.a. being a communist. People did refuse to answer their questions about past behaviors, and they were held in contempt of Congress. In one case, Watkins v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the contempt charge was invalid under the Fifth Amendment, but the court later walked that back when they sustained a separate contempt charge in Barron Blatt, the United States that was another House un-American Activities Committee case. Basically, SCOTUS ruled that the government's interest outweighed that of the private citizen.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, so it sounds like these investigations are nearly like trials, but without a court. So do they share any features of courtroom proceedings?

Linda Fowler:
Yes and no. So they have some quasi legal features. For example, the subpoena that if you ignore a subpoena from a congressional committee, you can be compelled to testify. You can be locked up for contempt of Congress. If you don't, you can be locked up.

Nick Capodice:
Locked up?

Hannah McCarthy:
After you were found in contempt of Congress. The presiding officer of whatever chamber is citing contempt then refers that matter to the U.S. Attorney of D.C., who then refers that matter to a grand jury. It is a criminal offense with a penalty of no less than one month nor more than 12 in jail and a fine between 100 and $100000.

Nick Capodice:
Wow.

Linda Fowler:
It used to be the case that during the McCarthy era, people who refused to testify were nevertheless threatened with being locked up for contempt of Congress. So after the mid 50s, there are more procedural protections for witnesses. They can't be compelled to testify against them.

Nick Capodice:
And we keep calling these congressional investigations. But the January 6th investigation is specifically a House Committee investigation. Is it common to have one chamber conduct an investigation while the other one doesn't.

Linda Fowler:
Well, you have to go back to 1946 after World War Two, when committees could launch investigations, but they had to get approval from their chamber to do it. After nineteen forty six, when Congress enacted a statute, it required all standing committees in the House and the Senate to engage in oversight and conduct inquiries. And gradually, these committees, such as the Armed Services Committee or the Judiciary Committee, were granted subpoena powers so they could compel witnesses to come before them to testify. So you can get investigations in one chamber, but not the other.

Nick Capodice:
But and again, this is in the case of the January six investigation. The U.S. House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol is not, I'm going to guess, a standing committee that's been around for a while.

Hannah McCarthy:
Correct. Good guess.

Nick Capodice:
So where did this committee come from?

Linda Fowler:
Their standing committees, which are the regular committees that Congress uses to vet legislation markup bills, then you may have either the Senate or the House or jointly authorize an investigative committee. So for example, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee both launched inquiries after the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was overrun by a mob and several Americans were killed.

Archival:
Today, the oversight committee convenes a fourth hearing related to the security situation in Libya before, during and after the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, which claimed the lives of four Americans.

Linda Fowler:
They had their inquiry. They had public testimony. Republicans in the House at the time were not satisfied. They were convinced that Secretary Clinton had been negligent. So the House then went ahead and authorized an investigation, and they set up a special committee with special staff. So the difference, I think, between an investigatory committee and an oversight committee has to do with whether the Senate is using its existing organizations or whether it creates a new one with a very special purpose.

Hannah McCarthy:
But committees, as it turns out, are not the only way to investigate things at the congressional level. The other option just happens to have one important obstacle. We'll get to that and to the point of these investigations after the break.

Nick Capodice:
But before we do, we just want to let you know that we have a biweekly newsletter called Extra Credit, where we put in all the stuff that we couldn't squeeze into the episode. You can subscribe at civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy:
Before we get on with the show, this is your weekly reminder that while Civics 101 will always be free to You, it is tragically not free to make. It takes a staff, it takes a lot of research and it takes a lot of equipment to make the show, which takes money. If you believe in what Civics 101 does and you have the ability to contribute, I am asking you to take just a moment. It's quick, it's easy, and it actually makes a world of difference to us. Go to Civics101podcast.org and click the donate button

Nick Capodice:
And you'll get a fancy new sticker.

Nick Capodice:
While supplies last.

Hannah McCarthy:
It says The Constitution is my copilot and it's pretty cool.

Nick Capodice:
All right, here we go now, Hannah. We've covered the committees that conduct these investigations, but there's another path that I've heard of that I'd like to dig into before the January 6th House investigation started. There was a call in the Senate for something called an independent commission to look into the January 6th events. And I remember hearing that that measure failed. But what exactly would it have meant if it had succeeded? What is an independent commission?

Hannah McCarthy:
An independent commission is a special group that Congress establishes to look into an issue and provide independent advice. These groups are not necessarily made up of members of Congress, but of experts who might be better suited than members of Congress to understand a problem. This makes them either nonpartisan or if members of Congress are a part of the group, often bipartisan.

Linda Fowler:
And they are appointed in various combinations by the executive branch or by the Congress or some combination of the two. So an independent commission has to be authorized by statutes, which means it has to pass both chambers and it has to be signed by the president into law.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, I see a problem here when it comes to investigations being signed into law and it has to do with the executive branch. So what president would happily sign that statute into law?

Linda Fowler:
It depends on what Congress puts in the statute, but you can well imagine with Republicans controlling the House and the Senate that they might give the president more voice than if the Democrats were controlling the House and Senate when they drafted the law. There's a lot of horse trading that goes on in deciding how big the commission is going to be, who's going to be on it. So a classic example would be a different kind of independent commission was used to look at budget deficits.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, so this one was created by Barack Obama. Back in 2010, he appointed members of Congress, former members of Congress and some experts. This group was given the job of coming up with a plan for reducing the deficit. These groups come up with recommendations. They can even draft legislation to pass on to lawmakers.

Nick Capodice:
It occurs to me, Hannah, that when, for example, the Justice Department is investigating something, the people doing the investigating are trained. It's their job. How effective can a congressional investigation be if these are just politicians asking questions?

Linda Fowler:
Well, the whole point of the committee system in Congress is that members develop expertize in a particular policy area, so people on the Intelligence Committee are supposed to have had at least some experience in dealing with intelligence matters. People are armed services may have a special expertize on our on defense matters, but there's a lot of variation among chairs and among members.

Hannah McCarthy:
Take former congressman Devin Nunes, for example. He was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, but he had essentially no experience in intelligence matters and had some difficulty in that role. But then you have the late Senator John McCain, a war veteran who had done Navy liaison work with the Armed Services Committee, who later became chair of that committee.

Linda Fowler:
There's a wide range of expertise. Some chairs and committee members are very conscientious. They work hard on their committees. Others, not so much.

Nick Capodice:
Now, ultimately. Congress is not a court. So I'm wondering Hannah, aside from holding someone in contempt for not giving over documents or providing testimony. What's the purpose? Why do these investigations?

Hannah McCarthy:
No, but these investigations, as we've seen over the past few years, are both public and widely reported on the public cares about them. So does the Justice Department. If a congressional investigation reveals widespread wrongdoing, the next step is often a court case. For example, let's look at the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s.

Nick Capodice:
Oh, Teapot Dome. Good old Teapot Dome.

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, I bring this up, right? Because when you hear that term, you're like, Oh yeah, the Teapot Dome scandal. But Nick, do you remember what this scandal was?

Nick Capodice:
I don't. I know it's something to do in the nineteen twenties, and I'm sorry. Mr. Zecka, my eighth grade social studies teacher. I don't know what it was.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, I couldn't remember either. And it really is scandalous. The former secretary of the interior, Albert Fall, was charged with accepting bribes from oil companies in exchange for exclusive drilling rights on federal lands. This investigation resulted in Albert Albertville going to jail, and it was the first time a cabinet member went to jail for a felony committed while in office.

Nick Capodice:
It's a very memorable name. What is the Teapot Dome part of it?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, I had to look that up. That was the name of a big, teapot shaped rock formation on land that Albert promised in Wyoming.

Nick Capodice:
How about that? All right, last question here. We started this whole conversation by talking about the fact that federal wrongdoing feels so far out of our reach as members of the public. It's a who watches the Watchmen kind of question, but these investigations being public involving politicians and elected officials must carry some political weight. Does it really matter if someone puts in a call to their rep and says, Hey, there's something rotten in the state of Denmark? Can you please take a look?

Linda Fowler:
Of course it does. What the public does have a responsibility to do is to insist that this be handled in a judicious manner and that Republican views and Democratic views are weighed carefully.

Hannah McCarthy:
I think it's important to remember the political aspect of these investigations. They aren't just used to look into something. They are an opportunity for grandstanding and with great media coverage to boot. In some ways, I think the voter is as important as the actual subject of the investigation. Your representatives want you to see them giving you what you want, saying what you want to hear.

Archival:
Have a few more things to say. But for the richest man in the world to come here and hide behind the poorest people in the world and say, that's who you're really trying to help.

Speaker3:
Let us not forget that the wave of innovation is spreading across the world with or without us. So that's why I believe that American innovation is on trial this day in this hearing. 2025 Initiative has been working for years to increase diversity and to somebody else, you know, to say, OK, what? Somebody posted on this really isn't true. And here's what the facts are. Rather than having a Twitter or a Facebook, take it down.

Nick Capodice:
So in some ways, this high level, seemingly beyond our reach procedure is not so far away, after all,

Hannah McCarthy:
Especially if you make your priorities known.

Hannah McCarthy:
This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton and Christina Phillips. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode by Xylo Zico, Ketsa and Bio Unit. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including enterprise-grade admin tools, automated translation, powerful integrations and APIs, secure transcription and file storage, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

 

Transcript

[copy/paste transcript here]


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Declaring War

The United States hasn't officially declared war against another country since World War II, and yet, we've been in dozens of conflicts since then. So what does it mean to "declare war," and how has the definition of war, and how the United States engages in it, changed since our framers wrote the Constitution? 

Albin Kowalewski, a historical publication specialist at the U.S. House of Representatives, helps us answer these questions. He spoke with our former host, Virginia Prescott, in 2017.

 

Declaring War_Final.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

Declaring War_Final.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Hannah McCarthy:
Nick, before I ever got this wonderful job on this wonderful show, I was not a civics buff. Are you shocked?

Nick Capodice:
Completely appalled.

Hannah McCarthy:
However, I did have this one fact that I just loved pulling out, which was the fact that the U.S. Congress has not declared war since World War Two. It was my makes you think, doesn't it fact?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, I learned that fact in a movie theater in 1997 when I first saw Wag the Dog.

Movie Sound:
Two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war we show in NASA confirms there is the Canadian border,

Nick Capodice:
And that fact is bizarre to comprehend because of course, we have been to war a bunch of times since then, right?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Nick Capodice:
Since World War Two off the top of my head, we've got the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

Hannah McCarthy:
So what I hope you are thinking right now is how is that possible, given the fact that we haven't actually declared war in so long? The way the framers intended it for Congress to make an official declaration essentially seems like a thing of the past.

Nick Capodice:
I feel like we also need to consider the fact that war looks very different now than it did when the framers wrote the Constitution. Like, if the government is a house, you've got the Constitution as the foundation frame, and everyone who came after that foundation was laid has added to it. We need

HGTV:
To create a larger master bedroom closet,

Nick Capodice:
Change things

HGTV:
Around, expand and update the teen bathroom, put up walls, enlarge my daughter's closets,

Nick Capodice:
Build editions,

HGTV:
Create a home office for me.

Nick Capodice:
There's some pretty outlandish wallpaper in the third floor bathroom, courtesy of the Supreme Court. But still, it's a historical property, so it's pretty hard for someone to come and just tear the whole thing down.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, actually, this is really good. Like you look at the house a few hundred years in the future, and it's built on that foundation, but has an entirely different entrance or a whole new wing. One president could come in and decide to make it an open concept and bust all the walls down between the living room, dining room and kitchen. But after a while, it's like the Winchester mystery house. It becomes difficult to trace how and when and why certain things have changed because they're all building on top of each other. And there's that staircase that leads to nowhere.

Nick Capodice:
All right. So the question is, how did we stop using the front door to declare war and ask everyone to please come in through the back?

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy. I'm Nick Capodice, and today we're talking about the thing we haven't done since nineteen forty two declaring war.

Archival Sound:
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the utmost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again and dangerous. We are a united nation. Let us boldly proclaim we will not permit any force to strike down. Alien civilization depends on what we do on what we do now and in the months ahead. I have no higher obligation than to safeguard the lives

Archival Sound:
Of American citizens. The House of Representatives. And some days again, I'm. You can end the war.

Albin Kowalewski:
When the United States declares war, it sets in motion a process that the framers of the Constitution first envisioned in 1787.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Albin Kowalewski, an historical publication specialist at the U.S. House of Representatives. He spoke with our former host, Virginia Prescott, in 2017.

Albin Kowalewski:
For them, war was not an abstract concept at all. You know, these guys, almost to a man, had served in some capacity during the American Revolution. The vast majority of them had military experience, either with the Continental Army or with state militias. If they couldn't serve for one reason or another, you know, in the military, they would serve in the safety councils. And I think even one or two of them had been surgeons as well. So these guys had seen the face of war up front. This is something real to them. They had seen the destruction that war could bring to a people. And so the overriding thought at the constitutional convention was to make war difficult to enter.

Nick Capodice:
It makes sense, though, that something so destructive should be so hard to do.

Albin Kowalewski:
Peace peace should be easy. That should be the easy part. That should be the status quo. But war war should be difficult to enter, and so they began considering ways to make that happen. One of the ideas that they settled on was that open debate among the people's representatives could really kind of cool temperatures, cool the push for war. So what the framers ended up doing is that they gave the war powers to the legislative branch. There was some discussion of whether or not they should give the war powers to the president, and they quickly got rid of the idea of giving it to the president. I think only one person brought up the idea at the convention. Everybody more or less seemed convinced that Congress, the legislative branch, should have that power.

Nick Capodice:
And that makes sense because Congress is a large, slow deliberative body and it's hard to get stuff done there.

Albin Kowalewski:
So the idea for declaring war is that by giving Congress the power to declare war, what you're essentially doing is you're getting the American people behind you. You know, you look at the transitive property. Voters elect the representatives. If a majority of the representatives vote to support war, then technically the voters, the American people will have supported war.

Hannah McCarthy:
And given that the framers put Congress first in the Constitution right there in Article one. That is where you find those fighting words. Congress shall have the power, et cetera, et cetera, to declare war. Grant letters of marque and reprisal. Don't worry about that. We're not going to cover that in this episode and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

Nick Capodice:
And what does it actually look like when Congress goes for it?

Albin Kowalewski:
Any time Congress has declared war, it's always been preceded by either a written statement or an address in front of Congress by the president asking for that conflict.

Archival Sound:
The vice president, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate of the House of Representatives.

Hannah McCarthy:
The way that works and mind you, this is in the case of a formal declaration, is that the president asks for permission to go to war through a joint address to Congress.

Archival Sound:
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger it.

Hannah McCarthy:
The joint address is for fancy stuff. This is also how the State of the Union is delivered. It happened when Nixon resigned. You've been hearing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Archival Sound:
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

Nick Capodice:
All right, and assuming Congress is amiable to the suggestion, what happens next,

Hannah McCarthy:
Congress passes a joint resolution, which means identical resolutions in both the House and the Senate that declare war against a nation

Archival Sound:
When the historic role is called. I hope there will not be a single dissenting voice.

Albin Kowalewski:
Declaring a state of war is one thing, basically taking, you know, a state of peace and turning it into a state of war, and then Congress is also always authorize the president to employ the military.

Nick Capodice:
What actually practically changes after a declaration of war? To go back to that house metaphor, we just painted our peace house bright red. So what does that mean?

Hannah McCarthy:
Declaring war opens up a set of statutes that give the executive branch and the president special powers things like detaining foreign enemies, taking over transportation systems to supply the war effort and certain intelligence gathering. We are that much closer to the point when we started going to war without declaring war. We'll get to those president war powers after this quick break.

Nick Capodice:
A word here to remind everyone that Civics 101 is a listener supported show. And today I am asking for your support. If you go to our website Civics101podcast.org or just click the link in our show notes to make a donation in any amount, we will give you a sleek, shiny new Civics 101 sticker that says the constitution is my copilot. You can stick it anywhere you want on your laptop, on your car, on your Cuisinart, on your cat to show your love for our podcast and for democracy again, civics101podcast.org. And we are so grateful for your help.

Hannah McCarthy:
Welcome back to Civics 101. We're talking declaring war.

Nick Capodice:
All right, this is where things are getting interesting because we're talking about the role of the president, because even though only Congress has the power to declare war, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, right?

Hannah McCarthy:
Exactly. The framers recognized that going to war should take careful consideration. Thus, the don't make it too easy congressional vote to actually declare war. But the methodological red tape approach is not necessarily practical when it comes to actually succeeding in war. Imagine if, in order to decide to invade a region, the commanders of the armed forces had to bring their proposals to Congress. Ask the House and Senate to approve these measures, and only then once approved, could they take the action. That would not be the sleekest approach.

Nick Capodice:
I mean, you need someone to literally make executive decisions in this case, i.e. the chief executive, the president. So now this, I understand. But what I am struggling with is how that same executive has in effect taken us to war a bunch of times without the congressional process. What is empowered our presidents to take us to Vietnam, to Afghanistan, et cetera.

Albin Kowalewski:
This was a debate that has not stopped more or less since 1787. So throughout the course of American history, America has used its military to different ways. So you have the declaration of war. And Congress has declared war 11 times against 10 countries during five separate conflicts since 1789. And those those five separate conflicts are the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War one and World War Two. Declarations of war, I think carry with it like a terrible scale, right? Like a war vote is something big and it's imposing, and it's the idea of marshaling resources of one nation state against the resources of another nation state. Kind of a clash of the Titans sort of deal. But for the vast majority of the times that America has used its military, it's been through a simple authorization. Today, we call these things authorizations for the use of military

Hannah McCarthy:
Force, otherwise known as an AUMF, which is what well, essentially Congress has given the president the ability to say we are going to use these forces in this way.

Albin Kowalewski:
The term AUMF is kind of a product of the modern era. I think it kind of came into use during the Gulf War in 1991, but this is the interesting thing. Congress has never declared war without also including an authorization for the use of force, but it has authorized force many, many times without formally declaring war.

Hannah McCarthy:
The technical term AUMF did not come into use until 2001, when President Bush wanted to have the authorization to use military force against terrorists following September 11th. Since World War Two, presidents have been using their role as commander in chief to justify taking military action without the rigmarole of declaring war.

Archival Sound:
Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ICE, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists for over a year. I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united and committed to this fight.

Hannah McCarthy:
But like Albin said, this method of engaging in warfare was happening before the official term came into law.

Albin Kowalewski:
On one level, the nature of war has changed since 1787. Back then, it was a lot of state versus state actors. Since then, America has, you know, gone to war or engaged in conflicts with non-state actors. You know, the rise of these international obligations that the United States now has to meet with the United Nations or NATO. The world is far more interconnected than the founders could have ever have imagined. Back in the 18th century, when Congress declared war, it set in motion a whole bunch of these different provisions in international law about belligerency and about neutrality. And now it is. The United Nations kind of manages that.

Nick Capodice:
So the world changed and Congress let the declaration of war stand down in favor of presidential military force.

Albin Kowalewski:
But I think the biggest change has to do with the rise of nuclear warfare. It requires quick decision making. A ballistic missile is not going to wait for Congress to get together, to vote to draft legislation and to vote on that legislation. In addition to that, you know, America has never really demobilized. After World War Two, we went from World War Two straight into the Cold War.

Archival Sound:
We'll know when it comes. We hope it never comes, but we must get ready.

Albin Kowalewski:
And now it has military installments across the globe.

Nick Capodice:
And besides interconnectivity, what else happened?

Hannah McCarthy:
After World War Two, the U.S. had developed this reputation as a global leader and enforcer of democracy, and this was used as justification for sending military troops into places that were, for example, threatened by dictators. Dictatorships are antithetical to the ethos of the United States.

Albin Kowalewski:
But in going to war, taking unilateral action as a president without the support of Congress or without an authorization, it can be dangerous. It can be tricky.

Hannah McCarthy:
So Truman, for example, ordered military action in South Korea to defend it from invasion by North Korea, which was being aided by Russia. Now, Truman justified this by saying that it was part of our agreement with the United Nations, and therefore it was his right as president to command those forces.

Albin Kowalewski:
That was a terrible war. That was a bloody war. And by the end of it, you know, people were calling it Truman's war.

Archival Sound:
I cannot find it in me to exalt in this hour whether it is a time for prayer that we may succeed in our difficult endeavor to turn this armistice to the advantage of mankind.

Albin Kowalewski:
And so without the support of Congress, the president will then take on the responsibility for it completely. But in going through an authorization or through a declaration, the president can then kind of share that responsibility with the legislative branch.

Nick Capodice:
This really speaks to the power of presidential precedent, right? Because then during the Vietnam War, Johnson increased the number of forces in Vietnam, despite the war being largely unpopular among the people and Congress. And then Nixon ordered secret invasions and bombings in Cambodia without telling Congress. It just feels like we've moved so far away from what the framers intended. That war should be a major symbolic action that requires the buy-in of the people and careful consideration by Congress.

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, Congress did try to tamp down on the president's military power with the War Powers Act of 1973.

Archival Sound:
The War Powers Act was an act of congressional desperation. It grew out of the agony of the Vietnam War out of a series of unchecked presidential commitments of troops and treasure to a cause that failed.

Hannah McCarthy:
This act required the president to alert Congress at least 48 hours before a military action. And then the president had 60 days to get retroactive or continued authorization from Congress.

Nick Capodice:
And if a president could do something in under 60 days, they don't need permission of Congress, essentially.

Hannah McCarthy:
And in 2001, President Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. That's the AUMF into law quote to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons. He determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Nick Capodice:
Which, to clarify, was a law passed by Congress. Yes. So basically, the president is allowed to take military action if it is for the purposes of preventing terrorism.

Hannah McCarthy:
And note the fact that as opposed to the specificity of a declaration of war, the AUMF does not name a specific enemy. It's just anybody essentially related to those terrorist attacks. With the rise in the use of emergency powers. You can check out our recent episode on that. A lot of the things that a president used to need a congressional declaration of war to do, like controlling transportation lines and deploying troops can now be done if the president declares a state of emergency.

Albin Kowalewski:
As soon as you give the president the source of powers to commit the military overseas without necessarily having to consult Congress, or even if you know the president doesn't consult Congress initially, but then goes and asks Congress to retroactively authorize that decision. It's incredibly difficult for Congress to get those powers back again.

Nick Capodice:
I think about the fact that a guest once told me that whatever official executive orders that president does, it's easy to overturn by the following administration and acts of Congress are a lot more difficult to unwind. But with military action, it's something that president after president took advantage of. And then finally, Congress passed this act that cemented those powers in a way. And my question is. In essence, has declaring war become obsolete?

Albin Kowalewski:
It's a great question whether or not we've moved past the point in which we will no longer declare war. I guess it's to be determined.

Hannah McCarthy:
This episode was written and produced by Christina Phillips with help from me, Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice. Our team includes Jacqui Fulton. Our executive producer is Rebecca Lavoie. Music in this episode by Chris Zabriskie Broke for Free, Krakatoa, Maarten Schellekens, Poddington Bear and Cza. And while we try to pack every episode full of as many facts as we can, there's so much left on the cutting room floor. Luckily, we have a place to put it our newsletter Extra Credit, which you can subscribe to at our website. Civics101podcast.org Civic's one to one is a production of Nhpr.org New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including share transcripts, automated transcription, advanced search, automated subtitles, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.


Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:02] Nick, before I ever got this wonderful job on this wonderful show, I was not a civics buff. Are you shocked?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:00:11] Completely appalled.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:13] However, I did have this one fact that I just loved pulling out, which was the fact that the U.S. Congress has not declared war since World War Two. It was my makes you think, doesn't it fact?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:00:27] Yeah, I learned that fact in a movie theater in 1997 when I first saw Wag the Dog.

 

Movie Sound: [00:00:33] Two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war we show in NASA confirms there is the Canadian border,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:00:45] And that fact is bizarre to comprehend because of course, we have been to war a bunch of times since then, right?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:52] Yeah. Makes you think, doesn't it?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:00:55] Since World War Two off the top of my head, we've got the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:04] So what I hope you are thinking right now is how is that possible, given the fact that we haven't actually declared war in so long? The way the framers intended it for Congress to make an official declaration essentially seems like a thing of the past.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:01:21] I feel like we also need to consider the fact that war looks very different now than it did when the framers wrote the Constitution. Like, if the government is a house, you've got the Constitution as the foundation frame, and everyone who came after that foundation was laid has added to it. We need

 

HGTV: [00:01:38] To create a larger master bedroom closet,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:01:41] Change things

 

HGTV: [00:01:42] Around, expand and update the teen bathroom, put up walls, enlarge my daughter's closets,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:01:48] Build editions,

 

HGTV: [00:01:49] Create a home office for me.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:01:51] There's some pretty outlandish wallpaper in the third floor bathroom, courtesy of the Supreme Court. But still, it's a historical property, so it's pretty hard for someone to come and just tear the whole thing down.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:05] Yeah, actually, this is really good. Like you look at the house a few hundred years in the future, and it's built on that foundation, but has an entirely different entrance or a whole new wing. One president could come in and decide to make it an open concept and bust all the walls down between the living room, dining room and kitchen. But after a while, it's like the Winchester mystery house. It becomes difficult to trace how and when and why certain things have changed because they're all building on top of each other. And there's that staircase that leads to nowhere.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:02:37] All right. So the question is, how did we stop using the front door to declare war and ask everyone to please come in through the back?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:44] This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy. I'm Nick Capodice, and today we're talking about the thing we haven't done since nineteen forty two declaring war.

 

Archival Sound: [00:02:55] I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the utmost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again and dangerous. We are a united nation. Let us boldly proclaim we will not permit any force to strike down. Alien civilization depends on what we do on what we do now and in the months ahead. I have no higher obligation than to safeguard the lives

 

Archival Sound: [00:03:37] Of American citizens. The House of Representatives. And some days again, I'm. You can end the war.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:04:11] When the United States declares war, it sets in motion a process that the framers of the Constitution first envisioned in 1787.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:20] This is Albin Kowalewski, an historical publication specialist at the U.S. House of Representatives. He spoke with our former host, Virginia Prescott, in 2017.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:04:29] For them, war was not an abstract concept at all. You know, these guys, almost to a man, had served in some capacity during the American Revolution. The vast majority of them had military experience, either with the Continental Army or with state militias. If they couldn't serve for one reason or another, you know, in the military, they would serve in the safety councils. And I think even one or two of them had been surgeons as well. So these guys had seen the face of war up front. This is something real to them. They had seen the destruction that war could bring to a people. And so the overriding thought at the constitutional convention was to make war difficult to enter.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:05:10] It makes sense, though, that something so destructive should be so hard to do.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:05:15] Peace peace should be easy. That should be the easy part. That should be the status quo. But war war should be difficult to enter, and so they began considering ways to make that happen. One of the ideas that they settled on was that open debate among the people's representatives could really kind of cool temperatures, cool the push for war. So what the framers ended up doing is that they gave the war powers to the legislative branch. There was some discussion of whether or not they should give the war powers to the president, and they quickly got rid of the idea of giving it to the president. I think only one person brought up the idea at the convention. Everybody more or less seemed convinced that Congress, the legislative branch, should have that power.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:05:58] And that makes sense because Congress is a large, slow deliberative body and it's hard to get stuff done there.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:06:05] So the idea for declaring war is that by giving Congress the power to declare war, what you're essentially doing is you're getting the American people behind you. You know, you look at the transitive property. Voters elect the representatives. If a majority of the representatives vote to support war, then technically the voters, the American people will have supported war.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:25] And given that the framers put Congress first in the Constitution right there in Article one. That is where you find those fighting words. Congress shall have the power, et cetera, et cetera, to declare war. Grant letters of marque and reprisal. Don't worry about that. We're not going to cover that in this episode and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:06:45] And what does it actually look like when Congress goes for it?

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:06:48] Any time Congress has declared war, it's always been preceded by either a written statement or an address in front of Congress by the president asking for that conflict.

 

Archival Sound: [00:06:57] The vice president, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate of the House of Representatives.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:05] The way that works and mind you, this is in the case of a formal declaration, is that the president asks for permission to go to war through a joint address to Congress.

 

Archival Sound: [00:07:15] I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger it.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:38] The joint address is for fancy stuff. This is also how the State of the Union is delivered. It happened when Nixon resigned. You've been hearing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asking Congress to declare war on Japan after the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

 

Archival Sound: [00:07:54] I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:08:27] All right, and assuming Congress is amiable to the suggestion, what happens next,

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:31] Congress passes a joint resolution, which means identical resolutions in both the House and the Senate that declare war against a nation

 

Archival Sound: [00:08:39] When the historic role is called. I hope there will not be a single dissenting voice.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:08:49] Declaring a state of war is one thing, basically taking, you know, a state of peace and turning it into a state of war, and then Congress is also always authorize the president to employ the military.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:09:00] What actually practically changes after a declaration of war? To go back to that house metaphor, we just painted our peace house bright red. So what does that mean?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:13] Declaring war opens up a set of statutes that give the executive branch and the president special powers things like detaining foreign enemies, taking over transportation systems to supply the war effort and certain intelligence gathering. We are that much closer to the point when we started going to war without declaring war. We'll get to those president war powers after this quick break.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:09:47] A word here to remind everyone that Civics 101 is a listener supported show. And today I am asking for your support. If you go to our website Civics101podcast.org or just click the link in our show notes to make a donation in any amount, we will give you a sleek, shiny new Civics 101 sticker that says the constitution is my copilot. You can stick it anywhere you want on your laptop, on your car, on your Cuisinart, on your cat to show your love for our podcast and for democracy again, civics101podcast.org. And we are so grateful for your help.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:28] Welcome back to Civics 101. We're talking declaring war.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:10:31] All right, this is where things are getting interesting because we're talking about the role of the president, because even though only Congress has the power to declare war, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, right?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:43] Exactly. The framers recognized that going to war should take careful consideration. Thus, the don't make it too easy congressional vote to actually declare war. But the methodological red tape approach is not necessarily practical when it comes to actually succeeding in war. Imagine if, in order to decide to invade a region, the commanders of the armed forces had to bring their proposals to Congress. Ask the House and Senate to approve these measures, and only then once approved, could they take the action. That would not be the sleekest approach.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:19] I mean, you need someone to literally make executive decisions in this case, i.e. the chief executive, the president. So now this, I understand. But what I am struggling with is how that same executive has in effect taken us to war a bunch of times without the congressional process. What is empowered our presidents to take us to Vietnam, to Afghanistan, et cetera.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:11:44] This was a debate that has not stopped more or less since 1787. So throughout the course of American history, America has used its military to different ways. So you have the declaration of war. And Congress has declared war 11 times against 10 countries during five separate conflicts since 1789. And those those five separate conflicts are the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War one and World War Two. Declarations of war, I think carry with it like a terrible scale, right? Like a war vote is something big and it's imposing, and it's the idea of marshaling resources of one nation state against the resources of another nation state. Kind of a clash of the Titans sort of deal. But for the vast majority of the times that America has used its military, it's been through a simple authorization. Today, we call these things authorizations for the use of military

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:36] Force, otherwise known as an AUMF, which is what well, essentially Congress has given the president the ability to say we are going to use these forces in this way.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:12:46] The term AUMF is kind of a product of the modern era. I think it kind of came into use during the Gulf War in 1991, but this is the interesting thing. Congress has never declared war without also including an authorization for the use of force, but it has authorized force many, many times without formally declaring war.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:05] The technical term AUMF did not come into use until 2001, when President Bush wanted to have the authorization to use military force against terrorists following September 11th. Since World War Two, presidents have been using their role as commander in chief to justify taking military action without the rigmarole of declaring war.

 

Archival Sound: [00:13:26] Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ICE, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists for over a year. I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united and committed to this fight.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:50] But like Albin said, this method of engaging in warfare was happening before the official term came into law.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:13:57] On one level, the nature of war has changed since 1787. Back then, it was a lot of state versus state actors. Since then, America has, you know, gone to war or engaged in conflicts with non-state actors. You know, the rise of these international obligations that the United States now has to meet with the United Nations or NATO. The world is far more interconnected than the founders could have ever have imagined. Back in the 18th century, when Congress declared war, it set in motion a whole bunch of these different provisions in international law about belligerency and about neutrality. And now it is. The United Nations kind of manages that.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:14:36] So the world changed and Congress let the declaration of war stand down in favor of presidential military force.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:14:45] But I think the biggest change has to do with the rise of nuclear warfare. It requires quick decision making. A ballistic missile is not going to wait for Congress to get together, to vote to draft legislation and to vote on that legislation. In addition to that, you know, America has never really demobilized. After World War Two, we went from World War Two straight into the Cold War.

 

Archival Sound: [00:15:07] We'll know when it comes. We hope it never comes, but we must get ready.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:15:10] And now it has military installments across the globe.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:15:13] And besides interconnectivity, what else happened?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:17] After World War Two, the U.S. had developed this reputation as a global leader and enforcer of democracy, and this was used as justification for sending military troops into places that were, for example, threatened by dictators. Dictatorships are antithetical to the ethos of the United States.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:15:34] But in going to war, taking unilateral action as a president without the support of Congress or without an authorization, it can be dangerous. It can be tricky.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:43] So Truman, for example, ordered military action in South Korea to defend it from invasion by North Korea, which was being aided by Russia. Now, Truman justified this by saying that it was part of our agreement with the United Nations, and therefore it was his right as president to command those forces.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:16:00] That was a terrible war. That was a bloody war. And by the end of it, you know, people were calling it Truman's war.

 

Archival Sound: [00:16:05] I cannot find it in me to exalt in this hour whether it is a time for prayer that we may succeed in our difficult endeavor to turn this armistice to the advantage of mankind.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:16:20] And so without the support of Congress, the president will then take on the responsibility for it completely. But in going through an authorization or through a declaration, the president can then kind of share that responsibility with the legislative branch.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:16:34] This really speaks to the power of presidential precedent, right? Because then during the Vietnam War, Johnson increased the number of forces in Vietnam, despite the war being largely unpopular among the people and Congress. And then Nixon ordered secret invasions and bombings in Cambodia without telling Congress. It just feels like we've moved so far away from what the framers intended. That war should be a major symbolic action that requires the buy-in of the people and careful consideration by Congress.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:08] Well, Congress did try to tamp down on the president's military power with the War Powers Act of 1973.

 

Archival Sound: [00:17:15] The War Powers Act was an act of congressional desperation. It grew out of the agony of the Vietnam War out of a series of unchecked presidential commitments of troops and treasure to a cause that failed.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:26] This act required the president to alert Congress at least 48 hours before a military action. And then the president had 60 days to get retroactive or continued authorization from Congress.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:39] And if a president could do something in under 60 days, they don't need permission of Congress, essentially.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:44] And in 2001, President Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. That's the AUMF into law quote to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons. He determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:18:24] Which, to clarify, was a law passed by Congress. Yes. So basically, the president is allowed to take military action if it is for the purposes of preventing terrorism.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:35] And note the fact that as opposed to the specificity of a declaration of war, the AUMF does not name a specific enemy. It's just anybody essentially related to those terrorist attacks. With the rise in the use of emergency powers. You can check out our recent episode on that. A lot of the things that a president used to need a congressional declaration of war to do, like controlling transportation lines and deploying troops can now be done if the president declares a state of emergency.

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:19:09] As soon as you give the president the source of powers to commit the military overseas without necessarily having to consult Congress, or even if you know the president doesn't consult Congress initially, but then goes and asks Congress to retroactively authorize that decision. It's incredibly difficult for Congress to get those powers back again.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:19:26] I think about the fact that a guest once told me that whatever official executive orders that president does, it's easy to overturn by the following administration and acts of Congress are a lot more difficult to unwind. But with military action, it's something that president after president took advantage of. And then finally, Congress passed this act that cemented those powers in a way. And my question is. In essence, has declaring war become obsolete?

 

Albin Kowalewski: [00:19:59] It's a great question whether or not we've moved past the point in which we will no longer declare war. I guess it's to be determined.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:12] This episode was written and produced by Christina Phillips with help from me, Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice. Our team includes Jacqui Fulton. Our executive producer is Rebecca Lavoie. Music in this episode by Chris Zabriskie Broke for Free, Krakatoa, Maarten Schellekens, Poddington Bear and Cza. And while we try to pack every episode full of as many facts as we can, there's so much left on the cutting room floor. Luckily, we have a place to put it our newsletter Extra Credit, which you can subscribe to at our website. Civics101podcast.org Civic's one to one is a production of Nhpr.org New Hampshire Public Radio.

 

 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

A Civics Trivia Special! - Holidays at the White House

Holidays are a big deal at the White House, and they’re full of all the regular trappings of a family celebration. There are traditions, festivities, complicated social dynamics, and then a healthy helping of global politics. 

On this edition Civics 101, we put our hosts’ White House holiday knowledge to the test. Who will be the victor of the first ever Holiday Civics Trivia Challenge? Plus...we find out, what are the the worse holiday songs ever?

Holiday Trivia Final: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

Holiday Trivia Final: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Hey, guys. I'm Rebecca Lavoie. I'm executive producer of Civics 101. This week we've got a special edition of the show for you. We decided to put hosts Nick and Hannah to the test with a holiday edition of civics trivia, in part to give them a break from hosting the show for a week. And also because we thought it would be fun to see what they know because they're always teaching us stuff. But before we get to the show, just a quick pitch, this team Hannah NicK, producers Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. They put their all into making the show for you each and every week, and they couldn't do it without listener support. So if you make a donation to Civics 101 right now in any amount, we'll send you a really cool sticker that says the constitution is my copilot, so you can show off your love for civics and your support for the podcast. You can put the sticker on your coffee mug, on your car, on your notebook, anywhere you like, just head over to Civics101podcast.org or you can make that donation and get that sticker by clicking the link I'm putting right there in the show notes. Thanks so much for your support and for listening all year long. I hope you enjoy this special show that we've put together for you. It's a little bit format breaking, but it's really fun. So let's get to it.

Christina Phillips:
Holidays are a big deal at the White House, and they're full of all the regular trappings of a family celebration. You've got the tradition, the festivities, the complicated social dynamics and then a healthy helping of global politics. Today on Civics 101, we're going to put our hosts White House holiday knowledge to the test. Welcome to Civics Trivia Holiday Edition. I've got the whole team here and we decided it would be fun if we got to put Nick and Hanna head to head Hanna and Nick. We're going to test out, well, you know, holidays at the White House. Oh God, it's going to be me great.

Rebecca Lavoie:
It's going to be amazing.

Nick Capodice:
And you know, we did an episode on the holidays the way you did.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Well, you should be prepared.

Christina Phillips:
Then I am Christina Phillips. I am the senior producer of Civics 101 and.

Rebecca Lavoie:
I'm Rebecca Lavoie.

Rebecca Lavoie:
I run the podcast unit at Nhpr.org and I am the executive producer of 101. And we also have with us, Jacqui Fulton. Jacqui, please introduce yourself. Who are you?

Jacqui Fulton:
Yeah, as stated, I'm Jacqui Fulton and I'm a producer with Civics 101.

Rebecca Lavoie:
And of course, the main event our contestants Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy. Hello, Nick and Hannah. Thank you for joining the program.

Hannah McCarthy:
Hello. Thank you for having us, Rebecca.

Nick Capodice:
It's a pleasure to be here. My pleasure. Thanks for having us on Civics 101.

Christina Phillips:
Ok, OK, OK. So also, I would like to know everybody. What is your least favorite holiday song? I want to know because I feel like there are so many bad holiday songs. There's so many good holiday songs, so I will go first. My least favorite holiday song is Christmas shoes. Are you guys familiar?

Nick Capodice:
It's the one about one about a kid who needs some Christian, some shoes for Christmas.

Christina Phillips:
It's yes, but even more. So, It's a kid whose mother is dying, who needs shoes for her because she's dying.

Music:
Daddy says there's no time. You see, She's been sad for quite, and he wants.

Christina Phillips:
I believe the line is my mother will look beautiful if she meets Jesus tonight,

Music:
I want her to look beautiful if Momma meets Jesus tonight.

Christina Phillips:
That is that is the whole point, and apparently I've been told by Rebecca that SNL spoofed it this week, so I need to go watch that, but it is so stupid, it is obnoxious. Oh, I hate it so much

Hannah McCarthy:
Christina, that reminds me my mother had a collection of Christmas books, one of which was the Little Match Girl, which is a charming Christmas story about a little girl who freezes to death.

Christina Phillips:
I loved that book because I was the kind of child who liked to pretend that I was always in danger of dying. I loved that.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Grim, grim.

Christina Phillips:
Ok, OK, so Hannah, do you have a least favorite holiday song?

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm going to preface this by saying I bowed down at the feet of this individual. They have one of the greatest vocal ranges in human history. You'll always be. My baby is one of my karaoke songs. I cannot stand. All I want for Christmas is you.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Oh my god.

Hannah McCarthy:
I can't stand it.

Rebecca Lavoie:
We're done. You and me.

Nick Capodice:
There is a lot going on in that song in that song.

Hannah McCarthy:
Mariah Carey I love. I, you know, I'm saying this as though she's going to listen to it.

Rebecca Lavoie:
It is an American standard. How dare you?

Christina Phillips:
Why do you not like it? I need to know why.

Hannah McCarthy:
All I can tell you is that when that song comes on, I have this like. Dread dry feeling in my stomach like this, like horrible, just sick, I'm suppose, is so horrible. Mariah Carey, I'm sorry, you're an American treasure,

Nick Capodice:
But I respect your opinion. But I mean, I have to just disagree and say, that's one of the greatest songs ever. It's like wall of sound great. Like you're like, Whoa, what is going on here? Christmas song.

Hannah McCarthy:
We're going to lose half our listeners because I'm the the demon.

Christina Phillips:
OK, Nick? What is your least favorite holiday song?

Nick Capodice:
It's a song that I have to leave stores when it comes on, and it's performed by Andy Williams, and it starts off with like, Happy holidays, a hickory do, a hickory dock. Don't forget to hang up your sock and then he's got he'll be coming down the chimney down. Yeah. What the heck is coming down the chimney? Down down.

Music:
He'll be coming down the chimney, down down the chimney.

Nick Capodice:
The reason I hate this song, Rebecca, is that it rhymes toys with girls and boys.

Music:
It's got a toy for every good girl and good little boy.

Nick Capodice:
How much time did you have to come up with that one?

Rebecca Lavoie:
It has a rousing call and response section that I enjoy.

Christina Phillips:
Jacqui, what is your least favorite holiday song?

Jacqui Fulton:
So I used to work at a restaurant and they would they had like holiday playlist that they would do all the time and this one they played, it felt like every 30 minutes and it was Santa baby. It's so weird!

Jacqui Fulton:
It's like this person obviously has a big thing for saying which, you know, no shaming people for what they like.

Jacqui Fulton:
And like little kids sing this song!

Rebecca Lavoie:
And on that note, and I have a feeling that only one other person on this call may be familiar with this because they mentioned retail is Dominic the Donkey?

Hannah McCarthy:
The Italian Christmas Donkey?

Rebecca Lavoie:
The weirdest song that's strangely pandering to Italian-Americans in a way that is completely unnecessary. We didn't ask for it. We don't need it. And it's weird.

Nick Capodice:
My favorite Christmas story is about this song. I make it really fast. Ok? In Little Italy, in Manhattan, there's these storefronts that are clearly owned by organizations that don't actually sell anything. And one store was just, I don't know. I just don't want to get in trouble on our podcast. And one storefront window was completely dark and it just had one thing in it and it was a T-shirt and it said, Dominick, the Christmas donkey. And then in the bottom, it said, as featured in the movie Riding in Cars with Boys, starring Drew Barrymore.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ever since you told me that story, I'm just going to I'll give this away to you. Like, I have been searching for that T-shirt. So they want to gift it to you. I thought that was the greatest thing I'd ever heard.

Christina Phillips:
So here's how the trivia will work, we'll have three rounds of questions about different aspects of the holiday season at the White House. There will be bonus points in each round. The winner gets nothing but glory. That's right.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Nothing but glory, nothing, but glory is not going to be anything but glory,

Christina Phillips:
No, nothing.

Rebecca Lavoie:
But glory is this because our budget is so small because this is public radio. It's like nothing but glory.

Christina Phillips:
Also, I don't want to shop for Christmas anyway. I didn't want to get anyone anything. Sorry guys.

Rebecca Lavoie:
And this is a great time to remind listeners, by the way, they can donate to the show because we can't afford to give anything but glory. You get a sticker if you do go to Civics101podcast.org, make a donation. Maybe next year we'll have more than glory to give away. Yes. Yes. All right. Continue. Continue.

Christina Phillips:
All right. It's a great stocking stuffer. Probably. I don't know. Do people on stickers anyway?

Christina Phillips:
Rebecca, I'm going to hand this round off to you.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Ok, so in this round, Nick and Hannah questions are worth one point. I believe they're worth one point in every room. And of course, these points are extremely important because glory, yes, nothing but glory is at stake. The stakes are zero, except if you care about glory, which I believe you to do. So almost nothing else matters. Christmas toasts is the category the holiday season has served as a symbol of unity and peace throughout American history. I'm going to read you quotes of holiday messages delivered at the White House and a couple of questions related to each quote. Our first question is for Hannah McCarthy. This quote is from a world leader who ditched his own country's holiday celebration to meet with a U.S. president won't let the children have their night of fun and laughter. Let the gifts of Father Christmas delight their play. Let us ups share to the full in their unstinted pleasures before we turn again to the stern tasks and formidable year that lies before us.

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm supposed to guess the person.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yes, which world leader ditched his own country's celebrations and delivered that speech

Hannah McCarthy:
At the White House? Churchill?

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yes. Very good.

Hannah McCarthy:
Because of the writing!

Nick Capodice:
Oh, I'm done for.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Winston Churchill spoke on Christmas Eve, 1941 in a shared Christmas address with President Franklin Roosevelt during World War Two. Nick, follow up question for you What event took place on American soil earlier that same December?

Nick Capodice:
Oh, can you say the date one more time?

Rebecca Lavoie:
Sigh.

Nick Capodice:
I wasn't listening, can I say the can I say the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

Rebecca Lavoie:
You can.

Nick Capodice:
I wanted to just double check the date.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Of course, the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 in December marked the United States official declaration of war in Japan and full entry into World War Two. Shortly thereafter, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States and the U.S. reciprocated. Churchill was in Washington, D.C., around Christmas to strategize with Roosevelt. Ok, quick tally. Where are we right now?

Christina Phillips:
Hannah has one, Nick has one. I feel like Hannah had the harder question.

Rebecca Lavoie:
All right. Hannah McCarthy Yes. Roosevelt was known for holiday related executive orders during his presidency, including declaring an emergency federal bank holiday during the Great Depression. In a similar vein in 1939, Roosevelt moved which holiday a week earlier in an effort to stimulate the economy.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Oh, I read About this when I was making the Federal Holidays Episode,

Rebecca Lavoie:
I Would think you'd be prepared then For this question.

Hannah McCarthy:
You'd think I would be prepared, Rebecca, You'd think.

Hannah McCarthy:
I mean, I would say Thanksgiving.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Really? You would, that is the correct answer.

Nick Capodice:
And it was just that one time, right?

Rebecca Lavoie:
Was it just that one time?

Christina Phillips:
Yes, it was. He actually became known for moving holidays around, and people would call this Franksgiving.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, that's right.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Ok, now we are on to our second Christmas toast. Nick, you are getting the starting question for this one. Ok. The holiday season is a good time for people to flex their muscles, to brag a bit. In 1958, President Eisenhower stuck it to the Russians by broadcasting his holiday message to the American public from where?

Nick Capodice:
Wow, so Eisenhower stuck it to the Russians. Yes, by broadcasting.

Nick Capodice:
Oh oh, but no, it can't be.

Hannah McCarthy:
My guess is ridiculous.

Nick Capodice:
I was going to guess from space.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Wow, what a guess that is correct, Nick.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Shortly after the successful launch of Sputnik Russia's satellite into orbit, the Eisenhower administration faced pressure to keep up in the space race. So when a secret mission, the U.S. launched its first communications satellite into orbit in December with a recorded message from Eisenhower to broadcast on the radio. The audio quality is about what you'd expect from a satellite in space made in the 1950s.

Eisenhower from space:
The United States. All of the scientific advance, my voice is coming my satellite.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Unsurprisingly, the weak signal meant that only the biggest radio hobbyists nerds actually heard that first transmission, but most of the American public heard it rebroadcast on the news. Hannah. Follow up for you for a point to government agencies were created because of pressure from the public and Congress after the launch of Sputnik one was NASA. Can you name the other one? I will give you a hint if you need it.

Hannah McCarthy:
Oh, I'll take the hint, but I'm afraid it's going to make it worse. Give me the hint.

Rebecca Lavoie:
The hint is this agency is known for its creepy, creepy robots.

Christina Phillips:
Well, this is a hard one,

Rebecca Lavoie:
Is it? I thought my hint is pretty telling.

Hannah McCarthy:
Is there like a national science administration?

Rebecca Lavoie:
No. But there is a little organization called DARPA, which is pretty well known for its creepy, creepy robots. Sorry. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was also created at the same time as NASA. Sorry, didn't get that one. Hannah, so we are now on our third toast question to this. This anchor question goes to you. Presidents have used their holiday addresses as a way to endear themselves to the people, instilling patriotism and put aside political division, sometimes with mixed success. In 1954, following the end of the Korean War, President Eisenhower's administration rebranded the lighting of the National Christmas tree as quote The Christmas pageant of Peace. This made it a little awkward for presidents in wartime, which Presidents Christmas pageant of peace was interrupted by protesters.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ooooh was it Kennedy?

Christina Phillips:
Think about presidents who a lot of people were really mad at them.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Imagine a president that might have gotten protesters at other events besides just the lighting of the Christmas tree. I mean, you want to take a second guess?

Hannah McCarthy:
Nixon?

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yeah, I think she made a half a point.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Give her half.

Christina Phillips:
Ok, half a point.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Maybe you'll have an opportunity for half a point later. So, Nick, a follow up question for you. Nixon did not attend his pageant of peace in 71 and 72. I wonder why? Who gave speeches on his behalf instead?

Nick Capodice:
Oh wow.

Nick Capodice:
On speeches, on Nixon's behalf.

Nick Capodice:
So, uh, was it Ford?

Rebecca Lavoie:
No, no. Take a second guess for half a point.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, yeah. Give me a second. Let's see. It Wasn't Spiro Agnew.

Rebecca Lavoie:
It wasn't?

Nick Capodice:
OK, Spiro Agnew.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yay!

Rebecca Lavoie:
It was Vice President Spiro Agnew at the 1970 Pageant of Peace. By the way, Nixon did say we can look forward with assurance to the end of that war. The U.S., of course, would not leave Vietnam until 1975, so there was the storied history of the quote pageant of peace during the Nixon administration.

Christina Phillips:
I believe Nixon also one time I I try to find pictures of this, but I couldn't. He put a peace sign on top of the tree instead of a star, and a lot of people got really mad about that. But also, I like to imagine that if Ford had lit the Christmas tree, he would start it with. Our national nightmare has ended. Christmas has arrived.

Rebecca Lavoie:
So, Nick, this one is for you. Yeah. In nineteen seventy nine, during the quote pageant of peace, President Jimmy Carter made a symbolic statement when he chose to only light the star at the top of the national Christmas tree. Carter said the tree would remain dark until what happened. Oh oh my goodness, this was 1979 near the end of his administration, right?

Nick Capodice:
Ok, so let me just just talk out loud for a second, right?

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yes, you can talk.

Nick Capodice:
Carter cares about, you know, he cares deeply about world hunger. You near

Rebecca Lavoie:
The end of his administration.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yeah. And he and there was. What is he waiting to have happen near the end of his administration, like the trees remaining dark until this Whole this thing happens?

Nick Capodice:
Yes. Hold on, I've almost got I've almost got it.

Rebecca Lavoie:
If you need a hint, I'm happy to give you one.

Nick Capodice:
Give me just 30 more seven more seconds. Sure. Think about what the thing is that he wants to have happen.

Rebecca Lavoie:
I know you can get this one.

Nick Capodice:
Is it the freeing of hostages from Iran?

Rebecca Lavoie:
It is the freeing of U.S. hostages at the embassy in Tehran, Iran. He was waiting for them to be released. The hostages were captured on November 4th, 1979, during a period of intense conflict between the U.S. and Iran. So Hannah McCarthy bonus question for you Approximately how long were the hostages held at the embassy?

Hannah McCarthy:
I will just I'm going to be completely honest, I have absolutely no idea zero inkling,

Rebecca Lavoie:
One of the easiest numbers to remember in political history. I believe, Nick, do you know the answer to this question?

Nick Capodice:
I don't know the number.

Christina Phillips:
Can we get a guess, I just I'm curious how long you think that they were held because I was surprised. I did not know that. I did not know I was.

Nick Capodice:
It was the year I was born.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Hmm. I guess I am really old. 80 days.

Hannah McCarthy:
Or seventy nine days?

Rebecca Lavoie:
Four hundred and forty four days.

Nick Capodice:
Yes, it's way longer than I thought.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yes, yes. And of course, if you want a telling of the story or a part of the story, I would highly recommend the Oscar winning movie Argo, directed by my favorite boyfriend of Jennifer Lopez, Ben Affleck. Ok, where are we score wise host Christina Phillips?

Christina Phillips:
Nick, you have three and a half, Hannah. You have two and a half.

Rebecca Lavoie:
When we get back from the break, we'll find out if Hannah can redeem herself as we turn to the next round of civics trivia revolving around holiday time. But one quick note you can get all kinds of trivia and ephemera and civics facts in our Civics 101 newsletter called Extra Credit. It's free, it's fun, it's biweekly, and everyone loves it. Sign up for it at civics101podcast.org or just click the link in our show notes to get on the list. Welcome back to our special holiday break edition of Civics 101, where we're putting hosts Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice to the test, pitting them against each other with a series of trivia questions about civics and the holidays before we return to the show. Might I remind you if you love the podcast, support it, make a donation in any amount and we'll send you a snazzy sticker that says the constitution is my copilot. You can make that gift at civics101podcast.org or just click the link in the show notes. All right, let's get back to the trivia.

Christina Phillips:
Our next round will be about the celebration of Hanukkah at the White House. This is a multiple choice round, so buzz in after we've read all the options and so I've asked you to select a buzzer noise. Nick, what is your buzzer noise?

Nick Capodice:
My buzzer noise is this.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Very good. I hate you know what that is. So I do, you know, Rebecca?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, it's the horse sound at the end of what the Christmas song that I don't.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's sleigh ride.

Nick Capodice:
I want to tell you it's sleigh ride, sleigh ride, sleigh ride.

Nick Capodice:
Oh, it's the horse whinny. And I got to be the horse whinny when we played it in high school.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yeah, the greatest high school concert band number ever. Because some percussionist gets to play the whip, which is, yeah, two blocks on a stick that go, which I got to do it four times a night, but

Rebecca Lavoie:
All right, go ahead. What is your buzzer, Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy:
I don't know. Nick selected it for me. Why are you?

Rebecca Lavoie:
Oh, really?

Nick Capodice:
Well, you could try this one instead. You got this one.

Hannah McCarthy:
I want that one. Yeah.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, so this is You Mario going down the pipe? Press it one more time to make sure

Hannah McCarthy:
It gives me childhood anxiety. Yeah, because I tried really hard at that game and I never did well.

Christina Phillips:
All right. We are headed into our next round. It is all about the celebration of Hanukkah at the White House. This is multiple choice buzz in after we've read all the options, Jacqui. You are going to be leading us through this round. Take it away.

Jacqui Fulton:
Ok, question one. Presidents only began honoring Hanukkah in the 20th century, when this president was the first to light a menorah during the holiday season alongside the lighting of the national Christmas tree. Was it a Franklin Roosevelt? B John F Kennedy, C Jimmy Carter or D George H.W. Bush?

Rebecca Lavoie:
We get the same exact time,

Hannah McCarthy:
Same time, except yours is

Rebecca Lavoie:
Louder.

Nick Capodice:
No, you hit it twice, so it turned off, you did that.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Oh, we have a dispute, we have a dispute. I don't know what..

Nick Capodice:
We could both say it at the same time. Yep.

Nick Capodice:
Ok. All right. Three. Jimmy Carter,

Rebecca Lavoie:
Do you think happens? They both get the point.

Christina Phillips:
I'm going to give them both the point. All right.

Jacqui Fulton:
So initially, Carter Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus, denied the permit for a menorah on government property, saying it violated the First Amendment. Carter's adviser, Stu Eizenstat, told Andrus that if he denied the permit for the menorah, he would also have to deny the permit for the Christmas tree, and he backed down.

Nick Capodice:
Wow, that's a good story. You know where you can read about that, that whole crazy story, Rebecca, where an extra credit, biweekly newsletter? It was like two years ago. I don't remember who wrote it if it was an

Hannah McCarthy:
I think it was You,

Nick Capodice:
But it was all about that. That was such a good story, Jacqui, when he was like, Well, then we'll just, you know, the Christmas tree Christmas.

Christina Phillips:
I love the idea that Eisenstadt was like, Oh, do I just maybe we don't have to do any of it this year. I don't have to worry about any of it.

Jacqui Fulton:
All right. Question to you guys ready? Yeah, OK. During a menorah lighting ceremony in the Oval Office in 1993, President Clinton acted quickly when Watt accidentally caught fire a stack of papers on the Resolute Desk B a young girl's ponytail, c a Secret Service member sleeve, or D the Oval Office carpet.

Christina Phillips:
That was definitely Hannah.

Rebecca Lavoie:
That was me, a little girl's hair caught fire! A ponytail!

Jacqui Fulton:
You seem really excited about her hair catching on fire.

Hannah McCarthy:
Actually, if you watch the video, it happens in a flash.

Jacqui Fulton:
Yeah, a young girl's ponytail. The menorah was sitting on the desk behind her, and Clinton noticed the flame and put it out with his hands.

Christina Phillips:
He was very, very subtle about it, like it was just like, yeah,

Hannah McCarthy:
It was very,

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, you can't even tell what happened.

Rebecca Lavoie:
That little girl was inside of us all along.

Nick Capodice:
And that little girl grew up to be...

Rebecca Lavoie:
The little match girl.

Nick Capodice:
The little match girl.

Jacqui Fulton:
All right, question number three. In 2013, the first day of Hanukkah fell on Thanksgiving Day. President Obama presented a monarchy during an event at the end of the holiday. What is the monarchy? Was it a turkey carved in the shape of a menorah? Be a menorah carved in the shape of a turkey? See the live turkey. Obama had pardoned on Thanksgiving, wearing a sweater with menorahs on it, or d an aide wearing a turkey costume carrying a menorah.

Christina Phillips:
Hannah, what is it?

Hannah McCarthy:
Be a menorah carved to look like a turkey.

Christina Phillips:
Yes. Yes, we have the audio of that.

Barack Obama:
We've got 10 year old Asher Weintraub from New York City. Where's Ashley? Asher came up with what we believe is the world's first ever menorah shaped like a turkey. It is called the monarchy. Where is the monarchy? I had it just a second ago.

Jacqui Fulton:
Obama was also the first president to hold a ceremonial seder during Passover.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Oh, amazing. I didn't know that.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah. You know, I've never been to a Seder. I've always wish my friends in high school would invite me, and they never did.

Rebecca Lavoie:
So where are we score wise for this round?

Christina Phillips:
Nick, you have four and a half points and you have five and a half points.

Nick Capodice:
Wow. Ok. How quickly the wheels of time.

Rebecca Lavoie:
So we are headed into our final round, Christina and I am going to hand it off to you. I'm going to be doing the scoring and you are going to be doing the question reading because this round you came up with and you deserve to do it. So take it away.

Christina Phillips:
In 1961, Jacqueline Kennedy was the first first lady to give the White House holidays a theme which would help determine how the White House was going to be decorated that year. The theme was The Nutcracker Suite, so our next round is this or that you have to guess whether I'm naming a White House holiday theme or a scented product from Bath and Body Works.

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, I grew up in the 90s and I went to the mall a lot.

Christina Phillips:
This is going to be interesting. You'll get a bonus point if you can either name the first lady or describe the scent. If you come even a little bit close to how bath and body works, describes that scent will give you the bonus points.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Stream of consciousness. Any word, any fruit, any nut, any spice.

Christina Phillips:
Plus, there will be four first ladies that you can choose from, and we will read them out for you. After you guess, we'll remind you of who those first ladies are, but they are Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or Pat Nixon. And there may be more than one theme from the same first lady.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Hmm. Ok, so White House themes four first ladies. One store that sells a lot of stinky stuff. Ok, take it away, Christina.

Christina Phillips:
Ok, Hannah, first question is for you. Is this a White House holiday theme or a scent from Bath and body works? Winter Wonderland?

Hannah McCarthy:
It's so broad, I'm going to say it's a theme.

Rebecca Lavoie:
You are correct.

Christina Phillips:
So here's a little more about this. The Knitting Guild of America and the Society of Decorative Painters work together with fabric artists from each state on these ornaments, so every state had different ornaments that were themed winter wonderland. Ok. All right, bonus question for you, Hannah. Yeah. Was this Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or Pat Nixon?

Hannah McCarthy:
Just because of the how basic it is, I'm going to guess Pat Nixon.

Nick Capodice:
Sorry that she was the first first lady to get a college degree.

Rebecca Lavoie:
No, I'm just saying the era. Just the era.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, no. It was like Clinton in 1998.

Nick Capodice:
Woa, you just called Hillary Clinton basic.

Christina Phillips:
I love it.

Nick Capodice:
Somebody is not with her. Saw her drinking a white claw the other day.

Rebecca Lavoie:
She was cutting those sugar cookies from that roll.

Nick Capodice:
Listening to All I want for Christmas is you.

Christina Phillips:
All right.

Christina Phillips:
Question number two. This is for you, Nick. Is this a White House holiday theme or is sent from Bath and body works? Fresh, sparkling snow.

Nick Capodice:
I mean, that you'd have to be a first lady going through some stuff. The theme, Oh, I'm going to go with Bed Bath and body works.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Oh, shoot.

Nick Capodice:
I always do that. I'm going to do scent. Sorry.

Christina Phillips:
Can you Imagine? Bed Bath and body works.

Hannah McCarthy:
The ultimate collab, I would go there every day.

Christina Phillips:
I cannot imagine them combined.

Rebecca Lavoie:
The towels would be scented forever.

Nick Capodice:
Forever scented. Oh God.

Christina Phillips:
Oh, you are correct, Nick. Oh, the scent from bath and body works. Ok, here's your bonus question. Yeah. Name three things.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Anything I think anything.

Christina Phillips:
You can name three things What do you think? Fresh, sparkling snow smells like

Rebecca Lavoie:
Stream of consciousness, Nick. If you name Anything.

Nick Capodice:
Well. Can you say it's fresh? What kind of snow?

Rebecca Lavoie:
Fresh, sparkling.

Nick Capodice:
Fresh, sparkling snow?

Nick Capodice:
I mean, I feel like it's going to have some sort of like wintergreen, vanilla, a pine.

Christina Phillips:
All right. Do you want to hear the description? Here we go. Here we go. Fresh, sparkling snow, cool and crisp, just like the first snowfall of the season. Icy melon. Winter pine,

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yes.

Christina Phillips:
And fresh citrus.

Rebecca Lavoie:
You got it with the pine. Yeah, yeah. With the pine melon pine.

Nick Capodice:
Nothing says Christmas. Like the scent of melon.

Christina Phillips:
I have a question. Is icy melon a melon? Or is that just melon that's frozen

Hannah McCarthy:
There's no such thing. It's not like a type of melon.

Rebecca Lavoie:
I think that's just bath and body works saying this melon is actually just chemicals.

Nick Capodice:
It's an in case of emergency melon.

Christina Phillips:
All right, Hannah. Question three Is this a White House holiday theme or are you sent from Bath and body works a thousand Christmas wishes?

Hannah McCarthy:
Um, a theme.

Christina Phillips:
No,

Hannah McCarthy:
No. How is that a scent, for the love of God?

Christina Phillips:
Ok. A thousand Christmas wishes I sent from Bath Body Works. Can you give me three tasting? Scenting notes that you think is a thousand Christmas wishes?

Rebecca Lavoie:
You had a chance to redeem yourself or just name some stuff.

Hannah McCarthy:
I do think vanilla is a good guess. Maybe peppermint

Rebecca Lavoie:
And. A thousand Christmas wishes?

Rebecca Lavoie:
I'm going to give you a hint. Obscure Christmas fruits.

Hannah McCarthy:
Obscure Christmas fruits, so not citrus, then. Uh.. Cranberry. All right.

Christina Phillips:
Ok, I'm going to read the description. But what did she say again? We got vanilla

Rebecca Lavoie:
She didn't get it.

Hannah McCarthy:
Rebecca is so disappointed.

Christina Phillips:
A celebratory blend of pomegranate prosecco, sweet elderberries star jasmine and sugared Woods.

Hannah McCarthy:
Sugared wood.

Nick Capodice:
Oh my gosh, that's where the winter melon grows.

Rebecca Lavoie:
The icy melon.

Nick Capodice:
Icy melon grows in the sugar Woods.

Christina Phillips:
I'm just picturing a piece of bark that somebody sucking.

Rebecca Lavoie:
All right, so right now, just so you know, we have a tie game, it is six and a half to six and a half. That was your chance to pull it in.

Hannah McCarthy:
I know now that you're saying that I feel like I remember reading that description in bath and body works.

Nick Capodice:
I thought it was. I thought it was. Was it too? Was it orange in color?

Christina Phillips:
Oh, I have no idea, but I could check.

Jacqui Fulton:
They just took a thousand different chemicals. Put it in there.

Hannah McCarthy:
It's like a thousand Christmas chemicals.

Christina Phillips:
All right, Nick, question for is this a White House holiday theme or a scent from bath and body works: home for the holidays? Oh no.

Nick Capodice:
This would be great as both, I'm going to say White House Christmas theme.

Christina Phillips:
You are correct, and I think by the way, I did cross reference. Yeah, I made sure that there was no overlap because it was it was a close thing.

Nick Capodice:
A I can tell you that if it was a scent, it would have gingerbread in it.

Christina Phillips:
A White House holiday theme. Here is the theme. It featured historic house ornaments designed by local architects, so local houses of each state as ornaments. Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or Pat Nixon.

Nick Capodice:
Oh, it sounds like something a Carter would do, but let me see here.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Hold on. That wasn't one of the choices.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah. No, I was just talking out loud. I'm pretending like it's the wait. Wait, don't tell me. Except we don't have the answers given to us. Yes. They don't, do they. It just made that up. Oh, I'm going to guess Laura Bush.

Christina Phillips:
Yes.

Hannah McCarthy:
Oh, boooo.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Somebody is ahead by two points.

Christina Phillips:
Important follow up, Hannah, is that basic or not basic: Home for the holidays?

Nick Capodice:
Very, very complicated and sophisticated.

Christina Phillips:
Ok. And question number five simple gifts.

Hannah McCarthy:
If I were the designer of scents at Bath and Body Works, I would never describe my scent is simple because they're all about complexity and strangeness. I'm going to say it was a theme.

Christina Phillips:
You are correct.

Hannah McCarthy:
Oh, thank God,

Rebecca Lavoie:
I love hearing the logic.

Christina Phillips:
Yes. So simple gifts. The theme was honoring state and county fairs and featured prize ribbons from each state and territory, and it was known as the gift of the American spirit.

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm again going to say Pat Nixon.

Christina Phillips:
It was not Pat Nixon, it was Michelle Obama.

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm sweating so much.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yes, well, Nick, you have one more chance to win it by a lot.

Hannah McCarthy:
Was that my last question?

Rebecca Lavoie:
I'm afraid to say it was so nick. This last question will determine just how much glory it is you have in this game

Rebecca Lavoie:
To go find my trumpet.

Hannah McCarthy:
Curse Pat Nixon and the space she takes up in my brain

Jacqui Fulton:
She is far more complex than you thought.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Living rent free.

Christina Phillips:
Ok, Nick. Question six Is this a White House holiday theme or a scent from Bath and Body Works. Holiday Cheers.

Nick Capodice:
Wow.

Hannah McCarthy:
Cheers, plural?

Christina Phillips:
Yeah.

Nick Capodice:
If it was a theme for the White House, they'd have to be like about cheers and drinks and toasts. And it's just

Hannah McCarthy:
Or the bar Cheers.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, where everybody votes their party.

Hannah McCarthy:
Cheerleaders of America.

Nick Capodice:
Holiday cheers. I'm going to say I'm going to say bath and body.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Oh, you are correct.

Nick Capodice:
Sorry.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, I get extra points for the fun trivia I noticed off the top of my head.

Rebecca Lavoie:
You get extra points for winning the lightning round with your buzzer man. As far as yes.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, OK, I actually think it would be fun. I want you both to guess what the scent is, so each of you is going to name one thing. We'll go back and forth three times. What do you think holiday cheers smells like, Nick? One.

Nick Capodice:
Ok. Give me a second! Holiday cheers. Cinnamon.

Christina Phillips:
Ok, Hannah.

Rebecca Lavoie:
No, by the way, no cinnamon.

Hannah McCarthy:
Given that they put prosecco in one of their beverages, beverages in one of their scents, I'm going to guess Prosecco again.

Rebecca Lavoie:
No, no

Nick Capodice:
I'm going to say cloves.

Rebecca Lavoie:
No.

Hannah McCarthy:
What was your first, cinnamon?

Nick Capodice:
Oh, I got another guess, yeah.

Hannah McCarthy:
You already said cinnamon.

Rebecca Lavoie:
I did.

Hannah McCarthy:
Mulled wine.

Nick Capodice:
Now I'm going to guess some sort... I'm going down Eggnog Road. I'm going to say nutmeg.

Christina Phillips:
Yes.

Nick Capodice:
Give me that nutmeg,

Christina Phillips:
This is the description, creamy, sweet and extra toasty, it makes the holidays that much more cozy, warm vanilla, spiced rum and a dash of nutmeg. So I know you were very close with the the alcohol guess.

Rebecca Lavoie:
So Nick, you are the winner of our first ever Civics 101 holiday trivia game. How does it feel to have all of the glory?

Nick Capodice:
You've all heard a little bit. I'm going to tell you it's not pleasant.

Christina Phillips:
I would just like to point out that Pat Nixon had none of those themes. I threw her in there as a decoy and it worked.

Rebecca Lavoie:
Yes, it sure did.

Christina Phillips:
Nick and Hannah, thank you for being such good sports and for joining us today.

Nick Capodice:
Thank you. Thank you. You'll get me now. You'll get you'll get into next year.

Hannah McCarthy:
Jackson had a snowball fight in the White House with little balls of cotton. I know that!

Christina Phillips:
She's just going to start spouting White House bags for the next year. Jacqui, thank you so much for joining us and for leading that round.

Jacqui Fulton:
Oh yeah, my pleasure.

Christina Phillips:
Executive producer Rebecca Lavoie,

Rebecca Lavoie:
Thanks for coming to my basement to record this with me.

Christina Phillips:
Thank you for allowing me to interlope in your basement.

Christina Phillips:
And for everyone at Civics 101. We hope you have a great holiday season and that you have a Happy New Year. Happy New Year!

Hannah McCarthy:
What theme would you pick?

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Christina Phillips:
I love it, I love it. No, I want to know.

Nick Capodice:
I would pick like sort of like root vegetables and roasted root vegetables.

Hannah McCarthy:
I would pick just because I believe, you know, death is always with us.

Rebecca Lavoie:
The little match girl.

Hannah McCarthy:
I would pick. I would pick A Christmas Carol. Our tree topper is the ghost of Christmas present. Yeah. I feel like, you know, just remember, everybody, it can all go away in a second.

Christina Phillips:
So, Jacqui what would you pick? What would yours?

Jacqui Fulton:
Oh mean girls.

Christina Phillips:
I love that

Rebecca Lavoie:
This episode of Civics 101 was written by Christina Phillips and produced by me, Rebecca Lavoie, with help from Jacqui Fulton, thanks to our special guests Civics 101 host Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice for letting us put you through the trivia ringer and for all you do all year round to make the show a joy to work on and to listen to. This episode featured music by the Starlight Singers, Andy Williams, kids singing Lou Monte Wesleyan Studios and the Royal Philharmonic with scoring by Henry Lavoie and our special apologies to Mariah Carey. You really are awesome. Despite what Hannah says, Civics 101 is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including advanced search, upload many different filetypes, powerful integrations and APIs, automated transcription, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:00:03] Hey, guys. I'm Rebecca Lavoie. I'm executive producer of Civics 101. This week we've got a special edition of the show for you. We decided to put hosts Nick and Hannah to the test with a holiday edition of civics trivia, in part to give them a break from hosting the show for a week. And also because we thought it would be fun to see what they know because they're always teaching us stuff. But before we get to the show, just a quick pitch, this team Hannah NicK, producers Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. They put their all into making the show for you each and every week, and they couldn't do it without listener support. So if you make a donation to Civics 101 right now in any amount, we'll send you a really cool sticker that says the constitution is my copilot, so you can show off your love for civics and your support for the podcast. You can put the sticker on your coffee mug, on your car, on your notebook, anywhere you like, just head over to Civics101podcast.org or you can make that donation and get that sticker by clicking the link I'm putting right there in the show notes. Thanks so much for your support and for listening all year long. I hope you enjoy this special show that we've put together for you. It's a little bit format breaking, but it's really fun. So let's get to it.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:01:39] Holidays are a big deal at the White House, and they're full of all the regular trappings of a family celebration. You've got the tradition, the festivities, the complicated social dynamics and then a healthy helping of global politics. Today on Civics 101, we're going to put our hosts White House holiday knowledge to the test. Welcome to Civics Trivia Holiday Edition. I've got the whole team here and we decided it would be fun if we got to put Nick and Hanna head to head Hanna and Nick. We're going to test out, well, you know, holidays at the White House. Oh God, it's going to be me great.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:02:20] It's going to be amazing.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:02:23] And you know, we did an episode on the holidays the way you did.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:02:26] Well, you should be prepared.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:02:27] Then I am Christina Phillips. I am the senior producer of Civics 101 and.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:02:31] I'm Rebecca Lavoie.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:02:32] I run the podcast unit at Nhpr.org and I am the executive producer of 101. And we also have with us, Jacqui Fulton. Jacqui, please introduce yourself. Who are you?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:02:42] Yeah, as stated, I'm Jacqui Fulton and I'm a producer with Civics 101.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:02:47] And of course, the main event our contestants Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy. Hello, Nick and Hannah. Thank you for joining the program.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:55] Hello. Thank you for having us, Rebecca.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:02:57] It's a pleasure to be here. My pleasure. Thanks for having us on Civics 101.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:03:01] Ok, OK, OK. So also, I would like to know everybody. What is your least favorite holiday song? I want to know because I feel like there are so many bad holiday songs. There's so many good holiday songs, so I will go first. My least favorite holiday song is Christmas shoes. Are you guys familiar?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:03:21]  It's the one about one about a kid who needs some Christian, some shoes for Christmas.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:03:25] It's yes, but even more. So, It's a kid whose mother is dying, who needs shoes for her because she's dying.

 

Music: [00:03:34] Daddy says there's no time. You see, She's been sad for quite, and he wants.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:03:41] I believe the line is my mother will look beautiful if she meets Jesus tonight,

 

Music: [00:03:46] I want her to look beautiful if Momma meets Jesus tonight.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:03:56] That is that is the whole point, and apparently I've been told by Rebecca that SNL spoofed it this week, so I need to go watch that, but it is so stupid, it is obnoxious. Oh, I hate it so much

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:08] Christina, that reminds me my mother had a collection of Christmas books, one of which was the Little Match Girl, which is a charming Christmas story about a little girl who freezes to death.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:04:18] I loved that book because I was the kind of child who liked to pretend that I was always in danger of dying. I loved that.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:04:25] Grim, grim.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:04:26]  Ok, OK, so Hannah, do you have a least favorite holiday song?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:31] I'm going to preface this by saying I bowed down at the feet of this individual. They have one of the greatest vocal ranges in human history. You'll always be. My baby is one of my karaoke songs. I cannot stand. All I want for Christmas is you.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:04:47] Oh my god.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:48] I can't stand it.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:04:49] We're done. You and me.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:04:49] There is a lot going on in that song in that song.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:53] Mariah Carey I love. I, you know, I'm saying this as though she's going to listen to it.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:04:59] It is an American standard. How dare you?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:05:02] Why do you not like it? I need to know why.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:04] All I can tell you is that when that song comes on, I have this like. Dread dry feeling in my stomach like this, like horrible, just sick, I'm suppose, is so horrible. Mariah Carey, I'm sorry, you're an American treasure,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:05:21] But I respect your opinion. But I mean, I have to just disagree and say, that's one of the greatest songs ever. It's like wall of sound great. Like you're like, Whoa, what is going on here? Christmas song.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:32]  We're going to lose half our listeners because I'm the the demon.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:05:41]  OK, Nick? What is your least favorite holiday song?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:05:47] It's a song that I have to leave stores when it comes on, and it's performed by Andy Williams, and it starts off with like, Happy holidays, a hickory do, a hickory dock. Don't forget to hang up your sock and then he's got he'll be coming down the chimney down. Yeah. What the heck is coming down the chimney? Down down.

 

Music: [00:06:13] He'll be coming down the chimney, down down the chimney.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:06:20] The reason I hate this song, Rebecca, is that it rhymes toys with girls and boys.

 

Music: [00:06:25] It's got a toy for every good girl and good little boy.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:06:30] How much time did you have to come up with that one?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:06:32] It has a rousing call and response section that I enjoy.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:06:53] Jacqui, what is your least favorite holiday song?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:06:56] So I used to work at a restaurant and they would they had like holiday playlist that they would do all the time and this one they played, it felt like every 30 minutes and it was Santa baby. It's so weird!

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:07:12] It's like this person obviously has a big thing for saying which, you know, no shaming people for what they like.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:07:20] And like little kids sing this song!

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:07:40] And on that note, and I have a feeling that only one other person on this call may be familiar with this because they mentioned retail is Dominic the Donkey?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:50] The Italian Christmas Donkey?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:07:53] The weirdest song that's strangely pandering to Italian-Americans in a way that is completely unnecessary. We didn't ask for it. We don't need it. And it's weird.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:08:14] My favorite Christmas story is about this song. I make it really fast. Ok? In Little Italy, in Manhattan, there's these storefronts that are clearly owned by organizations that don't actually sell anything. And one store was just, I don't know. I just don't want to get in trouble on our podcast. And one storefront window was completely dark and it just had one thing in it and it was a T-shirt and it said, Dominick, the Christmas donkey. And then in the bottom, it said, as featured in the movie Riding in Cars with Boys, starring Drew Barrymore.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:49] Ever since you told me that story, I'm just going to I'll give this away to you. Like, I have been searching for that T-shirt. So they want to gift it to you. I thought that was the greatest thing I'd ever heard.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:09:16] So here's how the trivia will work, we'll have three rounds of questions about different aspects of the holiday season at the White House. There will be bonus points in each round. The winner gets nothing but glory. That's right.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:09:31] Nothing but glory, nothing, but glory is not going to be anything but glory,

 

Christina Phillips: [00:09:37] No, nothing.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:09:38] But glory is this because our budget is so small because this is public radio. It's like nothing but glory.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:09:43] Also, I don't want to shop for Christmas anyway. I didn't want to get anyone anything. Sorry guys.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:09:45] And this is a great time to remind listeners, by the way, they can donate to the show because we can't afford to give anything but glory. You get a sticker if you do go to Civics101podcast.org, make a donation. Maybe next year we'll have more than glory to give away. Yes. Yes. All right. Continue. Continue.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:09:59] All right. It's a great stocking stuffer. Probably. I don't know. Do people on stickers anyway?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:10:04] Rebecca, I'm going to hand this round off to you.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:10:07] Ok, so in this round, Nick and Hannah questions are worth one point. I believe they're worth one point in every room. And of course, these points are extremely important because glory, yes, nothing but glory is at stake. The stakes are zero, except if you care about glory, which I believe you to do. So almost nothing else matters. Christmas toasts is the category the holiday season has served as a symbol of unity and peace throughout American history. I'm going to read you quotes of holiday messages delivered at the White House and a couple of questions related to each quote. Our first question is for Hannah McCarthy. This quote is from a world leader who ditched his own country's holiday celebration to meet with a U.S. president won't let the children have their night of fun and laughter. Let the gifts of Father Christmas delight their play. Let us ups share to the full in their unstinted pleasures before we turn again to the stern tasks and formidable year that lies before us.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:08] I'm supposed to guess the person.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:11:09] Yes, which world leader ditched his own country's celebrations and delivered that speech

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:16] At the White House? Churchill?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:11:23] Yes. Very good.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:28] Because of the writing!

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:30] Oh, I'm done for. 

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:11:30] Winston Churchill spoke on Christmas Eve, 1941 in a shared Christmas address with President Franklin Roosevelt during World War Two. Nick, follow up question for you What event took place on American soil earlier that same December?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:45] Oh, can you say the date one more time?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:11:49] Sigh.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:49] I wasn't listening, can I say the can I say the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:11:56] You can.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:57] I wanted to just double check the date.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:11:59] Of course, the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 in December marked the United States official declaration of war in Japan and full entry into World War Two. Shortly thereafter, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States and the U.S. reciprocated. Churchill was in Washington, D.C., around Christmas to strategize with Roosevelt. Ok, quick tally. Where are we right now?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:12:20] Hannah has one, Nick has one. I feel like Hannah had the harder question.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:12:25]  All right. Hannah McCarthy Yes. Roosevelt was known for holiday related executive orders during his presidency, including declaring an emergency federal bank holiday during the Great Depression. In a similar vein in 1939, Roosevelt moved which holiday a week earlier in an effort to stimulate the economy.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:12:49] Oh, I read About this when I was making the Federal Holidays Episode,

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:12:55] I Would think you'd be prepared then For this question.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:57] You'd think I would be prepared, Rebecca, You'd think.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:01]  I mean, I would say Thanksgiving.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:13:12] Really? You would, that is the correct answer.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:13:15] And it was just that one time, right?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:13:17] Was it just that one time?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:13:18] Yes, it was. He actually became known for moving holidays around, and people would call this Franksgiving.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:13:25] Yeah, that's right.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:13:27] Ok, now we are on to our second Christmas toast. Nick, you are getting the starting question for this one. Ok. The holiday season is a good time for people to flex their muscles, to brag a bit. In 1958, President Eisenhower stuck it to the Russians by broadcasting his holiday message to the American public from where?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:13:47] Wow, so Eisenhower stuck it to the Russians. Yes, by broadcasting.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:13:53] Oh oh, but no, it can't be.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:57] My guess is ridiculous.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:13:58] I was going to guess from space.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:14:00] Wow, what a guess that is correct, Nick.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:14:06] Shortly after the successful launch of Sputnik Russia's satellite into orbit, the Eisenhower administration faced pressure to keep up in the space race. So when a secret mission, the U.S. launched its first communications satellite into orbit in December with a recorded message from Eisenhower to broadcast on the radio. The audio quality is about what you'd expect from a satellite in space made in the 1950s.

 

Eisenhower from space: [00:14:33] The United States. All of the scientific advance, my voice is coming my satellite.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:14:45] Unsurprisingly, the weak signal meant that only the biggest radio hobbyists nerds actually heard that first transmission, but most of the American public heard it rebroadcast on the news. Hannah. Follow up for you for a point to government agencies were created because of pressure from the public and Congress after the launch of Sputnik one was NASA. Can you name the other one? I will give you a hint if you need it.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:16] Oh, I'll take the hint, but I'm afraid it's going to make it worse. Give me the hint.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:15:20] The hint is this agency is known for its creepy, creepy robots.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:15:29] Well, this is a hard one,

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:15:31] Is it? I thought my hint is pretty telling.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:34] Is there like a national science administration?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:15:38] No. But there is a little organization called DARPA, which is pretty well known for its creepy, creepy robots. Sorry. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was also created at the same time as NASA. Sorry, didn't get that one. Hannah, so we are now on our third toast question to this. This anchor question goes to you. Presidents have used their holiday addresses as a way to endear themselves to the people, instilling patriotism and put aside political division, sometimes with mixed success. In 1954, following the end of the Korean War, President Eisenhower's administration rebranded the lighting of the National Christmas tree as quote The Christmas pageant of Peace. This made it a little awkward for presidents in wartime, which Presidents Christmas pageant of peace was interrupted by protesters.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:30] Ooooh was it Kennedy?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:16:33] Think about presidents who a lot of people were really mad at them.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:16:36] Imagine a president that might have gotten protesters at other events besides just the lighting of the Christmas tree. I mean, you want to take a second guess?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:45] Nixon?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:16:46] Yeah, I think she made a half a point.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:16:52]  Give her half.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:16:54] Ok, half a point.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:16:55] Maybe you'll have an opportunity for half a point later. So, Nick, a follow up question for you. Nixon did not attend his pageant of peace in 71 and 72. I wonder why? Who gave speeches on his behalf instead?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:11] Oh wow.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:12] On speeches, on Nixon's behalf.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:14] So, uh, was it Ford?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:17:21] No, no. Take a second guess for half a point.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:24] Yeah, yeah. Give me a second. Let's see. It Wasn't Spiro Agnew.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:17:30]  It wasn't?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:31]  OK, Spiro Agnew.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:17:34] Yay!

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:17:35] It was Vice President Spiro Agnew at the 1970 Pageant of Peace. By the way, Nixon did say we can look forward with assurance to the end of that war. The U.S., of course, would not leave Vietnam until 1975, so there was the storied history of the quote pageant of peace during the Nixon administration.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:17:54] I believe Nixon also one time I I try to find pictures of this, but I couldn't. He put a peace sign on top of the tree instead of a star, and a lot of people got really mad about that. But also, I like to imagine that if Ford had lit the Christmas tree, he would start it with. Our national nightmare has ended. Christmas has arrived.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:18:24] So, Nick, this one is for you. Yeah. In nineteen seventy nine, during the quote pageant of peace, President Jimmy Carter made a symbolic statement when he chose to only light the star at the top of the national Christmas tree. Carter said the tree would remain dark until what happened. Oh oh my goodness, this was 1979 near the end of his administration, right?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:18:49] Ok, so let me just just talk out loud for a second, right?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:18:52] Yes, you can talk.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:18:53] Carter cares about, you know, he cares deeply about world hunger. You near

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:18:57] The end of his administration.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:19:02] Yeah. And he and there was. What is he waiting to have happen near the end of his administration, like the trees remaining dark until this Whole this thing happens?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:19:10] Yes. Hold on, I've almost got I've almost got it.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:19:15] If you need a hint, I'm happy to give you one.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:19:17] Give me just 30 more seven more seconds. Sure. Think about what the thing is that he wants to have happen.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:19:22] I know you can get this one.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:19:23] Is it the freeing of hostages from Iran?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:19:25] It is the freeing of U.S. hostages at the embassy in Tehran, Iran. He was waiting for them to be released. The hostages were captured on November 4th, 1979, during a period of intense conflict between the U.S. and Iran. So Hannah McCarthy bonus question for you Approximately how long were the hostages held at the embassy?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:50] I will just I'm going to be completely honest, I have absolutely no idea zero inkling,

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:19:56] One of the easiest numbers to remember in political history. I believe, Nick, do you know the answer to this question?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:20:03] I don't know the number.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:20:05] Can we get a guess, I just I'm curious how long you think that they were held because I was surprised. I did not know that. I did not know I was.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:20:15] It was the year I was born.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:20:16] Hmm. I guess I am really old. 80 days.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:19] Or seventy nine days?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:20:20]  Four hundred and forty four days.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:20:24] Yes, it's way longer than I thought.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:20:25] Yes, yes. And of course, if you want a telling of the story or a part of the story, I would highly recommend the Oscar winning movie Argo, directed by my favorite boyfriend of Jennifer Lopez, Ben Affleck. Ok, where are we score wise host Christina Phillips?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:20:42] Nick, you have three and a half, Hannah. You have two and a half.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:20:55] When we get back from the break, we'll find out if Hannah can redeem herself as we turn to the next round of civics trivia revolving around holiday time. But one quick note you can get all kinds of trivia and ephemera and civics facts in our Civics 101 newsletter called Extra Credit. It's free, it's fun, it's biweekly, and everyone loves it. Sign up for it at civics101podcast.org or just click the link in our show notes to get on the list. Welcome back to our special holiday break edition of Civics 101, where we're putting hosts Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice to the test, pitting them against each other with a series of trivia questions about civics and the holidays before we return to the show. Might I remind you if you love the podcast, support it, make a donation in any amount and we'll send you a snazzy sticker that says the constitution is my copilot. You can make that gift at civics101podcast.org or just click the link in the show notes. All right, let's get back to the trivia.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:22:17] Our next round will be about the celebration of Hanukkah at the White House. This is a multiple choice round, so buzz in after we've read all the options and so I've asked you to select a buzzer noise. Nick, what is your buzzer noise?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:22:30] My buzzer noise is this.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:22:34] Very good. I hate you know what that is. So I do, you know, Rebecca?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:38] Yeah, it's the horse sound at the end of what the Christmas song that I don't.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:22:46] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's sleigh ride.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:22:49] I want to tell you it's sleigh ride, sleigh ride, sleigh ride.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:22:52] Oh, it's the horse whinny. And I got to be the horse whinny when we played it in high school.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:22:56] Yeah, the greatest high school concert band number ever. Because some percussionist gets to play the whip, which is, yeah, two blocks on a stick that go, which I got to do it four times a night, but

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:23:10]  All right, go ahead. What is your buzzer, Hannah?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:13] I don't know. Nick selected it for me. Why are you?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:23:16] Oh, really?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:23:19] Well, you could try this one instead. You got this one.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:25] I want that one. Yeah.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:23:26] Ok, so this is You Mario going down the pipe? Press it one more time to make sure

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:30] It gives me childhood anxiety. Yeah, because I tried really hard at that game and I never did well.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:23:33]  All right. We are headed into our next round. It is all about the celebration of Hanukkah at the White House. This is multiple choice buzz in after we've read all the options, Jacqui. You are going to be leading us through this round. Take it away.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:23:50] Ok, question one. Presidents only began honoring Hanukkah in the 20th century, when this president was the first to light a menorah during the holiday season alongside the lighting of the national Christmas tree. Was it a Franklin Roosevelt? B John F Kennedy, C Jimmy Carter or D George H.W. Bush?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:24:16] We get the same exact time,

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:19] Same time, except yours is

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:24:20] Louder.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:24:21] No, you hit it twice, so it turned off, you did that.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:24:24] Oh, we have a dispute, we have a dispute. I don't know what..

 

Nick Capodice: [00:24:29]  We could both say it at the same time. Yep.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:24:31] Ok. All right. Three. Jimmy Carter,

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:24:35] Do you think happens? They both get the point.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:24:36] I'm going to give them both the point. All right.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:24:39] So initially, Carter Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus, denied the permit for a menorah on government property, saying it violated the First Amendment. Carter's adviser, Stu Eizenstat, told Andrus that if he denied the permit for the menorah, he would also have to deny the permit for the Christmas tree, and he backed down.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:24:58] Wow, that's a good story. You know where you can read about that, that whole crazy story, Rebecca, where an extra credit, biweekly newsletter? It was like two years ago. I don't remember who wrote it if it was an

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:10] I think it was You,

 

Nick Capodice: [00:25:12] But it was all about that. That was such a good story, Jacqui, when he was like, Well, then we'll just, you know, the Christmas tree Christmas.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:25:22] I love the idea that Eisenstadt was like, Oh, do I just maybe we don't have to do any of it this year. I don't have to worry about any of it.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:25:29] All right. Question to you guys ready? Yeah, OK. During a menorah lighting ceremony in the Oval Office in 1993, President Clinton acted quickly when Watt accidentally caught fire a stack of papers on the Resolute Desk B a young girl's ponytail, c a Secret Service member sleeve, or D the Oval Office carpet.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:25:56] That was definitely Hannah.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:25:58] That was me, a little girl's hair caught fire! A ponytail!

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:26:04] You seem really excited about her hair catching on fire.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:10]  Actually, if you watch the video, it happens in a flash.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:26:13] Yeah, a young girl's ponytail. The menorah was sitting on the desk behind her, and Clinton noticed the flame and put it out with his hands.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:26:30] He was very, very subtle about it, like it was just like, yeah,

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:33] It was very,

 

Christina Phillips: [00:26:34] Yeah, you can't even tell what happened.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:26:36] That little girl was inside of us all along.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:26:39]  And that little girl grew up to be...

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:26:40] The little match girl.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:26:43]  The little match girl.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:26:53] All right, question number three. In 2013, the first day of Hanukkah fell on Thanksgiving Day. President Obama presented a monarchy during an event at the end of the holiday. What is the monarchy? Was it a turkey carved in the shape of a menorah? Be a menorah carved in the shape of a turkey? See the live turkey. Obama had pardoned on Thanksgiving, wearing a sweater with menorahs on it, or d an aide wearing a turkey costume carrying a menorah.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:27:25] Hannah, what is it?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:26] Be a menorah carved to look like a turkey.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:27:30] Yes. Yes, we have the audio of that.

 

Barack Obama: [00:27:32] We've got 10 year old Asher Weintraub from New York City. Where's Ashley? Asher came up with what we believe is the world's first ever menorah shaped like a turkey. It is called the monarchy. Where is the monarchy? I had it just a second ago.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:27:51] Obama was also the first president to hold a ceremonial seder during Passover.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:27:56] Oh, amazing. I didn't know that.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:58] Yeah. You know, I've never been to a Seder. I've always wish my friends in high school would invite me, and they never did.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:28:06] So where are we score wise for this round?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:28:08] Nick, you have four and a half points and you have five and a half points.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:28:13] Wow. Ok. How quickly the wheels of time.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:28:39] So we are headed into our final round, Christina and I am going to hand it off to you. I'm going to be doing the scoring and you are going to be doing the question reading because this round you came up with and you deserve to do it. So take it away.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:28:56] In 1961, Jacqueline Kennedy was the first first lady to give the White House holidays a theme which would help determine how the White House was going to be decorated that year. The theme was The Nutcracker Suite, so our next round is this or that you have to guess whether I'm naming a White House holiday theme or a scented product from Bath and Body Works.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:26] Well, I grew up in the 90s and I went to the mall a lot.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:29:30] This is going to be interesting. You'll get a bonus point if you can either name the first lady or describe the scent. If you come even a little bit close to how bath and body works, describes that scent will give you the bonus points.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:29:47] Stream of consciousness. Any word, any fruit, any nut, any spice.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:29:54] Plus, there will be four first ladies that you can choose from, and we will read them out for you. After you guess, we'll remind you of who those first ladies are, but they are Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or Pat Nixon. And there may be more than one theme from the same first lady.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:30:13] Hmm. Ok, so White House themes four first ladies. One store that sells a lot of stinky stuff. Ok, take it away, Christina.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:30:23] Ok, Hannah, first question is for you. Is this a White House holiday theme or a scent from Bath and body works? Winter Wonderland?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:38] It's so broad, I'm going to say it's a theme.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:30:41] You are correct.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:30:43] So here's a little more about this. The Knitting Guild of America and the Society of Decorative Painters work together with fabric artists from each state on these ornaments, so every state had different ornaments that were themed winter wonderland. Ok. All right, bonus question for you, Hannah. Yeah. Was this Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or Pat Nixon?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:09] Just because of the how basic it is, I'm going to guess Pat Nixon.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:31:13] Sorry that she was the first first lady to get a college degree.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:31:18] No, I'm just saying the era. Just the era.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:31:20] Yeah, no. It was like Clinton in 1998.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:31:26] Woa, you just called Hillary Clinton basic.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:31:29] I love it.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:31:30] Somebody is not with her. Saw her drinking a white claw the other day.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:31:41] She was cutting those sugar cookies from that roll.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:31:46] Listening to All I want for Christmas is you.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:31:51] All right.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:31:52] Question number two. This is for you, Nick. Is this a White House holiday theme or is sent from Bath and body works? Fresh, sparkling snow.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:32:05] I mean, that you'd have to be a first lady going through some stuff. The theme, Oh, I'm going to go with Bed Bath and body works.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:32:16] Oh, shoot.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:32:17] I always do that. I'm going to do scent. Sorry.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:32:21] Can you Imagine? Bed Bath and body works.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:25] The ultimate collab, I would go there every day.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:32:30] I cannot imagine them combined.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:32:32] The towels would be scented forever.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:32:33] Forever scented. Oh God.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:32:36] Oh, you are correct, Nick. Oh, the scent from bath and body works. Ok, here's your bonus question. Yeah. Name three things.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:32:44] Anything I think anything.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:32:47]  You can name three things What do you think? Fresh, sparkling snow smells like

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:32:53] Stream of consciousness, Nick. If you name Anything.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:32:57] Well. Can you say it's fresh? What kind of snow?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:33:01] Fresh, sparkling.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:33:02]  Fresh, sparkling snow?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:33:04] I mean, I feel like it's going to have some sort of like wintergreen, vanilla, a pine.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:33:13] All right. Do you want to hear the description? Here we go. Here we go. Fresh, sparkling snow, cool and crisp, just like the first snowfall of the season. Icy melon. Winter pine,

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:33:25] Yes.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:33:26] And fresh citrus.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:33:28] You got it with the pine. Yeah, yeah. With the pine melon pine.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:33:32] Nothing says Christmas. Like the scent of melon.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:33:35] I have a question. Is icy melon a melon? Or is that just melon that's frozen

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:33:40] There's no such thing. It's not like a type of melon.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:33:43] I think that's just bath and body works saying this melon is actually just chemicals.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:33:50] It's an in case of emergency melon.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:33:53] All right, Hannah. Question three Is this a White House holiday theme or are you sent from Bath and body works a thousand Christmas wishes?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:34:05] Um, a theme.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:34:06] No,

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:34:07] No. How is that a scent, for the love of God?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:34:13] Ok. A thousand Christmas wishes I sent from Bath Body Works. Can you give me three tasting? Scenting notes that you think is a thousand Christmas wishes?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:34:23] You had a chance to redeem yourself or just name some stuff.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:34:26] I do think vanilla is a good guess. Maybe peppermint

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:34:34] And. A thousand Christmas wishes?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:34:42] I'm going to give you a hint. Obscure Christmas fruits.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:34:50] Obscure Christmas fruits, so not citrus, then. Uh.. Cranberry. All right.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:34:58] Ok, I'm going to read the description. But what did she say again? We got vanilla

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:35:01] She didn't get it.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:35:02] Rebecca is so disappointed.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:35:02] A celebratory blend of pomegranate prosecco, sweet elderberries star jasmine and sugared Woods.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:35:13] Sugared wood.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:35:14] Oh my gosh, that's where the winter melon grows.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:35:17] The icy melon.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:35:19] Icy melon grows in the sugar Woods.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:35:22] I'm just picturing a piece of bark that somebody sucking.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:35:25] All right, so right now, just so you know, we have a tie game, it is six and a half to six and a half. That was your chance to pull it in.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:35:34] I know now that you're saying that I feel like I remember reading that description in bath and body works.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:35:39] I thought it was. I thought it was. Was it too? Was it orange in color?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:35:43] Oh, I have no idea, but I could check.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:35:45] They just took a thousand different chemicals. Put it in there.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:35:48] It's like a thousand Christmas chemicals.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:36:18] All right, Nick, question for is this a White House holiday theme or a scent from bath and body works: home for the holidays? Oh no.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:36:29] This would be great as both, I'm going to say White House Christmas theme.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:36:34] You are correct, and I think by the way, I did cross reference. Yeah, I made sure that there was no overlap because it was it was a close thing.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:36:44] A I can tell you that if it was a scent, it would have gingerbread in it.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:36:49] A White House holiday theme. Here is the theme. It featured historic house ornaments designed by local architects, so local houses of each state as ornaments. Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama or Pat Nixon.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:37:05] Oh, it sounds like something a Carter would do, but let me see here.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:37:08] Hold on. That wasn't one of the choices.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:37:10] Yeah. No, I was just talking out loud. I'm pretending like it's the wait. Wait, don't tell me. Except we don't have the answers given to us. Yes. They don't, do they. It just made that up. Oh, I'm going to guess Laura Bush.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:37:28] Yes.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:37:30] Oh, boooo.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:37:33] Somebody is ahead by two points.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:37:36] Important follow up, Hannah, is that basic or not basic: Home for the holidays?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:37:43] Very, very complicated and sophisticated.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:37:48] Ok. And question number five simple gifts.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:37:56] If I were the designer of scents at Bath and Body Works, I would never describe my scent is simple because they're all about complexity and strangeness. I'm going to say it was a theme.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:38:14] You are correct.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:38:15] Oh, thank God,

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:38:17] I love hearing the logic.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:38:18] Yes. So simple gifts. The theme was honoring state and county fairs and featured prize ribbons from each state and territory, and it was known as the gift of the American spirit.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:38:32] I'm again going to say Pat Nixon.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:38:36] It was not Pat Nixon, it was Michelle Obama.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:38:44] I'm sweating so much.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:38:49] Yes, well, Nick, you have one more chance to win it by a lot.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:38:54]  Was that my last question?

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:38:57] I'm afraid to say it was so nick. This last question will determine just how much glory it is you have in this game

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:39:05] To go find my trumpet.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:39:07]  Curse Pat Nixon and the space she takes up in my brain

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:39:11] She is far more complex than you thought.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:39:12] Living rent free.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:39:16] Ok, Nick. Question six Is this a White House holiday theme or a scent from Bath and Body Works. Holiday Cheers.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:39:26] Wow.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:39:26] Cheers, plural?

 

Christina Phillips: [00:39:28]  Yeah.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:39:28] If it was a theme for the White House, they'd have to be like about cheers and drinks and toasts. And it's just

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:39:34] Or the bar Cheers.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:39:35]  Yeah, where everybody votes their party.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:39:39] Cheerleaders of America.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:39:41] Holiday cheers. I'm going to say I'm going to say bath and body.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:39:45] Oh, you are correct.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:39:48] Sorry.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:39:51] Ok, I get extra points for the fun trivia I noticed off the top of my head.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:39:55] You get extra points for winning the lightning round with your buzzer man. As far as yes.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:39:58] Yeah, OK, I actually think it would be fun. I want you both to guess what the scent is, so each of you is going to name one thing. We'll go back and forth three times. What do you think holiday cheers smells like, Nick? One.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:40:13] Ok. Give me a second! Holiday cheers. Cinnamon.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:40:20] Ok, Hannah.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:40:21] No, by the way, no cinnamon.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:40:25] Given that they put prosecco in one of their beverages, beverages in one of their scents, I'm going to guess Prosecco again.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:40:31] No, no

 

Nick Capodice: [00:40:33]  I'm going to say cloves.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:40:36] No.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:40:38] What was your first, cinnamon?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:40:40] Oh, I got another guess, yeah.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:40:41] You already said cinnamon.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:40:42] I did.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:40:44] Mulled wine.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:40:48] Now I'm going to guess some sort... I'm going down Eggnog Road. I'm going to say nutmeg.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:40:53] Yes.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:40:56] Give me that nutmeg,

 

Christina Phillips: [00:40:58] This is the description, creamy, sweet and extra toasty, it makes the holidays that much more cozy, warm vanilla, spiced rum and a dash of nutmeg. So I know you were very close with the the alcohol guess.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:41:12] So Nick, you are the winner of our first ever Civics 101 holiday trivia game. How does it feel to have all of the glory?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:41:19] You've all heard a little bit. I'm going to tell you it's not pleasant.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:41:23] I would just like to point out that Pat Nixon had none of those themes. I threw her in there as a decoy and it worked.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:41:28]  Yes, it sure did.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:41:31] Nick and Hannah, thank you for being such good sports and for joining us today.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:41:35] Thank you. Thank you. You'll get me now. You'll get you'll get into next year.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:41:39] Jackson had a snowball fight in the White House with little balls of cotton. I know that!

 

Christina Phillips: [00:41:44] She's just going to start spouting White House bags for the next year. Jacqui, thank you so much for joining us and for leading that round.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:41:52] Oh yeah, my pleasure.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:41:53] Executive producer Rebecca Lavoie,

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:41:55] Thanks for coming to my basement to record this with me.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:41:57] Thank you for allowing me to interlope in your basement.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:42:01] And for everyone at Civics 101. We hope you have a great holiday season and that you have a Happy New Year. Happy New Year!

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:42:36] What theme would you pick?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:42:39] I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:42:40] I love it, I love it. No, I want to know.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:42:43] I would pick like sort of like root vegetables and roasted root vegetables.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:42:51] I would pick just because I believe, you know, death is always with us.

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:42:56] The little match girl.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:42:59] I would pick. I would pick A Christmas Carol. Our tree topper is the ghost of Christmas present. Yeah. I feel like, you know, just remember, everybody, it can all go away in a second.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:43:15] So, Jacqui  what would you pick? What would yours?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:43:17]  Oh mean girls.

 

Christina Phillips: [00:43:21] I love that

 

Rebecca Lavoie: [00:43:29] This episode of Civics 101 was written by Christina Phillips and produced by me, Rebecca Lavoie, with help from Jacqui Fulton, thanks to our special guests Civics 101 host Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice for letting us put you through the trivia ringer and for all you do all year round to make the show a joy to work on and to listen to. This episode featured music by the Starlight Singers, Andy Williams, kids singing Lou Monte Wesleyan Studios and the Royal Philharmonic with scoring by Henry Lavoie and our special apologies to Mariah Carey. You really are awesome. Despite what Hannah says, Civics 101 is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

 



 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

The Lottery

The lottery generates over $70 billion in revenue each year. Today on Civics 101 we explore how we got here; from failed lotteries in the Revolutionary War to the Golden Octopus to the Numbers Game to a Mega Millions ticket from your neighborhood shop. Where does all of that money GO? And why are states so dependent on them in the first place?

Taking us on this madcap journey are two experts on the lottery in the US; Kevin Flynn (author of American Sweepstakes) and Matthew Vaz (author of Running the Numbers).

Also, we're in a friendly competition with our friends at Outside/In as to who can raise the most sugar during our year-end fund drive. Push us over the edge with a small donation today and you'll get a really cool sticker!

lottery FINAL FINAL.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

lottery FINAL FINAL.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Nick Capodice:
And a quick note before this episode on the lottery, which is one of those things you think isn't really a civics topic, but then it ends up being very much a civics topic. Uh, I want to jump in and share with you all that we have done over two hundred and fifty episodes of Civics 101. And it feels like we haven't even scratched the surface. There are dozens of departments Supreme Court decisions, cabinet positions, legislative powers that need to be explored. This show was created to address your questions about our government, how it works, but we need listener support to answer those questions. Make your year end tax deductible donation at Civics101podcast.org and you'll receive a very snazzy civic sticker, as well as our eternal thanks. Help us at Civics 101 Demonstrate and HPR that a show like ours with a cause like ours is a worthy investment. All right, onto the episode.

Kevin Flynn:
There's always been a lottery.Do we agree with old man Warner thatThe lottery should be continued simply because there's always

Nick Capodice:
Been one as Oklahomans try to strike it rich? They also invest in Oklahoma's future? Or do we

Speaker3:
Object with Tessie that the whole thing just isn't fair,

Hannah McCarthy:
Isn't right? And so people who buy tickets thinking, Hey, I'm helping education, do you think they're really doing as much as they think they are? They they believe they

Kevin Flynn:
Are, but they're absolutely not benefiting education.

Speaker3:
Whatever else Shirley Jackson has done in her story, she has certainly given us a memorable image.

Hannah McCarthy:
We're not talking about that lottery, are we, Nick?

Nick Capodice:
Well, as every English teacher in America knows Hannah. The morning of June 27 was clear and sunny with the fresh warmth of a full summer day.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right, I'm going to put the kibosh on Shirley Jackson from the outset, although I will say that short story is all about hyper local government. But I do want to ask you with all seriousness, what does buying a ticket and maybe winning millions of dollars have to do with U.S. governmental systems? Why are we doing a civics episode on the lottery?

Kevin Flynn:
Because I'm an awesome guy. No, that isn't the right answer.

Hannah McCarthy:
Wait is that Kevin?

Nick Capodice:
It is. I'll let him introduce himself here.

Kevin Flynn:
My name's Kevin Flynn. I'm a former journalist and author, and I wrote the book American Sweepstakes; How One Small State Bucked the Church, The Feds and the Mob to usher in the lottery age.

Nick Capodice:
So we've got to do a whole mess of full disclosure here. Kevin Flynn is indeed a writer, podcast host, TV and radio journalist

Hannah McCarthy:
And dear friend.

Nick Capodice:
And.

Hannah McCarthy:
And he's married to our executive producer, Rebecca Lavoie.

Nick Capodice:
He sure is. But we were in a civics one one production meeting, talking about the lottery and its intersection with the government, and we learned that Kevin had written a book on it. And so we had to have him on the show.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right now, we got that out of the way. Did he give a reason on why civics listeners should be interested in the lottery?

Kevin Flynn:
It's a great question. The lottery is just a big part of state government these days.

Hannah McCarthy:
How big?

Nick Capodice:
Big, real big. You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm Hannah McCarthy

Nick Capodice:
and today we are talking about the U.S. lottery. How it started, ended, started again. How much money it makes and where that money goes.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now, Kevin said lottery is a big part of state government, but does every state in the U.S. have one?

Nick Capodice:
Almost almost. Mississippi was the most recent state to adopt a lottery. They started selling tickets in 2020.

archival:
Scratch off tickets for the very first time, And Mississippians can take a shot at winning without Having to leave the state.

Nick Capodice:
Five states do not have a lottery. Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, Alabama and Nevada.

Hannah McCarthy:
So when did this all start? Like, what was the first lottery?

Kevin Flynn:
Oh, we have always had lotteries in civilization, right? Lotteries go back to the Bible, right? In the Old Testament. It was, you know, casting lots was the way that a lot of times the the will of God was divined. King Saul was selected because of a drawing of lots. Do you remember when the apostles were down a man where they were down to 11 guys for some reason?

Hannah McCarthy:
Down a man, as in after Judas Iscariot died?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Nick Capodice:
There were two candidates to become the new Twelfth Apostle, and they cast lots, it means they threw sticks of different lengths on the ground to see who it would be, and it ended up being Mathias. And OK. That's more Bible than civics 101 has ever had. And maybe it's just so I could use clips from Jesus Christ Superstar.

You want me to do it!

Nick Capodice:
But let's move on.

Kevin Flynn:
The Great Wall of China was financed some repairs that were financed by the Chinese for an early version of Keno. I think they called it the the white pigeon game.

Nick Capodice:
The roads to Rome, Hannah, were paid for by raffles. And to finally wend our way towards America. The Jamestown settlement in Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in the Americas, was financed with a lottery.

Hannah McCarthy:
You're kidding me

Kevin Flynn:
So you could say America really is, you know, the the child of a lottery. Part of the Continental Army was financed through a lottery. George Washington wanted to raise $10 million to pay for the Revolutionary War in the Continental Army through a lottery. So, you know, it was always it's something that's been around, you know, since since people had money.

Nick Capodice:
I want to add, by the way, that lottery in 1776 to help pay for the Revolutionary War failed utterly. They didn't come even close to raising enough money. Congress printed a hundred thousand tickets, but they only sold around 30000. So to pay for the war, they just printed a bunch of money instead and borrowed a lot from France. But what's important is that it set a precedent for other lotteries in our new country to help pay for infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right now, this is where it starts to become a civics conversation, right? Armies, roads and general infrastructure costs usually fall into the purview of government expenses. So why is a lottery involved at all?

Nick Capodice:
A lottery is a way to get money for something when you don't have the power or the political interest to tax people. If you want to build a covered bridge and you don't have the money in your state budget to do it. Having a lottery to build that bridge where the winner gets some of the money from the lottery tickets and the rest goes to building the bridge; that might get you reelected, whereas raising taxes might not. So from our nation's founding up to the eighteen forties over the whole United States, hundreds and hundreds of lotteries were springing up to pay for stuff. And when you have a lot of lotteries, you start to also get a lot of rigging of lotteries to pick winners.

Kevin Flynn:
So it's just, you know, when you deal with a lot of cash like that, you know, sharpies are going to come in and do what they do. That's a lot of sugar. Nick, there's a lot of sugar there. It's funny because, you know, let's go to like the the mid eighteen hundreds. Lotteries ended up getting kind of a stink on them in in public, not illegal, but in a nation where cockfighting and duels and poker games are considered gentlemanly. It was lotteries that, you know, started to get a bad name, in part because no, no poor person ever died in a duel. Right? That was that was the lotteries ended up democratizing gambling.

Hannah McCarthy:
So rich folks are gambling left and right. But the one form of gambling that working class Americans can participate in gets a bit of stigma.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, and is often the case. In these instances, somebody just went a little too far. The biggest lottery in America in the 19th century was called the Louisiana Lottery Company, and it was huge. It was nicknamed the Golden Octopus. Its hands were everywhere. People all over the country played it. Over half of the mail in New Orleans was lottery tickets. And what the company did is they paid 40 grand each year to a charity hospital, and they got to keep the rest of their profits tax free. There was a staggering amount of corruption. Bribes got paid to reps in state and federal legislatures all over the country. So in response, the federal government passed a bill banning the sale of lottery tickets in the mail. So the Louisiana lottery company moved to Honduras. And finally, in eighteen ninety five, all lotteries in the United States were banned. And that's it.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is making me think of prohibition. Ok, right? You've got something that's legal. Highly profitable. Very popular, very prevalent. And then it's made illegal. And I would say that just with booze, but with a lot of things in history, what history has shown us is that when you then make it illegal, it rarely, if ever actually goes away.

Nick Capodice:
Naturally.

Hannah McCarthy:
And I know that the lottery didn't go away because I grew up in Massachusetts, and I know that I can walk outside and I can buy a ticket. So how did we get from the banning of the golden octopus to lotteries being run in most states?

Nick Capodice:
We get there via something called the numbers.

Matthew Vaz:
OK. You know, once upon a time, it's not a good way to start, right?

Nick Capodice:
I counter that once upon a time is always a good way to start. And this is Matthew Vaz. He's a professor at City College of New York, and he wrote a fascinating book called Running the Numbers, Race Police and the History of Urban Gambling. So once upon a time, there was a popular illegal game called policy,

Matthew Vaz:
And it involved betting on several two digit numbers between one and seventy two. The odds are a little complicated, but it offered a way to make a small bet on a number of guess and come out with a decent amount of money. If you win, you could bet a dollar, and maybe in some situations you could win two hundred dollars. But the winning numbers were generated by the spinning of a wheel, so to speak, and maybe sort of draw out almost like a pulling a ping pong ball out of a barrel kind of a thing.

Nick Capodice:
But the problem with policy was that like all lotteries beforehand, they could be rigged. The person picking out the ping pong ball could cheat and grab one with their friend's number on it. And they did. But a new system was born in Harlem in the 1920s,

Matthew Vaz:
And most people believe that it was a man named Caspar Holstein, who was an immigrant to New York from the West Indies, developed a new method for arriving at winning numbers. He came up with a game that is typically called the numbers that involves placing a bet or on a guess of what the last three digits before the decimal point will be in a massive number generated by some far off uncontrollable institution. And so what they initially use was was an institution called the New York Clearinghouse, right? It's a financial institution that sort of clears money from different banks, and millions of dollars would pass through it every day.

Nick Capodice:
And at the end of the day, they'd publish how much money went through that clearinghouse. And the last three digits of that number were the winning numbers.

Matthew Vaz:
So we could say today 12 million four hundred and eighty three thousand two hundred and twenty one dollars and sixty nine cents pass through here. And the last three digits before the decimal point were two one two two one, right? And that's a number that no man on the street can manipulate or control it. And it is in essence, almost a random number, right?

Nick Capodice:
You'd make your bet with a numbers runner and this is important. You would pick what your numbers were. People chose lucky birthdays, favorite numbers, holidays, whatever, the odds are one in a thousand that you'll win, and the payout was usually 600 bucks for a dollar bet.

Matthew Vaz:
And it becomes a very, very popular form of gambling first in the Black communities of New York. It displaces that older policy game. People basically abandoned playing that because this game is simpler. The payouts are better and it in effect cannot be rigged, right? It cannot be manipulated. And it becomes popular in most of the major cities along the East Coast, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Baltimore. And eventually it spreads well beyond the Black communities of those cities and becomes popular among working class whites. Organized crime figures start to muscle in on the game, particularly after prohibition is over, and there's a kind of violent contestation over who's going to control the game. Is it going to be the mafia or is it going to be Black gamblers that had set up this game initially?

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, this I remember from our episode on Mapp v Ohio Right that somebody bombed Don King's home in Cleveland, Ohio, over a fight to control the numbers racket. But I also remember and we talked about this when we were making that episode that the numbers were about community institutions.

Nick Capodice:
Right, right. The people who ran the numbers, they lived there in those neighborhoods, in that community, and the payout, it wasn't a million dollars and it wasn't two dollars, it was six hundred dollars. And the reason I bring that up is Matthew asked me if I'd ever won two bucks on a scratch ticket, which I have

Matthew Vaz:
If you win that four dollars or that $2 prize. What are you going to do with it?

Nick Capodice:
What are you going to do with it?

Hannah McCarthy:
Probably buy more scratch tickets.

Matthew Vaz:
You're going to buy two more. Exactly right. It's like, Oh, nice, I want give me two more of those, right? But if you're playing with old fashioned numbers game and you win six hundred dollars, what are you going to do with that, right? Something, you know, something better. It's something... You're going to catch up on your bills or whatever it is. You know, it's going to move you along a little bit.

Hannah McCarthy:
I imagine that state legislatures which had this history of using gambling to fund projects, we're taking a good hard look at the numbers, games and asking, how can we get some of that?

Nick Capodice:
How can we get some of that, as Kevin would say, how can we get some of that sugar, which they certainly did, but it wasn't going to be an easy road to that pot of municipal gold. We'll get to the legalization of lottery and where the money goes right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy:
But first, if you want a lotto fun extra civics tidbits in your life, subscribe to our newsletter Extra credit. It's every two weeks, and since it's free, it's not even a gamble. Just click the newsletter button at our website civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy:
We're back and you're listening to civics one on one now, just a quick reminder that our show depends on the generosity of our listeners to keep running and instead of us having a lottery, we just ask that you donate whatever you feel is fair at civics101podcast.org. The odds are not the same that you will win a mega million jackpot, but they're almost the same. And speaking of a mega million jackpot, Nick, how did we get from a federally banned activity to a pastime in which millions of Americans participate?

Nick Capodice:
The shift to a legal lotto starts in nineteen sixty three in a state famously opposed to taxes, none other than the home state of Civics 101, New Hampshire. Here's Kevin Flynn again.

Kevin Flynn:
Well, in New Hampshire, there was a there was a state representative named Larry Pickett who thought that a great way to raise money for state causes was would be to hold a sweepstakes, and it was finally signed into law by Governor John King. And this immediately set off a whole bunch of reaction in the state and across the country.

Hannah McCarthy:
Wait, so the lottery was illegal federally?

Nick Capodice:
Yes, it was.

Hannah McCarthy:
So is this kind of akin to states across the country decriminalizing marijuana, even though at the federal level it's still a Schedule one drug and totally illegal?

Nick Capodice:
Hannah, that analogy to marijuana legalization is more apt than you can possibly imagine because and I'm going to try to make this quick You and I can't really understand just how scandalous it was for a state to legalize the lottery in the U.S., the FBI was involved. It was considered a national moral outrage. And to jump to the present, the path towards marijuana legalization, from the blatant racial disparity of who got arrested for it to the national outcry against it and states discovering how much money can be made from it, taxing it to it, becoming legal in many states to purchase. But in some of them, you've got to pay for it in cash. Every bit of it is note for note out of the lottery legalization playbook. But back to New Hampshire in the nineteen sixties, one way they got around it is that it wasn't a lottery per say. Even though we're going to call it one, it was technically a sweepstakes.

archival:
The race is incidental to the sweeps excitement that has raised two and a half million dollars for New Hampshire's educational system.

Nick Capodice:
So instead of drawing a number on a ping pong ball and winning some money, a sweepstakes ticket holder was paired to one of two hundred and thirty two racehorses. And if that horse was picked to run in a race and then that horse won that race, you won a bunch of cash. And people across the country freaked out.

Kevin Flynn:
Well, the lottery ended up being a big scandal, and almost every newspaper in the state was against it. They had like some really great quotes, and this is where I hope the folks from Civics 101 get a montage together of people reading these headlines like old timey newspaper people like now. Be a good time to start playing that music, Nick. I'm just I'm just like setting you up to spike this ball. Ok?

archival:
As either New Hampshire Uncle Sam so hard up that this shabby dodge is the only way out. What's happening in New Hampshire at the hands of politicians shouldn't happen to a dog. Scandalous experiment. Moral bankruptcy.

Nick Capodice:
There was one quote that was in favor of the lottery in New Hampshire. It's by the newspaper publisher Bill Loeb, who said, "No one has to go to the track and bet, no one has to smoke tobacco. No one has to drink. But how do those who oppose the sweepstakes propose to raise the money, either a sales tax or property tax or some other kind of levy that people will have to pay?" And New Hampshire did it. They sold lottery tickets, and people from all over the country came to New Hampshire to buy them.

Hannah McCarthy:
That's how much the country wanted a lottery.

Nick Capodice:
But the thing was it was against the law to take lottery tickets across state lines back to where they lived. So New Hampshire found a workaround.

Kevin Flynn:
So what New Hampshire did in order to sort of get around the Gambling Paraphernalia Act was that the tickets would stay in New Hampshire. People would get a carbon copy like a receipt. They called it an acknowledgment, so it would prove to somebody that, yes, they had purchased the ticket and you couldn't have put somebody else's name. You couldn't resell the ticket. But the actual ticket, the one that would be drawn, would stay in New Hampshire.

Nick Capodice:
And this actually ended up in the United States Supreme Court in a case called U.S. V. Fabrizio. Anthony L. Fabrizio, the appellee, knowingly carried in interstate commerce from Keene, New Hampshire, to Elmira, New York. Seventy five acknowledgments of purchase on a sweepstakes race of the state of New Hampshire, and he lost that Supreme Court appeal.

Kevin Flynn:
I found out later on that it was common knowledge that there was at least one U.S. Supreme Court justice who had purchased a sweepstakes ticket at the time that they heard the case.

Hannah McCarthy:
Seriously.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy:
Do you know which one.

Nick Capodice:
I can't say, Hannah.

Kevin Flynn:
I can't tell you which one. I can't tell you which one, but you'll know him when you see him. If you're picking up what I'm putting down.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right, so once New Hampshire has the ball rolling, what is the next state to follow suit?

Nick Capodice:
The New Hampshire sweepstakes was a bit of a strange one-off. The Empire State came next. Here's Matthew Vaz again.

Matthew Vaz:
But in New York, which is the second lottery and becomes much more of a kind of national template, right? Because when New York does something, the rest of the country pays close attention. That that debate in New York, which happens over the course of nineteen sixty five and sixty six, is much more centered around the problem of illegal gambling.

Nick Capodice:
New York legalizes the lottery in nineteen sixty six and then a bunch of other states do the same, but they can't compete with these illegal numbers games that we talked about earlier. And one of the reasons is is that unlike the numbers game in the lottery, you couldn't pick your own numbers. That was it. You couldn't pick birthdays or holidays or your kids age.

Hannah McCarthy:
We're such a superstitious bunch.

Matthew Vaz:
Essentially, these state lotteries don't rest until they figure out how to get to that numbers clientele, and it takes them a number of years as New Jersey that first figures out the technology, right? Like, how do we set up something that will allow people a network that allows people to guess the number rather than just receive the number? That first New Jersey game was called pick-it

archival:
until then. This is Dick LaRosa saying Thanks for watching and playing Pickit

Nick Capodice:
And Matthew told me the lottery was a pretty sleepy thing for 13 years until they indeed did figure out a way to let people pick numbers after which sales quadrupled in four years. And here we are.

archival:
In the United States, tens of millions of people are clinging to a little piece of paper and a lot of hope. That's because tonight someone could become hundreds of millions of dollars richer.

Hannah McCarthy:
Are there still local numbers games, albeit underground in cities?

Nick Capodice:
There are not much, honestly. And part of that is due to the astronomical payout of the big lotteries. How can six hundred dollars compared to 600 million?

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, I've always wondered this, and I'm going to guess that the answer is fairly straightforward, but in terms of those massive payouts? How is that possible? Like, how much money does the lottery itself actually make? Because you have to staff this operation, right?

Nick Capodice:
I have some stats from 2015. So first, as a comparison, corporate income taxes in 2015 generated forty nine billion dollars. State lotteries generated $67 billion dollars.

Hannah McCarthy:
And did all of that money go back into the states?

Nick Capodice:
No, not all of it. And this answers your question. Forty two billion went into prizes. That's how they have such big jackpots. Three billion went to advertising and administration of the lottery, leaving about $21 billion that went back into the states.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now where does that money go? I've heard that the lottery supports, for example, education in a lot of states.

Nick Capodice:
Did you ever see The Simpsons where there's like, it's like a massive lottery?

archival:
One big winner. Our state school system, which gets fully half the profits from the lottery. Just think what we can buy with that money. History books that know how the Korean War came out. Math books that don't have that basic 6 crap in them.

Matthew Vaz:
Oh yeah, it can be argued both ways, right? And you know, I would say to you that that it varies state to state. Ok. Different states have a different arrangement for where that money goes in New York. There is a fallacy that it goes to education. Well, only in the most only and the most sort of symbolic sense does it go to education. Which is to say the state education budget in New York is determined by a formula. Right?

Nick Capodice:
As a hypothetical Hannah with wildly inaccurate numbers, let's say New York set its education budget at a million dollars and the lottery has a great year and has $750000 left over.

Matthew Vaz:
That doesn't mean that the state is now going to give one million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards education. The state is still just going to give a million dollars to education, but the lottery had a big, huge year, and that means that if we take now, we can take that seven hundred fifty thousand dollars that came in for the lottery and we're moving from education and just spend it elsewhere in the budget, right? The phrasing is it's a substitute, not a supplement

Kevin Flynn:
In nineteen sixty four. New Hampshire made five point seven million dollars, selling three dollar sweepstakes tickets. Right before the sweepstakes, New Hampshire was the forty fifth state as far as money that the state put towards education. And then, after the sweepstakes, New Hampshire was forty fifth among 50 states as to what it put towards local education.

Matthew Vaz:
Furthermore, once something becomes a kind of structural element of the budget, then it cannot be reduced, right? The only way to reduce it is to cut the good itself, the schools or the hospitals or whatever it's supporting, which nobody wants right or to continue to support schools and hospitals where there's only one way to do that and that is taxes, right? And you see how literally impossible it is. Raising taxes is is a blood sport in American politics, so you are in effect, committing yourself.

Hannah McCarthy:
I know the odds of winning a big jackpot are slim, but just for curiosity's sake, how slim are we talking? How far am I from becoming a multibillionaire?

Nick Capodice:
There was a Big Mega Millions jackpot in Florida in January of twenty twenty one. It was $750 million. The odds of winning it are one in three hundred and two million. Statistically, you are ten times more likely to become the president of the United States than that. But that sum, that number, that staggering sum, you can't ignore that kind of a payout.

Matthew Vaz:
I'm drawn in by the magnetism of this vast, obscene sum of money that has attracted me to this game. And so I'll play my dollar right. And lottery executives used to use the joke is like most, most players think, there's really the odds are 50 50. Either I win or I don't write, you know? You know, and in some ways, that is a kind of true feeling of, Hey, let me try, you know, either I win or I don't write. And you know it, it speaks to a kind of mentality for how we organize our society. Like, are we all just sort of slowly kind of taking our turn, winning a modest sum of money? Or are we willing to sort of assume that we're never going to win on the infinitesimal chance that if we do, we're going to be hyper rich?

Nick Capodice:
There is an expression that lotteries are quote a tax on the poor, and I don't want to go too much into that expression, but I want to make two points related to it. First, yes, Americans and lower income brackets spend more money on lottery tickets. But second, these games are marketed towards people with less money. The ads for lotteries are not aimed at wealthy Americans, and their slogans are things like New York Lotto. All you need is a dollar and a dream. A survey from 2006 found that one in three Americans who make less than twenty five thousand a year think the lottery represents the most practical way for them to accumulate significant savings.

Matthew Vaz:
You know, it speaks to like our ideas about distribution of of of wealth and inequality. It's like, Look, I'd rather have. I'll skip having a decent chance of winning a modest sum in favor of having an infinitesimally small chance of having a grossly outrageously large sum of know six hundred and seventy million dollars, right? And it tracks very closely with the with the time period of like where inequality becomes a disaster in American life since the late nineteen seventies.

Hannah McCarthy:
That fantasy that you won't win enough money to just pay off your student loans or put a down payment on a car, but you'll win enough to buy an island and a helicopter to get you to that island and all of that because you spent a dollar on a lottery ticket. I mean, nonexistent odds are not. That is a tempting dream.

Nick Capodice:
And back to the civics part, for state budgets, this influx of cash from people buying these lottery chances, these fantasies. It is a dream come true. You know what, if I could just add one more tidbit that I find fascinating? I'd forgotten completely about this. The people who win those massive jackpots, they end up having to pay about 37 percent of their winnings back to state and federal government for income tax.

Kevin Flynn:
If you want to say gambling is bad for individuals, can't necessarily argue that, but the people really addicted to lotteries are the states that run them that rely on the revenue. They're the ones who are really addicted to the lottery.

Old Man Warner:
There's always been a lottery.

Nick Capodice:
That's it. Did any of you out there get Kevin's sly hint as to which Supreme Court Justice bought a ticket? Brag at us on Twitter at Civics 101 Pod? I'm going to put the answer in this week's newsletter, which you can subscribe to at civics101podcast.org. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with You Hannah McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy:
Thank you. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and NHPR's very own Golden Octopus Music.

Nick Capodice:
Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions, Sir Cubworth, Tracky Birthday, ProleteR, Moore and Gardner, Metre, Ari Di Nero, and the Soni Venetum Wind Quintet.

Hannah McCarthy:
Civic's 101 is a production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

Nick Capodice:
Lottery!

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including advanced search, share transcripts, automated transcription, automated subtitles, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

 

Transcript

Nick Capodice: And a quick note before this episode on the lottery, which is one of those things you think isn't really a civics topic, but then it ends up being very much a civics topic. Uh, I want to jump in and share with you all that we have done over two hundred and fifty episodes of Civics 101. And it feels like we haven't even scratched the surface. There are dozens of departments Supreme Court decisions, cabinet positions, legislative powers that need to be explored. [00:00:30] This show was created to address your questions about our government, how it works, but we need listener support to answer those questions. Make your year end tax deductible donation at Civics101podcast.org and you'll receive a very snazzy civic sticker, as well as our eternal thanks. Help us at Civics 101 Demonstrate and HPR that a show like ours with a cause like ours is a worthy investment. All right, onto the episode.

OPEN: There's [00:01:00] always been a lottery.Do we agree with old man Warner that The lottery should be continued simply because there's always been one? As Oklahomans try to strike it rich? They also invest in Oklahoma's future? Or do we object with Tessie that the whole thing just isn't fair, Isn't right? And so people who buy tickets thinking, Hey, I'm helping education, do you think they're really doing as much as they think they are? They they believe they are, but they're absolutely not benefiting education. Whatever [00:01:30] else Shirley Jackson has done in her story, she has certainly given us a memorable image…

Hannah McCarthy: We're not talking about that lottery, are we, Nick?

Nick Capodice: Well, as every English teacher in America knows Hannah. The morning of June 27 was clear and sunny with the fresh warmth of a full summer day.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, I'm going to put the kibosh on Shirley Jackson from the outset, although I will say that short story is all about hyper local government. But I do want to ask you with all seriousness, what does buying [00:02:00] a ticket and maybe winning millions of dollars have to do with U.S. governmental systems? Why are we doing a civics episode on the lottery?

Kevin Flynn: Because I'm an awesome guy. No, that isn't the right answer.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait is that Kevin?

Nick Capodice: It is. I'll let him introduce himself here.

Kevin Flynn: My name's Kevin Flynn. I'm a former journalist and author, and I wrote the book American Sweepstakes; How One Small State Bucked the Church, The Feds and the Mob to usher in the lottery [00:02:30] age.

Nick Capodice: So we've got to do a whole mess of full disclosure here. Kevin Flynn is indeed a writer, podcast host, TV and radio journalist

Hannah McCarthy: And dear friend.

Nick Capodice: And.

Hannah McCarthy: And he's married to our executive producer, Rebecca Lavoie.

Nick Capodice: He sure is. But we were in a civics one one production meeting, talking about the lottery and its intersection with the government, and we learned that Kevin had written a book on it. And so we had to have him on the show.

Hannah McCarthy: All right now, we got that out of the way. Did he give a reason on why civics [00:03:00] listeners should be interested in the lottery?

Kevin Flynn: It's a great question. The lottery is just a big part of state government these days.

Hannah McCarthy: How big?

Nick Capodice: Big, real big. You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy

Nick Capodice: and today we are talking about the U.S. lottery. How it started, ended, started again. How much money it makes and where that money goes.

Hannah McCarthy: Now, Kevin said lottery is a big part of state government, [00:03:30] but does every state in the U.S. have one?

Nick Capodice: Almost almost. Mississippi was the most recent state to adopt a lottery. They started selling tickets in 2020.

archival: Scratch off tickets for the very first time, And Mississippians can take a shot at winning without Having to leave the state.

Nick Capodice: Five states do not have a lottery. Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, Alabama and Nevada.

Hannah McCarthy: So when did this all start? Like, what was the first lottery?

Kevin Flynn: Oh, we have always had lotteries [00:04:00] in civilization, right? Lotteries go back to the Bible, right? In the Old Testament. It was, you know, casting lots was the way that a lot of times the the will of God was divined. King Saul was selected because of a drawing of lots. Do you remember when the apostles were down a man where they were down to 11 guys for some reason?

Hannah McCarthy: Down a man, [00:04:30] as in after Judas Iscariot died?

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Nick Capodice: There were two candidates to become the new Twelfth Apostle, and they cast lots, it means they threw sticks of different lengths on the ground to see who it would be, and it ended up being Mathias. And OK. That's more Bible than civics 101 has ever had. And maybe it's just so I could use clips from Jesus Christ Superstar.

You want me to do it!

Nick Capodice: But let's move on.

Kevin Flynn: The Great Wall of China was [00:05:00] financed some repairs that were financed by the Chinese for an early version of Keno. I think they called it the the white pigeon game.

Nick Capodice: The roads to Rome, Hannah, were paid for by raffles. And to finally wend our way towards America. The Jamestown settlement in Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in the Americas, was financed with a lottery.

Hannah McCarthy: You're kidding me

Kevin Flynn: So you could say America really is, you know, the the child of a lottery. Part of the Continental [00:05:30] Army was financed through a lottery. George Washington wanted to raise $10 million to pay for the Revolutionary War in the Continental Army through a lottery. So, you know, it was always it's something that's been around, you know, since since people had money.

Nick Capodice: I want to add, by the way, that lottery in 1776 to help pay for the Revolutionary War failed utterly. They didn't come even close to raising enough money. [00:06:00] Congress printed a hundred thousand tickets, but they only sold around 30000. So to pay for the war, they just printed a bunch of money instead and borrowed a lot from France. But what's important is that it set a precedent for other lotteries in our new country to help pay for infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Hannah McCarthy: All right now, this is where it starts to become a civics conversation, right? Armies, roads and general infrastructure costs usually fall into the purview of government expenses. [00:06:30] So why is a lottery involved at all?

Nick Capodice: A lottery is a way to get money for something when you don't have the power or the political interest to tax people. If you want to build a covered bridge and you don't have the money in your state budget to do it. Having a lottery to build that bridge where the winner gets some of the money from the lottery tickets and the rest goes to building the bridge; that might get you reelected, whereas raising taxes might not. So [00:07:00] from our nation's founding up to the eighteen forties over the whole United States, hundreds and hundreds of lotteries were springing up to pay for stuff. And when you have a lot of lotteries, you start to also get a lot of rigging of lotteries to pick winners.

Kevin Flynn: So it's just, you know, when you deal with a lot of cash like that, you know, sharpies are going to come in and do what they do. That's a lot of sugar. Nick, there's a lot of sugar there. It's funny because, you know, let's go to like the the mid eighteen hundreds. [00:07:30] Lotteries ended up getting kind of a stink on them in in public, not illegal, but in a nation where cockfighting and duels and poker games are considered gentlemanly. It was lotteries that, you know, started to get a bad name, in part because no, no poor person ever died in a duel. Right? That was that was the lotteries ended up democratizing gambling.

Hannah McCarthy: So [00:08:00] rich folks are gambling left and right. But the one form of gambling that working class Americans can participate in gets a bit of stigma.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and is often the case. In these instances, somebody just went a little too far. The biggest lottery in America in the 19th century was called the Louisiana Lottery Company, and it was huge. It was nicknamed the Golden Octopus. Its hands were everywhere. People all over [00:08:30] the country played it. Over half of the mail in New Orleans was lottery tickets. And what the company did is they paid 40 grand each year to a charity hospital, and they got to keep the rest of their profits tax free. There was a staggering amount of corruption. Bribes got paid to reps in state and federal legislatures all over the country. So in response, the federal government passed a bill banning the sale of lottery tickets in the mail. So the Louisiana lottery company moved to Honduras. And finally, in eighteen ninety five, all [00:09:00] lotteries in the United States were banned. And that's it.

Hannah McCarthy: This is making me think of prohibition. Ok, right? You've got something that's legal. Highly profitable. Very popular, very prevalent. And then it's made illegal. And I would say that just with booze, but with a lot of things in history, what history has shown us is that when you then make it illegal, it rarely, if ever actually goes away.

Nick Capodice: Naturally.

Hannah McCarthy: And I know that [00:09:30] the lottery didn't go away because I grew up in Massachusetts, and I know that I can walk outside and I can buy a ticket. So how did we get from the banning of the golden octopus to lotteries being run in most states?

Nick Capodice: We get there via something called the numbers.

Matthew Vaz: OK. You know, once upon a time, it's not a good way to start, right?

Nick Capodice: I counter that once upon a time is always a good way to start. And this is Matthew [00:10:00] Vaz. He's a professor at City College of New York, and he wrote a fascinating book called Running the Numbers, Race Police and the History of Urban Gambling. So once upon a time, there was a popular illegal game called policy,

Matthew Vaz: And it involved betting on several two digit numbers between one and seventy two. The odds are a little complicated, but it offered a way to make a small bet on a number [00:10:30] of guess and come out with a decent amount of money. If you win, you could bet a dollar, and maybe in some situations you could win two hundred dollars. But the winning numbers were generated by the spinning of a wheel, so to speak, and maybe sort of draw out almost like a pulling a ping pong ball out of a barrel kind of a thing.

Nick Capodice: But the problem with policy was that like all lotteries beforehand, they could be rigged. The person picking out the ping pong ball could cheat and grab one with their friend's number on it. And they did. But [00:11:00] a new system was born in Harlem in the 1920s,

Matthew Vaz: And most people believe that it was a man named Caspar Holstein, who was an immigrant to New York from the West Indies, developed a new method for arriving at winning numbers. He came up with a game that is typically called the numbers that involves placing a bet or on a guess of what the last three digits before the decimal point will be in [00:11:30] a massive number generated by some far off uncontrollable institution. And so what they initially use was was an institution called the New York Clearinghouse, right? It's a financial institution that sort of clears money from different banks, and millions of dollars would pass through it every day.

Nick Capodice: And at the end of the day, they'd publish how much money went through that clearinghouse. And the last three digits of that number were the winning numbers.

Matthew Vaz: So we could say today 12 million four hundred and eighty three thousand two hundred and twenty one dollars and sixty nine cents [00:12:00] pass through here. And the last three digits before the decimal point were two one two two one, right? And that's a number that no man on the street can manipulate or control it. And it is in essence, almost a random number, right?

Nick Capodice: You'd make your bet with a numbers runner and this is important. You would pick what your numbers were. People chose lucky birthdays, favorite numbers, holidays, whatever, the odds are one in a thousand that you'll win, and the payout was usually 600 bucks for a dollar bet.

Matthew Vaz: And it becomes a very, [00:12:30] very popular form of gambling first in the Black communities of New York. It displaces that older policy game. People basically abandoned playing that because this game is simpler. The payouts are better and it in effect cannot be rigged, right? It cannot be manipulated. And it becomes popular in most of the major cities along the East Coast, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Baltimore. And eventually it spreads well beyond the Black communities of those cities and becomes popular among working class whites. Organized [00:13:00] crime figures start to muscle in on the game, particularly after prohibition is over, and there's a kind of violent contestation over who's going to control the game. Is it going to be the mafia or is it going to be Black gamblers that had set up this game initially?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, this I remember from our episode on Mapp v Ohio Right that somebody bombed Don King's home in Cleveland, Ohio, over a fight to control the numbers racket. But I also remember and we talked about this when we were making that episode that the numbers were about community [00:13:30] institutions.

Nick Capodice: Right, right. The people who ran the numbers, they lived there in those neighborhoods, in that community, and the payout, it wasn't a million dollars and it wasn't two dollars, it was six hundred dollars. And the reason I bring that up is Matthew asked me if I'd ever won two bucks on a scratch ticket, which I have

Matthew Vaz: If you win that four dollars or that $2 prize. What are you going to do with it?

Nick Capodice: What are you going to do with it?

Hannah McCarthy: Probably buy more scratch tickets.

Matthew Vaz: You're [00:14:00] going to buy two more. Exactly right. It's like, Oh, nice, I want give me two more of those, right? But if you're playing with old fashioned numbers game and you win six hundred dollars, what are you going to do with that, right? Something, you know, something better. It's something... You're going to catch up on your bills or whatever it is. You know, it's going to move you along a little bit.

Hannah McCarthy: I imagine that state legislatures which had this history of using gambling to fund projects, we're taking a good hard look [00:14:30] at the numbers, games and asking, how can we get some of that?

Nick Capodice: How can we get some of that, as Kevin would say, how can we get some of that sugar, which they certainly did, but it wasn't going to be an easy road to that pot of municipal gold. We'll get to the legalization of lottery and where the money goes right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy: But first, if you want a lotto fun extra civics tidbits in your life, subscribe to our newsletter Extra credit. It's every two weeks, and since it's free, it's not even a gamble. [00:15:00] Just click the newsletter button at our website civics101podcast.org.

Hannah McCarthy: We're back and you're listening to civics one on one now, just a quick reminder that our show depends on the generosity of our listeners to keep running and instead of us having a lottery, we just ask that you donate whatever you feel is fair at civics101podcast.org. The odds are not the same that you will win a mega million jackpot, [00:15:30] but they're almost the same. And speaking of a mega million jackpot, Nick, how did we get from a federally banned activity to a pastime in which millions of Americans participate?

Nick Capodice: The shift to a legal lotto starts in nineteen sixty three in a state famously opposed to taxes, none other than the home state of Civics 101, New Hampshire. Here's Kevin Flynn again.

Kevin Flynn: Well, in New Hampshire, there was [00:16:00] a there was a state representative named Larry Pickett who thought that a great way to raise money for state causes was would be to hold a sweepstakes, and it was finally signed into law by Governor John King. And this immediately set off a whole bunch of reaction in the state and across the country.

Hannah McCarthy: Wait, so the lottery was illegal federally?

Nick Capodice: Yes, it was.

Hannah McCarthy: So is this kind of akin to states [00:16:30] across the country decriminalizing marijuana, even though at the federal level it's still a Schedule one drug and totally illegal?

Nick Capodice: Hannah, that analogy to marijuana legalization is more apt than you can possibly imagine because and I'm going to try to make this quick You and I can't really understand just how scandalous it was for a state to legalize the lottery in the U.S., the FBI was involved. It was considered a national moral outrage. And to jump to the present, the path towards [00:17:00] marijuana legalization, from the blatant racial disparity of who got arrested for it to the national outcry against it and states discovering how much money can be made from it, taxing it to it, becoming legal in many states to purchase. But in some of them, you've got to pay for it in cash. Every bit of it is note for note out of the lottery legalization playbook. But back to New Hampshire in the nineteen sixties, one way they got around it is that it wasn't a lottery per say. Even though we're going to call [00:17:30] it one, it was technically a sweepstakes.

archival: The race is incidental to the sweeps excitement that has raised two and a half million dollars for New Hampshire's educational system.

Nick Capodice: So instead of drawing a number on a ping pong ball and winning some money, a sweepstakes ticket holder was paired to one of two hundred and thirty two racehorses. And if that horse was picked to run in a race and then that horse won that race, you won a bunch of cash. And people across the country [00:18:00] freaked out.

Kevin Flynn: Well, the lottery ended up being a big scandal, and almost every newspaper in the state was against it. They had like some really great quotes, and this is where I hope the folks from Civics 101 get a montage together of people reading these headlines like old timey newspaper people like now. Be a good time to start playing that music, Nick. I'm just I'm just like setting you up to spike this ball. Ok?

archival: As either New Hampshire [00:18:30] Uncle Sam so hard up that this shabby dodge is the only way out. What's happening in New Hampshire at the hands of politicians shouldn't happen to a dog. Scandalous experiment. Moral bankruptcy.

Nick Capodice: There was one quote that was in favor of the lottery in New Hampshire. It's by the newspaper publisher Bill Loeb, who said, "No one has to go to the track and bet, no one has to smoke tobacco. No one has to drink. But how do those who oppose the sweepstakes propose to raise the money, either a sales tax [00:19:00] or property tax or some other kind of levy that people will have to pay?" And New Hampshire did it. They sold lottery tickets, and people from all over the country came to New Hampshire to buy them.

Hannah McCarthy: That's how much the country wanted a lottery.

Nick Capodice: But the thing was it was against the law to take lottery tickets across state lines back to where they lived. So New Hampshire found a workaround.

Kevin Flynn: So what New Hampshire did in order to sort of get around the Gambling Paraphernalia Act was [00:19:30] that the tickets would stay in New Hampshire. People would get a carbon copy like a receipt. They called it an acknowledgment, so it would prove to somebody that, yes, they had purchased the ticket and you couldn't have put somebody else's name. You couldn't resell the ticket. But the actual ticket, the one that would be drawn, would stay in New Hampshire.

Nick Capodice: And this actually ended up in the United States Supreme Court in a case called U.S. V. Fabrizio. Anthony L. Fabrizio, the appellee, knowingly [00:20:00] carried in interstate commerce from Keene, New Hampshire, to Elmira, New York. Seventy five acknowledgments of purchase on a sweepstakes race of the state of New Hampshire, and he lost that Supreme Court appeal.

Kevin Flynn: I found out later on that it was common knowledge that there was at least one U.S. Supreme Court justice who had purchased a sweepstakes ticket at the time that they heard the case.

Hannah McCarthy: Seriously.

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: Do you know which one.

Nick Capodice: I can't say, Hannah.

Kevin Flynn: I can't tell [00:20:30] you which one. I can't tell you which one, but you'll know him when you see him. If you're picking up what I'm putting down.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so once New Hampshire has the ball rolling, what is the next state to follow suit?

Nick Capodice: The New Hampshire sweepstakes was a bit of a strange one-off. The Empire State came next. Here's Matthew Vaz again.

Matthew Vaz: But in New York, which is the second lottery and becomes much more of a kind of national template, right? Because when New York does something, the rest of the country pays close attention. That that debate [00:21:00] in New York, which happens over the course of nineteen sixty five and sixty six, is much more centered around the problem of illegal gambling.

Nick Capodice: New York legalizes the lottery in nineteen sixty six and then a bunch of other states do the same, but they can't compete with these illegal numbers games that we talked about earlier. And one of the reasons is is that unlike the numbers game in the lottery, you couldn't pick your own numbers. That was it. You couldn't [00:21:30] pick birthdays or holidays or your kids age.

Hannah McCarthy: We're such a superstitious bunch.

Matthew Vaz: Essentially, these state lotteries don't rest until they figure out how to get to that numbers clientele, and it takes them a number of years as New Jersey that first figures out the technology, right? Like, how do we set up something that will allow people a network that allows people to guess the number rather than just receive the number? That first New Jersey game was called pick-it

archival: until then. This is Dick LaRosa saying Thanks for watching [00:22:00] and playing Pickit

Nick Capodice: And Matthew told me the lottery was a pretty sleepy thing for 13 years until they indeed did figure out a way to let people pick numbers after which sales quadrupled in four years. And here we are.

archival: In the United States, tens of millions of people are clinging to a little piece of paper and a lot of hope. That's because tonight someone could become hundreds of millions [00:22:30] of dollars richer.

Hannah McCarthy: Are there still local numbers games, albeit underground in cities?

Nick Capodice: There are not much, honestly. And part of that is due to the astronomical payout of the big lotteries. How can six hundred dollars compared to 600 million?

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, I've always wondered this, and I'm going to guess that the answer is fairly straightforward, but in terms of those massive payouts? How is that possible? Like, how much money does the lottery itself actually make? Because you have to staff this operation, [00:23:00] right?

Nick Capodice: I have some stats from 2015. So first, as a comparison, corporate income taxes in 2015 generated forty nine billion dollars. State lotteries generated $67 billion dollars.

Hannah McCarthy: And did all of that money go back into the states?

Nick Capodice: No, not all of it. And this answers your question. Forty two billion went into prizes. That's how they have such big jackpots. Three billion went to advertising and administration of the lottery, leaving about $21 [00:23:30] billion that went back into the states.

Hannah McCarthy: Now where does that money go? I've heard that the lottery supports, for example, education in a lot of states.

Nick Capodice: Did you ever see The Simpsons where there's like, it's like a massive lottery?

archival: One big winner. Our state school system, which gets fully half the profits from the lottery. Just think what we can buy with that money. History books that know how the Korean War came out. Math books that don't have that basic 6 crap in them.

Matthew Vaz: Oh yeah, it can be argued both ways, right? And you know, I would say to you that that it [00:24:00] varies state to state. Ok. Different states have a different arrangement for where that money goes in New York. There is a fallacy that it goes to education. Well, only in the most only and the most sort of symbolic sense does it go to education. Which is to say the state education budget in New York is determined by a formula. Right?

Nick Capodice: As a hypothetical Hannah with wildly inaccurate numbers, let's say New York set its education [00:24:30] budget at a million dollars and the lottery has a great year and has $750000 left over.

Matthew Vaz: That doesn't mean that the state is now going to give one million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards education. The state is still just going to give a million dollars to education, but the lottery had a big, huge year, and that means that if we take now, we can take that seven hundred fifty thousand dollars that came in for the lottery and we're moving from education and just spend it elsewhere in the budget, right? [00:25:00] The phrasing is it's a substitute, not a supplement

Kevin Flynn: In nineteen sixty four. New Hampshire made five point seven million dollars, selling three dollar sweepstakes tickets. Right before the sweepstakes, New Hampshire was the forty fifth state as far as money that the state put towards education. And then, after the sweepstakes, New Hampshire was forty fifth among 50 states as to what it put towards local education.

Matthew Vaz: Furthermore, [00:25:30] once something becomes a kind of structural element of the budget, then it cannot be reduced, right? The only way to reduce it is to cut the good itself, the schools or the hospitals or whatever it's supporting, which nobody wants right or to continue to support schools and hospitals where there's only one way to do that and that is taxes, right? And you see how literally impossible it is. Raising taxes is is a [00:26:00] blood sport in American politics, so you are in effect, committing yourself.

Hannah McCarthy: I know the odds of winning a big jackpot are slim, but just for curiosity's sake, how slim are we talking? How far am I from becoming a multibillionaire?

Nick Capodice: There was a Big Mega Millions jackpot in Florida in January of twenty twenty one. It was $750 million. The odds of winning it are one in three hundred and two million. Statistically, you are ten times more likely to [00:26:30] become the president of the United States than that. But that sum, that number, that staggering sum, you can't ignore that kind of a payout.

Matthew Vaz: I'm drawn in by the magnetism of this vast, obscene sum of money that has attracted me to this game. And so I'll play my dollar right. And lottery executives used to use the joke is like most, most players think, there's really the odds are 50 50. Either I win or [00:27:00] I don't write, you know? You know, and in some ways, that is a kind of true feeling of, Hey, let me try, you know, either I win or I don't write. And you know it, it speaks to a kind of mentality for how we organize our society. Like, are we all just sort of slowly kind of taking our turn, winning a modest sum of money? Or are we willing to sort of assume that we're never going to win on the infinitesimal chance that if we do, we're going to be hyper rich? [00:27:30]

Nick Capodice: There is an expression that lotteries are quote a tax on the poor, and I don't want to go too much into that expression, but I want to make two points related to it. First, yes, Americans and lower income brackets spend more money on lottery tickets. But second, these games are marketed towards people with less money. The ads for lotteries are not aimed at wealthy Americans, and their slogans are things like New [00:28:00] York Lotto. All you need is a dollar and a dream. A survey from 2006 found that one in three Americans who make less than twenty five thousand a year think the lottery represents the most practical way for them to accumulate significant savings.

Matthew Vaz: You know, it speaks to like our ideas about distribution of of of wealth and inequality. It's like, Look, I'd rather have. I'll skip having a decent chance of winning a modest sum in favor of having an [00:28:30] infinitesimally small chance of having a grossly outrageously large sum of know six hundred and seventy million dollars, right? And it tracks very closely with the with the time period of like where inequality becomes a disaster in American life since the late nineteen seventies.

Hannah McCarthy: That fantasy that you won't win enough money to just pay off your student loans or put a down payment on a car, but you'll win enough to buy an island and a [00:29:00] helicopter to get you to that island and all of that because you spent a dollar on a lottery ticket. I mean, nonexistent odds are not. That is a tempting dream.

Nick Capodice: And back to the civics part, for state budgets, this influx of cash from people buying these lottery chances, these fantasies. It is a dream come true. You know what, if I could just add one more tidbit that I find fascinating? I'd forgotten completely about this. The people who win those massive [00:29:30] jackpots, they end up having to pay about 37 percent of their winnings back to state and federal government for income tax.

Kevin Flynn: If you want to say gambling is bad for individuals, can't necessarily argue that, but the people really addicted to lotteries are the states that run them that rely on the revenue. They're the ones who are really addicted to the lottery.

[00:30:00]

Old Man Warner: There's always been a lottery.

Nick Capodice: That's it. Did any of you out there get Kevin's sly hint as to which Supreme Court Justice bought a ticket? Brag at us on Twitter at Civics 101 Pod? I'm going to put the answer in this week's newsletter, which you can subscribe to at civics101podcast.org. [00:30:30] Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with You Hannah McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: Thank you. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and NHPR's very own Golden Octopus Music.

Nick Capodice: Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions, Sir Cubworth, Tracky Birthday, ProleteR, Moore and Gardner, Metre, Ari Di Nero, and the Soni Venetum Wind Quintet.

Hannah McCarthy: Civic's 101 is a production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

Nick Capodice: Lottery!


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Federal Holidays

Of the hundreds of reasons to celebrate and reflect in this country, the United States government has made only twelve of them official federal holidays. What does that actually mean, how does it happen and who gets the day off? Our guides to the holidays are Jeff Bensch, author of History of American Holidays and JerriAnne Boggis, Executive Director of the Black Heritage Trail of New Hampshire.

 

Transcript

Nick Capodice: Where are you, Taylor? Oh, terrible giants. Admit someone wants to join this call. Taylor Quimby. Hello.

 

Hey. Everybody, this is my friend, Taylor Taylor Quimby. Can you tell everyone what you do with NHPR?

 

Taylor Quimby: I'm the senior producer for outside/in our sort of

 

Taylor Quimby: Show about the outdoors.

 

Nick Capodice: So I just got a tweet outside in radio, [00:00:30] just tweeted, We're one of the staple podcasts. In fact, we're the podcast sorry @Civics101pod of Nhpr. Did you write that tweet?

 

Taylor Quimby: Uh huh..

 

Nick Capodice: Oh, Taylor,

 

Taylor Quimby: What.

 

Taylor Quimby: Don't tell me that you are a You aren't a little competitive, Mr. Nick Capodice.

 

Nick Capodice: Ok, fair enough. Maybe I'm one of the most competitive people in the world. I do know our higher ups are trying to foster some healthy competition between the two of us. And [00:01:00] I will rise to that challenge. But I do want to say this outside in is a tremendous show that is worthy of your support. So, yes. Go to Civics101podcast.org. Click Donate. We'll send you a snazzy sticker to put on your laptop or your water bottle, but do listen to outside end. You can do that it outside and radio talk or you know what they say in the business.

 

Taylor Quimby: What do we say.

 

Nick Capodice: Wherever you get your podcasts.

 

Taylor Quimby: Oh yeah, yeah. I get my podcast by mail.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, [00:01:30] you know, when you're a journalist, that tends to mean spending every morning clicking through about a dozen or so press releases just to clean out your

 

Nick Capodice: Inbox, yeah, there's a guy who was an extra in Pirates of the Caribbean who I get an email about, like once a month, who's got got an opinion to share about something.

 

Hannah McCarthy: I feel like you should interview him.

 

Nick Capodice: I Should.

 

Hannah McCarthy: You just consider it and at least a few times a month, it's something like we hope you're planning to cover a National Diatomaceous Earth Day or National Clean Out Your Virtual Desktop Day.

 

Nick Capodice: Last week, I [00:02:00] got one that was like, Hey, we know, you know, it's National Peppermint Bark Day.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Everybody knows.

 

Nick Capodice: Here's what you should be doing to cover it, and if we have these experts to talk about it, if you're interested.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And I'm always like, who came down from on high and decided that it was National Bubble Wrap Appreciation Day.

 

Nick Capodice: I'm going to blame big bubble wrap for that one. Bunch of bubble wrap moguls sitting on their bubble wrap, thrones popping their product.

 

Hannah McCarthy: I have looked into it. Some of these micro holidays, a term that I stole [00:02:30] from Atlantic writer Megan Garber, are manufactured by industries to sell things. You're right. Now some are, to my mind, legitimate reminders that draw awareness to illness or social problems or important events. I'm cool with that, and some are just nonsense that has made its way onto the internet like National Walk Around Things Day.

 

Nick Capodice: Is that real?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. Well, I mean, what do you mean? Is it real? None of this is real, and I can only assume the point [00:03:00] of National Walk Around Things Day is to celebrate the act of walking around things.

 

Nick Capodice: I had no idea you were so passionate about this.

 

Hannah McCarthy: I think it's the arbitrariness. It's not grounded in anything. Or maybe the excuse for selling stuff also really bothers me. Or maybe Nick, maybe five years of National French Dip Day press releases finally broke me.

 

Nick Capodice: You're going to forgive me, Hannah. But aren't all holidays made up? I mean, somebody at some point says, [00:03:30] this is the special day. Everybody take your kid to the doctor in a red wheelbarrow and eat some plums because it's William Carlos Williams Day.

 

Hannah McCarthy: You wait, you'll get a press release for that tomorrow. But I take your point. Yes, all holidays have to start somewhere. But some holidays really go somewhere. There are holidays that are far more significant, far more real, if you will. So today, to cleanse the palate, Nick, we are going to talk about the holidays [00:04:00] that rise all the way up to the powers that be, who proclaim them to be real, who make them official. This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

 

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice,

 

Hannah McCarthy: And today we are covering the 12 count them only 12 federal holidays on the United States calendar.

 

Nick Capodice: There's only 12.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Only 12.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And this is the how and the why of becoming official.

 

Nick Capodice: Right, [00:04:30] and just to start, I want to clarify, calling something a national holiday does not make it a federal holiday.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Correct. In actual fact, the United States does not have national holidays the way that some other countries do.

 

Nick Capodice: Well, what do you mean?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Well, you can't have a national holiday in the United States because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to force the 50 states to observe a holiday. [00:05:00]

 

Jeff Bensch: It only applies to federal employees.

 

Hannah McCarthy: This is Jeff Bensch, the author of History of American Holidays

 

Jeff Bensch: And in the early days and only applied to federal employees in Washington, D.C., shortly thereafter applied to all federal employees. And then the banks usually take the day off.

 

Nick Capodice: But this is something I've always wondered Is a bank holiday the same thing as a federal holiday? Like, do banks somehow fall within the federal employee world because they're regulated by the Federal Reserve?

 

Hannah McCarthy: That is a great question. No [00:05:30] banks do not have to close on a federal holiday, but they usually do because they tend to follow the U.S. Federal Reserve calendar. Basically, it's hard to do business when the thing that regulates You takes the day off.

 

Nick Capodice: It seems like we all tend to follow that calendar, though. Like every year, we get a list of paid holidays from New Hampshire Public Radio. And I'm pretty sure it adds up to about 12.

 

Jeff Bensch: Generally, once the federal government declares a holiday, then the states will tend to ratify it afterwards.

 

Hannah McCarthy: A [00:06:00] state holiday is a day made official by state legislatures, and even on these days, with some exceptions from Massachusetts and Rhode Island, private employers are not required to give a paid day off. Sometimes, even a state employer doesn't have to pay a state employee during that day off.

 

Nick Capodice: I feel like this is another tried and true example of how does the civics one on one topic work? And the answer is federalism.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. Per usual, every state can do it differently.

 

Archival: It's a state holiday today, meaning most [00:06:30] government offices will be closed. It's all in remembrance of the Bennington battle...

 

Archival: The state offices in both Alabama and Mississippi are

 

Archival: Closed today for Confederate Memorial Day and for our state. It is one of three. Nevada Day is the best because everybody comes together. Everybody enjoys themselves.

 

Archival: We all have a holiday in Rhode Island and only

 

Archival: In Rhode Island. It's Victory Day, a state holiday that marks the end of World War Two...

 

Jeff Bensch: Well, a couple of holidays, you know, states would resist it after the federal  [00:07:00]throughout history, you know, like Memorial Day, for one, because it started after the Civil War and the southern states were not not into it. It took them a while.

 

Nick Capodice: Actually, this makes me think of New Hampshire in particular. I grew up when this argument was happening. Weren't we the last state in the Union to make Martin Luther King Jr. Day a holiday?

 

Hannah McCarthy: New Hampshire is kind of tied with South Carolina. They made it a holiday in 1999 and under a good deal of protest in the Legislature. [00:07:30] I should add South Carolina state law gave public employers the option of observing either MLK Day or one of three Confederate holidays now that ended in the year 2000, when MLK Day became a compulsory holiday. But just for the record, Confederate holidays are still, albeit quite controversially celebrated in several states in the U.S., including South Carolina.

 

Nick Capodice: Well, that's another prime example of federalism at work, I suppose. State [00:08:00] legislatures can enshrine whatever date they want. I'm thinking, for example, those states that opt not to celebrate Columbus Day and celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day instead, right?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. And that's something that the federal government has also considered doing replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day, which gets to this practice that Jeff mentioned earlier, right, of the federal government copying what a state does. So Labor Day is actually a great example of this.

 

Jeff Bensch: Different labor unions wanted a holiday to celebrate [00:08:30] labor and the eight hour workday and then the 40 hour workweek, and after various strikes and riots before then, different groups had created their own Labor Day.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Oregon was the first state to make Labor Day a legal holiday, and that was an 1887. There were 28 states celebrating Labor Day as a state holiday before Congress finally made it a federal holiday in 1894. And in a case like this, it is not like the federal government was a champion of laborers [00:09:00] or unions.

 

Jeff Bensch: It was a Pullman strike of 1894 that instigated Labor Day, and there the federal troops came in and that railroad strike was big and it spanned many other labor unions. But the federal troops came in and force the workers back to work and arrested a bunch and all that kind of stuff. But then later on that year, the president Cleveland agreed to make a federal holiday, hoping [00:09:30] to win back some of the votes he lost by sending in the federal troops.

 

Nick Capodice: So how does a federal holiday end up being signed by a president? I mean, if it carries the force of law, does it work like a bill? Does it go through the legislative process and get signed by the president at the end?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Well, for one thing, presidents sign observations of holidays all the time. But that doesn't make a federal holiday.

 

Jeff Bensch: You might get

 

Jeff Bensch: A presidential proclamation or executive order [00:10:00] that designates it as a holiday. And usually that might only be for one time or for a short period. It's really not an official holiday until it goes through Congress. It's just like any other law.

 

Hannah McCarthy: The most common argument against a federal holiday at the legislative level, by the way, is money. It costs millions of federal dollars to shut down offices, but still pay employees for the [00:10:30] day.

 

Nick Capodice: And this is another thing where it's like any other bill. It's it's an issue of funding, right? So if all these holidays had to be established by law, that means that when the United States was established as a country, Thanksgiving, for example, was not a federal holiday.

 

Jeff Bensch: There's the act of 1870. There was for holidays, New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.

 

Nick Capodice: Hold on 1870. So it's basically one hundred years [00:11:00] before we had any federal holidays at all.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, the 1870 Act was passed quote to correspond with similar laws of states around the district and in every state of the Union. Loads of states already had Thanksgiving state holidays, albeit on different days. President Lincoln made it the fourth Thursday in November, years before Congress made it a paid holiday for federal employees.

 

Nick Capodice: And real quick, I have to ask. I'm fairly sure Christmas is the only federal holiday that is explicitly a religious holiday, [00:11:30] right? How is that legal? How can a law force the government to celebrate a religious holiday?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I looked into this. There was no significant separation of church and state debate on that 1870 bill when it was in committee, but there has been some debate since it was passed. And one of the best answers I've got is that Christmas passes the lemon test,

 

Nick Capodice: The lemon test. You now have my attention.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Lemon V. Kurtzman 1971. [00:12:00] The Supreme Court establishes a three pronged test for determining whether a statute is in violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster, quote, excessive government entanglement with religion because there are three other holidays that are secular in that act, and because the passage of Christmas is a federal [00:12:30] holiday, in no way compels anybody to practice religion. It merely says the office is closed. Christmas passes.

 

Archival from Lemon v Kurtzman: It contains no religious classification or gerrymander. It is non preferential. It employs essentially religious means to achieve essentially secular ends without any primary effect of advancing religion, inhibiting religion. And I must refer you there to our brief on entanglement because we have had an inadequate opportunity to discuss the [00:13:00] whole question of entanglement.

 

Jeff Bensch: And then 1968t, we had the Uniform Holiday Act, which sometimes the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. So Washington's Birthday Memorial Day, Columbus Day and Veterans Day were all put on on Mondays.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And anybody who reads a fabulous newsletter will know that people were so mad that Veterans Day had been moved from November 11th that it was eventually switched back.

 

Nick Capodice: All right, I've got eight so far, four in the 1870s, four in the 1960s. What [00:13:30] are the other four?

 

Hannah McCarthy: The next holiday to show up is a great example of what being a federal holiday actually means, because this holiday is only celebrated by employees in Washington, DC and only every four years. Any guesses?

 

Nick Capodice: Yeah, but I didn't know this Inauguration Day is a federal holiday.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yep, as of 1957. Then comes Columbus Day in '68. MLK Jr. Day in '83. [00:14:00] And finally, the very recent Juneteenth, which was made a federal holiday in 2021. And like many others, that is a holiday that has been celebrated since before the federal government had established a single one. Now that it's finally recognized at the federal level, though, what does that mean for this long hallowed holiday? I want to take a look at our most recently established federal holiday to ask what the pros and cons are of making something a federal holiday. [00:14:30] I'll have the answer to that question after the break.

 

There is so much I wanted to put in this episode that simply didn't fit. Like, for example, did you know that if you celebrated Christmas in Massachusetts in 1659, you would be fined five shillings?

 

Nick Capodice: Oh yeah, those Puritans, they hated Christmas.

 

Hannah McCarthy: They called it Foolstide because there was so much eating and drinking and mocking of authority. And people would go around begging and would sometimes just burst into the homes of the wealthy [00:15:00] as well. And speaking of holidays, the Puritans were not a fan, just generally. They only took a few days off. They took off for the Sabbath. Election Day, Harvard commencement day. And then there were the occasional fast and Thanksgiving days. Fast days were also called humiliation days.

 

Nick Capodice: Humiliation days.

 

Nick Capodice: Well, who wouldn't want to be a Puritan Hannah?

 

Hannah McCarthy: This is good stuff, right? So what do I do with it? Why I put it in our delightful and fun [00:15:30] newsletter. Of course, that's where all of the stuff goes. That does not make it into the episode. Like the Isle of Lost Trivia.

 

Nick Capodice: The Isle of Misfit trivia. It's called Extra Credit. You get it in your inbox every other Tuesday, and it is the best way to get the B sides of Civics 101. It's also where we put important updates and announcements, and I swear it is very much not annoying,

 

Hannah McCarthy: Absolutely worthy of space in your inbox.

 

Nick Capodice: You can sign up by clicking Subscribe to the newsletter at civics101podcast.org.

 

When [00:16:00] we're not lounging around in our slippers on a cushy paid holiday, we at the Civic 101 team are working our collective backsides off to make this show that we love. So if you love it too, and you're in the position to do so, please consider showing us some support. What with the law and all our public radio station pays us holiday or no, and you can help ensure that they're always going to do so by clicking the donate button at Civics101podcast.org. Ok, back to the stuff that really [00:16:30] matters.

 

Hannah McCarthy: All right, we're back. And now that we've covered what a federal holiday is and how it happens, I want to get into the nuance of the thing what happens to a holiday when you make it federal and to do that? We're looking at our most recent one.

 

JerriAnne Boggis: So throughout history, Juneteenth has been known by many names Jubilee Day, Freedom Day, [00:17:00] Liberation Day, Emancipation Day and today, a national holiday. So Juneteenth is a holiday that's been traditionally celebrated by African-Americans honoring and celebrating what was considered the end of enslavement. On [00:17:30] June 19th, 1865.

 

Hannah McCarthy: This is JerriAnne Boggis, longtime friend of the show and the executive director of the Black Heritage Trail of New Hampshire. Now, remember that date June 19th, 1865 a date celebrating the end of enslavement? That is two years after the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.

 

JerriAnne Boggis: And it often surprises [00:18:00] people that we still had enslaved people in the Americas even after the Emancipation Proclamation. But it took the army actually marching into Galveston on June 19, 1865, and war then, you know, an additional war to officially enforce the Emancipation Act to free the enslaved people there.

 

Nick Capodice: Right. It wasn't as if Lincoln writes this proclamation, and suddenly all enslavers [00:18:30] freed their enslaved people.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And it isn't even that all enslaved people were made free in 1865.

 

JerriAnne Boggis: The exact date when we could say that all enslaved people were free is not really known because there were pockets of resistance across the country. There's pockets of fighting still enslaved people running away, self emancipating themselves all throughout the southern regions. We just don't know. But that June [00:19:00] 19th was celebrated because we had hard evidence and hard facts of that order that came into Galveston from the federal government to enforce and to forcefully enforce the Emancipation Act.

 

Hannah McCarthy: When I reached out to JerriAnne to talk about Juneteenth, I knew that the Black Heritage Trail had held educational celebrations of the holiday for years, and I knew that she was present when New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed a law recognizing [00:19:30] Juneteenth as a holiday. Though importantly, Nick, not as a paid day off for state employees. Remember, I told you that a state doesn't necessarily pay their employees on these holidays. Yeah, but I wanted to hear what it actually meant to her, to JerriAnne to have Juneteenth recognized at the federal level.

 

JerriAnne Boggis: So I think everything comes with a double edged sword. There's always two sides to any coin. I'm really glad that it's been publicly recognized [00:20:00] and federally recognized as a holiday because it changes the narrative of American history to say, you know, that all enslaved people were freed with the Emancipation Proclamation. This federal acceptance of this June 19 creates that debunks that myth, right? It serves as a place for that dialog for us to honestly look at [00:20:30] what our history is, not a sugar coating of our history, but the reality of what it was and how that affects us today. The other side of the coin as typical typical American fashion that that's problematic and worrisome is that we'll turn it into a consumer event. You know, we'll have Juneteenth sales, you know, [00:21:00] like Christmas sales. It'll just be another another marketing opportunity rather than an understanding of of what the holiday is.

 

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And this makes me mad. This is a personal grudge of mine, and it makes me think of Labor Day in particular. Labor Day is ostensibly a day to commemorate American workers and their long struggle for protections and wages. But for most people, it is now just an end of summer holiday and a great time to get a deal on a car.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And [00:21:30] JerriAnne pointed out that even the celebration of Juneteenth has the potential to lose the thread to miss the whole point of remembering the emancipation of America's enslaved.

 

JerriAnne Boggis: There's a celebratory feel to it because we are celebrating, but African-Americans are not out of the woods in our country. Racism is still strong, still intact, still affects every segment of our systems. So I think [00:22:00] that knowledge needs to be also acknowledged that it's not the mint julep celebration, right? It is a realization of looking at. What's really going on in the country? So this is one of those things where you don't want to critique good folks who are trying to do good things but end up doing bad things, you know, because of a misunderstanding. I think we have to really think about how we celebrate [00:22:30] it and what it means. I think event with just white votes doing African-American things doesn't feel genuine.

 

Hannah McCarthy: So, for example, when a community jumps at the opportunity to celebrate Juneteenth this holiday, the federal government has finally said is worthy of recognition. The question is how are they really celebrating it and with whom?

 

JerriAnne Boggis: I think some some communities hurriedly pulled together something to celebrate Juneteenth, [00:23:00] right? And it was like, Oh my God. And you know, I think I have to put everything in its context to, you know, our last two years with the pandemic, you know, with the George Floyd murder case, our communities were really aware of the lack of diversity, their lack of action. So I think there was this push to understand or do something quickly to say, Oh, no, our community is not racist. [00:23:30] Oh no, that wouldn't happening in our town. Or No, we need to figure this out. And in that frenzy created these events without thought.

 

Hannah McCarthy: I want to reiterate JerriAnne is not disappointed that Juneteenth has been made a federal holiday. I asked her if it was a net positive, and she said yes. Of course, the point is really, is Juneteenth going to be just another day off in some states? Ok, [00:24:00] for example, Nick, do you actually stop to give thanks on Thanksgiving?

 

Nick Capodice: I try, but I sometimes fail.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Do you mourn the deaths of hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers on Memorial Day? Do you think Americans 50 years from now are going to reflect on our history of enslavement and how it has haunted our society and laws every Juneteenth?

 

JerriAnne Boggis: I think time [00:24:30] will tell just what America will make of this federal holiday. I think that may scare some people to say that Juneteenth may be more celebrated than July 4th. You know, because July 4th is problematic when we think of, you know, a whole percent huge percentage of people being enslaved while we're celebrating July 4th, whereas June 19th, we're looking at a bigger picture, a more inclusive [00:25:00] picture and what's out put it in quotes. Freedom is, you know, I'm just really glad that it's there. And I, you know, have big hopes for the celebration and really allowing people to create a different narrative of what America is.

 

Nick Capodice: It's interesting to think of federal holidays as an opportunity, even if a federal holiday in practice does not apply to the entire nation. [00:25:30] Giving an idea or an event federal recognition at the federal level, it's symbolic. It says that the U.S. government agrees that something is worthy of observance. Juneteenth was not made a federal holiday because the government thought everybody needed another day off or that like sock companies needed the excuse to make Juneteenth socks,

 

Hannah McCarthy: Which you can buy at Wal-Mart. By the way, they do already exist, which is exactly the slippery slope JerriAnne was talking about. [00:26:00] Because you're right, Nick, when the federal government creates a federal holiday, that is a political statement, and it gives states and communities the chance to make statements of their own in the way they choose to celebrate both Juneteenth and every holiday.

 

Nick Capodice: One last thing, Hannah.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Go for it.

 

I looked it up during the break and guess what today is

 

Hannah McCarthy: As [00:26:30] we're taping this episode, it is December 4th.

 

Nick Capodice: Yes, yes. But guess what that means?

 

Hannah McCarthy: I don't want to.

 

Nick Capodice: It's National Sock Day. Like for real.

 

Hannah McCarthy: I have to go.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And in a case like this, it is not like the federal government was championing it. How do you say that word? Championing, right?

 

Nick Capodice: Yeah, it was championing.

 

Hannah McCarthy: It was not like the federal government [00:27:00] was championing labors. So really hard championing, championing.

 

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Just like a champion of.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Ok.

 

Hannah McCarthy: This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode by Yung Kartz, petrochines, Mello C, Marten Schellekens, Ketsa, Breakmaster Cylinder and Audiobinger. You [00:27:30] can find this in all other episodes at our website civics101podcast.org. And if you're looking for more, albeit significantly quieter civics lessons, you can check out the book that Nick and I wrote. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works, and it was illustrated by the very wonderful New Yorker cartoonist Tom Toro. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

 


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Civics at the Movies: NASA and Hollywood

Yup, it’s a special bonus episode!

We're launching a new series called Civics at the Movies, where we'll talk about the fun we have (and the inaccuracies we count!) when government and civics appear on screen...from All The President's Men to Veep to...don't even get us started.

For our inaugural edition, we're talking about NASA and Hollywood. Why does the agency in charge of science and technology relating to air and space have such a close relationship with the movie industry? And is it true that NASA scientist sometimes get inspiration from science fiction when they invent new gadgets?


Civics-Bonus-NASA-Movies-1.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

Civics-Bonus-NASA-Movies-1.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Nick Capodice:
You're listening to Civics 101, I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm Hannah McCarthy, we have a fun little bonus episode for everybody today.

"Say again, please. Houston, we have a problem."

Hannah McCarthy:
You know, for a long time we've been saying, wouldn't it be really fun if we could do a civics episode about, like all the president's men or Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Yeah. All of these movies about democracy and government.

Nick Capodice:
Veep?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, absolutely excellent. And then one day we're all sitting around. We were like, of course, civics at the movies

"Plenty of time. So visit the snack bar. Now a tasty treat will double your enjoyment of the show."

Nick Capodice:
Our producer, Jacqui Fulton, is going to blast off with the first one. Jacqui, what are we talking about today?

Jacqui Fulton:
We're going to be talking about NASA and Hollywood.

Nick Capodice:
So, Jacqui, before we start, one of my favorite little trivia tidbits about NASA and the movies is that there is a movie so bad, so scientifically inaccurate that NASA uses it in training for new hires to find as many inconsistencies in the movie as they possibly can. It is the 1998 classic Armageddon the United States government just asked us to save the world.

"We're talking about space, right? Outer space. This is like deep blue hero stuff. I'm there. I'm with you. Hit me up, Scotty."

Jacqui Fulton:
Oh yeah. That's the one where NASA recruits deep core drillers to fly to an asteroid and blow it up with a nuclear bomb before it can destroy Earth.

Nick Capodice:
It has one hundred and sixty eight things in it that are scientifically impossible, not just improbable, like impossible. That's that's that's more than one thing a minute that scientifically impossible.

Hannah McCarthy:
Okay so NASA, I'm very excited for this one. Did you actually talk to somebody who works for NASA?

Jacqui Fulton:
Boy, did I ever? I wore my NASA hat and favorite NASA shirt to talk to the big man himself. NASA's chief scientist, Dr. James Green, Dr. Green, are you there?

NASA Tech Help:
You know, we've been having some connectivity problems here at NASA today.

"This is Houston. Say again, please."

Jacqui Fulton:
Dr. Green may know all the science and technology to get to the Moon, but like all of us, he still had issues with Zoom.

NASA Tech Help:
It may be that he needs to reboot his computer. I'm sorry, Dave.

"I'm afraid I can't do that."

Dr. James Green :
Yes, I'm Jim Green, NASA's chief scientist.

Hannah McCarthy:
And for anyone out there who might not know what is NASA,Jacqui, can you help us out?

Jacqui Fulton:
I'll let this nice man from an old educational video explain

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, was formed to consolidate U.S. policy in space that is devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind."

Jacqui Fulton:
While NASA might sound too cool to be a government agency, it is an independent agency in the Department of the Interior with a budget of twenty three point three billion dollars. NASA doesn't just send people in this space. They study the Earth, the climate, our solar system and beyond. Technology they develop is used to help all earthlings. Dr. Green is the chief scientist at NASA, the top guy Uber nerd of all the space nerds. I asked how we got into studying space in the first place

Dr. James Green :
In high school chemistry. The chemistry teacher was outstanding and he ended up becoming the head of an observatory was a 12 inch album Clark refractor. And it was during that time that Star Trek, the original one with the with Captain Kirk and Spock and McCoy in the crowd really came on the scene.

"Enterprise log captain James Kirk commanding. We are leaving that vast cloud of stars and planets, which we call our galaxy."

Dr. James Green :
The question was when I wasn't watching Star Trek, I was observing the stars with the telescopes.

Jacqui Fulton:
You were talking about Star Trek. I'm sure you saw that William Shatner went into space.

Dr. James Green :
Yes.

Bill Schatner:
"So filled with emotion about what just happened. I just it's extraordinary."

Dr. James Green :
Yeah. Actually, I know William or Bill, as he likes to be called reasonably well. I was on Bill's podcast called Burgers and Beer.

Nick Capodice:
Two things: he knows Bill Shatner, and Bill Shatner has a podcast.

Jacqui Fulton:
Well, all the cool kids have a podcast. I'll drop them a line to beg for a guest spot.

Hannah McCarthy:
And speaking of Star Trek, Jacqui, there's this thing that I've heard that's a little hard to believe, which is that sometimes NASA scientists develop new technology based on stuff they see in pop culture. Is that actually true?

Jacqui Fulton:
Yeah. I asked about that.

Jacqui Fulton:
I've heard that like shows like Star Trek and Star Wars, especially Star Trek, have actually inspired scientists to make certain things. That's true.

Dr. James Green :
Yeah, of course. In fact, I was the NASA head consultant on the movie The Martian.

"I have no way to contact NASA or my crewmates, but even if I could, it would take four years for another manned mission to reach me."

Dr. James Green :
I was very privileged to be able to do that. The book was written by Andy Weir. Great, a great hard science fiction book, meaning that you use the basic understanding of our physics and knowledge and then you extrapolate into the future and then create a vision. And we call that hard science fiction. And I had one of the major set designers, Art Max, with me at the Johnson Space Center.

Dr. James Green :
We toured modules that NASA was building to test what they might look like and functionality on the surface of Mars. And of course, that's part of the movie. And so he was walking around saying, I don't see this, I don't see this. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do this? And I said, Art, you have to figure this out. You have to you have to be able to decide what it's going to look like. And if we like it, we might actually adopt it.

Jacqui Fulton:
For example, Dr. Green talked about how things we see in shows like Star Trek influence the way NASA does, things like how NASA is able to call an astronaut on the space station on their iPhone.

Dr. James Green :
The TV show in the sixties, you know, was talking about as a major way you communicate well, communicators, you know, then are like our iPhones today. It's amazing what we can do

"For the enterprise. Scott, sir. We're beaming up, not if I transport a room."

Dr. James Green :
And so indeed, things like that occur in science fiction that then gets stuck in our mind. And and indeed, many people move in the direction of creating these kind of things that are science fiction at the time, but can become science reality.

Jacqui Fulton:
This brings us back to Armageddon. It might not be as far-fetched as you thought, Nick.

"Next, we have a bit of news from space. A NASA spacecraft set to launch this week, we'll try to change the trajectory of an asteroid, which could come in handy if Earth is ever threatened by a rock from space. It was put together by NASA's Planetary Defense Office, which is a real thing."

Nick Capodice:
There is an actual NASA planetary defense office, and they sent spacecraft to whack into an asteroid just like in the movie?

Jacqui Fulton:
It's less dramatic than Bruce Willis blowing up the asteroid with a nuclear bomb. NASA will be nudging the asteroid a different direction instead. But still, that science fiction becoming reality.

Hannah McCarthy:
So NASA, our real life space agency, sometimes creates technology based on science fiction and science fiction drives some of the tech that NASA develops. But why is NASA so cozy with the movie industry in the first place?

Nick Capodice:
We'll get to that after the break.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, we're back,

Hannah McCarthy:
Yep, this is Civics 101 I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy:
And today we are talking about civics at the movies and the special relationship between NASA, the government agency responsible for science and technology related to air and space and the big screen.

Nick Capodice:
And helping us out today is our producer, Jacqui Fulton, who spoke with NASA's chief scientist, James Green. So Jacqui, we heard from Dr. Green that he consulted on The Martian, and I want to know to what extent is NASA officially involved in the movie business?

Jacqui Fulton:
Well, Sandra Bullock got to consult with an astronaut before shooting gravity, and NASA has confirmed that they're working with Tom Cruise to film a movie on the International Space Station. And of course, he does all his own stunts. Dr. Green told me that the agency is involved in over 40 to 50 documentaries and films a year.

Hannah McCarthy:
And look, I don't want to be a total killjoy here, Jacqui. But how does a government organization justify this kind of thing to its taxpayers?

Dr. James Green :
We are a federal agency. We're funded by the public and what we have, you know, can be requested and acquired. We have an enormous amount of data and indeed many, many groups use that data. So it's not always scientific. It can be used in different ways.

Jacqui Fulton:
NASA does invest labor, resources, and therefore taxpayer money into these movie projects, but they see it as part of their mission to give the public access to their work. And like in Dr. Green's case, it can be a good recruitment tool. For filmmakers, a perk of working with NASA is that they get to use NASA's technology like special airplanes to get actors into near zero gravity. They're called the vomit comet.

Dr. James Green :
These planes go into an orbit that goes straight up, flies a little parallel to the ground and then come straight down. And it's that it's that leg where they're going straight down that you end up feeling like you're in space. We call that microgravity. And you end up floating around.

Dr. James Green :
And in fact, you know, the movie Apollo 13, which is a movie about that particular mission's problem. It's beautifully filmed and you have the sense of weightlessness as they go from the capsule back into the the lunar module, you know, and float around. Much of that was filmed on what are called the Zero-G flights. These parabolic flights that that that happen to make it as realistic as possible, they didn't use wires. They weren't, You weren't suspended from the ceiling in some studio.

"And we have a pretty good show in store for you tonight. We are going to show you just what our life is like for the three of us here in the vast expanse of outer space... And it really OK... One of the first things we'd like to do is provide you with the appropriate background music... So hit it there, Freddo. Hello, world."

Nick Capodice:
Last thing, if NASA is sharing its materials and data and scientists with filmmakers, how does someone like Dr. Green feel when he sees an Armageddon? You know, a bad capital b a D movie about space?

Dr. James Green :
Yeah, I I enjoy science fiction movies, but I really don't go to a movie and pick apart the science. I like going and, you know, sort of check my science at the door and go on in and really enjoy it.

Jacqui Fulton:
Yeah, it could get tedious, I guess, to pick it apart. So you're able to suspend disbelief.

Dr. James Green :
Yeah, sure. Of course, you have to recognize that as you study science, you're taught about physical principles and the laws of physics, the laws of quantum mechanics. Some of these things are very strange. In fact, most of them are very strange, and most of them are hard to relate to yourself here on Earth. You know, with gravity, the ability to tease out what's happening on scales that you cannot see with the atoms and how, how they're arranged and what they do, and that requires a little suspension of belief sometimes.

Jacqui Fulton:
I don't know about you, Nick. That makes me feel much better about binge watching X-Files.

Nick Capodice:
Me too. We're doing it for the science Jacqui. And if you want to hear more of Dr. Green geeking out about space science, you should check out his podcast, Gravity Assist.

Jacqui Fulton:
I told you all the cool kids have their own podcast.

Hannah McCarthy:
That'll do it. This episode of Civics 101 was produced by Jacqui Fulton and Rebecca LaVoy. Our staff includes Christina Philips

Nick Capodice:
Music in this episode by Animalweapon Chris Zabriskie, Uncanny Valleys, Nangdo, Sci Fi Industries, Ansia Orchestra, Blue Dot Sessions, and Karl Casey.

Hannah McCarthy:
And if you have a favorite movie or TV show about government or politics or anything adjacent to us, please drop us a line. Tell us you want an episode on it. You can email us at Civic's one on one at NH Nhpr.org.

Nick Capodice:
I really just want to get an expert on to break down the accuracy of movies that depict the machinations of Congress, you know?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, OK. Speaking of accuracy, I have heard that people in government say that Veep is actually remarkably accurate, that a lot of what you see on that show is exactly how conversations and decisions go at the executive level. And I really want to know if that's true. I want to do an episode on it.

Nick Capodice:
All right. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including enterprise-grade admin tools, upload many different filetypes, secure transcription and file storage, powerful integrations and APIs, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:27] You're listening to Civics 101, I'm Nick Capodice,

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:30] I'm Hannah McCarthy, we have a fun little bonus episode for everybody today.

 

[00:01:34] "Say again, please. Houston, we have a problem."

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:37] You know, for a long time we've been saying, wouldn't it be really fun if we could do a civics episode about, like all the president's men or Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Yeah. All of these movies about democracy and government.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:01:49] Veep?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:50] Yeah, absolutely excellent. And then one day we're all sitting around. We were like, of course, civics at the movies

 

[00:01:59] "Plenty of time. So visit the snack bar. Now a tasty treat will double your enjoyment of the show."

 

Nick Capodice: [00:02:06] Our producer, Jacqui Fulton, is going to blast off with the first one. Jacqui, what are we talking about today?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:02:12] We're going to be talking about NASA and Hollywood.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:02:17] So, Jacqui, before we start, one of my favorite little trivia tidbits about NASA and the movies is that there is a movie so bad, so scientifically inaccurate that NASA uses it in training for new hires to find as many inconsistencies in the movie as they possibly can. It is the 1998 classic Armageddon the United States government just asked us to save the world.

 

[00:02:17] "We're talking about space, right? Outer space. This is like deep blue hero stuff. I'm there. I'm with you. Hit me up, Scotty."

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:02:51] Oh yeah. That's the one where NASA recruits deep core drillers to fly to an asteroid and blow it up with a nuclear bomb before it can destroy Earth.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:03:01] It has one hundred and sixty eight things in it that are scientifically impossible, not just improbable, like impossible. That's that's that's more than one thing a minute that scientifically impossible.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:15] Okay so NASA, I'm very excited for this one. Did you actually talk to somebody who works for NASA?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:03:22] Boy, did I ever? I wore my NASA hat and favorite NASA shirt to talk to the big man himself. NASA's chief scientist, Dr. James Green, Dr. Green, are you there?

 

NASA Tech Help: [00:03:34] You know, we've been having some connectivity problems here at NASA today.

 

[00:03:38] "This is Houston. Say again, please."

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:03:41] Dr. Green may know all the science and technology to get to the Moon, but like all of us, he still had issues with Zoom.

 

NASA Tech Help: [00:03:48] It may be that he needs to reboot his computer. I'm sorry, Dave.

 

[00:03:53] "I'm afraid I can't do that."

 

Dr. James Green : [00:03:55] Yes, I'm Jim Green, NASA's chief scientist.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:59] And for anyone out there who might not know what is NASA,Jacqui, can you help us out?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:04:04] I'll let this nice man from an old educational video explain

 

[00:04:09] "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, was formed to consolidate U.S. policy in space that is devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind."

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:04:22] While NASA might sound too cool to be a government agency, it is an independent agency in the Department of the Interior with a budget of twenty three point three billion dollars. NASA doesn't just send people in this space. They study the Earth, the climate, our solar system and beyond. Technology they develop is used to help all earthlings. Dr. Green is the chief scientist at NASA, the top guy Uber nerd of all the space nerds. I asked how we got into studying space in the first place

 

Dr. James Green : [00:04:58] In high school chemistry. The chemistry teacher was outstanding and he ended up becoming the head of an observatory was a 12 inch album Clark refractor. And it was during that time that Star Trek, the original one with the with Captain Kirk and Spock and McCoy in the crowd really came on the scene.

 

[00:05:22] "Enterprise log captain James Kirk commanding. We are leaving that vast cloud of stars and planets, which we call our galaxy."

 

Dr. James Green : [00:05:30] The question was when I wasn't watching Star Trek, I was observing the stars with the telescopes.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:05:36] You were talking about Star Trek. I'm sure you saw that William Shatner went into space.

 

Dr. James Green : [00:05:42] Yes.

 

Bill Schatner: [00:05:43] "So filled with emotion about what just happened. I just it's extraordinary."

 

Dr. James Green : [00:05:49] Yeah. Actually, I know William or Bill, as he likes to be called reasonably well. I was on Bill's podcast called Burgers and Beer.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:06:03] Two things: he knows Bill Shatner, and Bill Shatner has a podcast.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:06:09] Well, all the cool kids have a podcast. I'll drop them a line to beg for a guest spot.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:15]  And speaking of Star Trek, Jacqui, there's this thing that I've heard that's a little hard to believe, which is that sometimes NASA scientists develop new technology based on stuff they see in pop culture. Is that actually true?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:06:31] Yeah. I asked about that.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:06:33] I've heard that like shows like Star Trek and Star Wars, especially Star Trek, have actually inspired scientists to make certain things. That's true.

 

Dr. James Green : [00:06:45] Yeah, of course. In fact, I was the NASA head consultant on the movie The Martian.

 

[00:06:52] "I have no way to contact NASA or my crewmates, but even if I could, it would take four years for another manned mission to reach me."

 

Dr. James Green : [00:07:00] I was very privileged to be able to do that. The book was written by Andy Weir. Great, a great hard science fiction book, meaning that you use the basic understanding of our physics and knowledge and then you extrapolate into the future and then create a vision. And we call that hard science fiction. And I had one of the major set designers, Art Max, with me at the Johnson Space Center.

 

Dr. James Green : [00:07:31] We toured modules that NASA was building to test what they might look like and functionality on the surface of Mars. And of course, that's part of the movie. And so he was walking around saying, I don't see this, I don't see this. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do this? And I said, Art, you have to figure this out. You have to you have to be able to decide what it's going to look like. And if we like it, we might actually adopt it.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:08:03] For example, Dr. Green talked about how things we see in shows like Star Trek influence the way NASA does, things like how NASA is able to call an astronaut on the space station on their iPhone.

 

Dr. James Green : [00:08:16] The TV show in the sixties, you know, was talking about as a major way you communicate well, communicators, you know, then are like our iPhones today. It's amazing what we can do

 

[00:08:30] "For the enterprise. Scott, sir. We're beaming up, not if I transport a room."

 

Dr. James Green : [00:08:35] And so indeed, things like that occur in science fiction that then gets stuck in our mind. And and indeed, many people move in the direction of creating these kind of things that are science fiction at the time, but can become science reality.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:08:54] This brings us back to Armageddon. It might not be as far-fetched as you thought, Nick.

 

[00:08:59] "Next, we have a bit of news from space. A NASA spacecraft set to launch this week, we'll try to change the trajectory of an asteroid, which could come in handy if Earth is ever threatened by a rock from space. It was put together by NASA's Planetary Defense Office, which is a real thing."

 

Nick Capodice: [00:09:18] There is an actual NASA planetary defense office, and they sent spacecraft to whack into an asteroid just like in the movie?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:09:28] It's less dramatic than Bruce Willis blowing up the asteroid with a nuclear bomb. NASA will be nudging the asteroid a different direction instead. But still, that science fiction becoming reality.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:42] So NASA, our real life space agency, sometimes creates technology based on science fiction and science fiction drives some of the tech that NASA develops. But why is NASA so cozy with the movie industry in the first place?

 

Nick Capodice: [00:09:59] We'll get to that after the break.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:16] Ok, we're back,

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:17] Yep, this is Civics 101 I'm Hannah McCarthy.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:19]  I'm Nick Capodice,

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:20] And today we are talking about civics at the movies and the special relationship between NASA, the government agency responsible for science and technology related to air and space and the big screen.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:11:32] And helping us out today is our producer, Jacqui Fulton, who spoke with NASA's chief scientist, James Green. So Jacqui, we heard from Dr. Green that he consulted on The Martian, and I want to know to what extent is NASA officially involved in the movie business?

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:11:48] Well, Sandra Bullock got to consult with an astronaut before shooting gravity, and NASA has confirmed that they're working with Tom Cruise to film a movie on the International Space Station. And of course, he does all his own stunts. Dr. Green told me that the agency is involved in over 40 to 50 documentaries and films a year.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:11] And look, I don't want to be a total killjoy here, Jacqui. But how does a government organization justify this kind of thing to its taxpayers?

 

Dr. James Green : [00:12:20] We are a federal agency. We're funded by the public and what we have, you know, can be requested and acquired. We have an enormous amount of data and indeed many, many groups use that data. So it's not always scientific. It can be used in different ways.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:12:38] NASA does invest labor, resources, and therefore taxpayer money into these movie projects, but they see it as part of their mission to give the public access to their work. And like in Dr. Green's case, it can be a good recruitment tool. For filmmakers, a perk of working with NASA is that they get to use NASA's technology like special airplanes to get actors into near zero gravity. They're called the vomit comet.

 

Dr. James Green : [00:13:06] These planes go into an orbit that goes straight up, flies a little parallel to the ground and then come straight down. And it's that it's that leg where they're going straight down that you end up feeling like you're in space. We call that microgravity. And you end up floating around.

 

Dr. James Green : [00:13:37] And in fact, you know, the movie Apollo 13, which is a movie about that particular mission's problem. It's beautifully filmed and you have the sense of weightlessness as they go from the capsule back into the the lunar module, you know, and float around. Much of that was filmed on what are called the Zero-G flights. These parabolic flights that that that happen to make it as realistic as possible, they didn't use wires. They weren't, You weren't suspended from the ceiling in some studio.

 

[00:14:14] "And we have a pretty good show in store for you tonight. We are going to show you just what our life is like for the three of us here in the vast expanse of outer space... And it really OK... One of the first things we'd like to do is provide you with the appropriate background music... So hit it there, Freddo. Hello, world."

 

Nick Capodice: [00:14:38] Last thing, if NASA is sharing its materials and data and scientists with filmmakers, how does someone like Dr. Green feel when he sees an Armageddon? You know, a bad capital b a D movie about space?

 

Dr. James Green : [00:14:53] Yeah, I I enjoy science fiction movies, but I really don't go to a movie and pick apart the science. I like going and, you know, sort of check my science at the door and go on in and really enjoy it.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:15:05] Yeah, it could get tedious, I guess, to pick it apart. So you're able to suspend disbelief.

 

Dr. James Green : [00:15:12] Yeah, sure. Of course, you have to recognize that as you study science, you're taught about physical principles and the laws of physics, the laws of quantum mechanics. Some of these things are very strange. In fact, most of them are very strange, and most of them are hard to relate to yourself here on Earth. You know, with gravity, the ability to tease out what's happening on scales that you cannot see with the atoms and how, how they're arranged and what they do, and that requires a little suspension of belief sometimes.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:15:55] I don't know about you, Nick. That makes me feel much better about binge watching X-Files.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:16:00] Me too. We're doing it for the science Jacqui. And if you want to hear more of Dr. Green geeking out about space science, you should check out his podcast, Gravity Assist.

 

Jacqui Fulton: [00:16:10] I told you all the cool kids have their own podcast.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:35] That'll do it. This episode of Civics 101 was produced by Jacqui Fulton and Rebecca LaVoy. Our staff includes Christina Philips

 

Nick Capodice: [00:16:42] Music in this episode by Animalweapon Chris Zabriskie, Uncanny Valleys, Nangdo, Sci Fi Industries, Ansia Orchestra, Blue Dot Sessions, and Karl Casey.

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:50] And if you have a favorite movie or TV show about government or politics or anything adjacent to us, please drop us a line. Tell us you want an episode on it. You can email us at Civic's one on one at NH Nhpr.org.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:02] I really just want to get an expert on to break down the accuracy of movies that depict the machinations of Congress, you know?

 

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:09] Yeah, OK. Speaking of accuracy, I have heard that people in government say that Veep is actually remarkably accurate, that a lot of what you see on that show is exactly how conversations and decisions go at the executive level. And I really want to know if that's true. I want to do an episode on it.

 

Nick Capodice: [00:17:27] All right. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

 


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Emergency Powers of the President

Emergency powers are designed for when plans need to change, and fast, by allowing the president to override certain Constitutional provisions in a time of crisis. But in the last century, national emergencies have gone from a rarity to a tool that presidents use dozens of times while in office. 

We talk about what a president can (and cannot) do during a state of emergency, and how Congress has tried to put checks on that power, with help from Kim Lane Scheppele, author of Law in a Time of Emergency.

 

EPISODE SEGMENTS

Emergency Powers Final.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

Emergency Powers Final.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Archival News Audio:
"Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response"..."President Barack Obama has declared swine flu a national emergency"... "Now, not over the next 68 days, but right now"... "The bottom line is this we're in a national emergency. We need to act like we're in a national emergency."

Hannah McCarthy:
Nic, how common would you wager a national emergency is

Nick Capodice:
A national emergency? Sounds like a very rare thing. Like it's it's reserved for emergencies. It's like break this glass, but only if there is an emergency.

Hannah McCarthy:
Currently in December 2021, when we are recording this, we have 40 active national emergencies.

Nick Capodice:
Forty!

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, and some of these emergencies have been active for decades. The oldest is from nineteen seventy nine and started after the Iran hostage crisis.

Archival News Audio:
"An embassy in Tehran is in the hands of Muslim students tonight, spurred on by an anti-American speech by the Ayatollah Khomeini. They stormed the embassy..."

Nick Capodice:
I mean, I assume we're not just talking about something that happened that seemed like an emergency at the time. This is an official codified term, right?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, it's more than someone just yelling, "It's an emergency!" Actually, it's not too different from that, but it is that the president is the one yelling it.

Archival News Audio (Trump):
"To unleash the full power of the federal government in this effort. Today, I am officially declaring a national emergency..."

Hannah McCarthy:
And in doing so, invoking their quote "emergency powers." It is the political equivalent of, as you said, breaking the glass or like pushing the big red button.

Nick Capodice:
Have there always been so many emergencies going on at the same time?

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, so you said that a national emergency sounds like it should be a rare thing, right?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy:
And it used to be. In the last century, the president's use of emergency powers went from a rarity to a tool that presidents use dozens of times while in office, and they often extend into the next administration and the one after that. Our last four presidents have had 53 national emergencies between them. Clinton had 17, George W. Bush had 13. Obama had 12 and Trump had 11.

Hannah McCarthy:
But before we talk about how we ended up with dozens of simultaneous national emergencies, some decades old, we should talk about what emergency powers are and why they exist in the first place. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy:
And this is Civics 101. Today we are talking about the power that a president gets during a national emergency and how Congress has tried to put checks on that power.

Nick Capodice:
So what are emergency powers?

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm going to leave that up to Kim Lane Scheppele, the author of Law in a Time of Emergency, which is I really like that title. Virginia Prescott, the former host of Civics 101, spoke to her back in 2017.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Emergency powers are used to override laws that would otherwise normally have effect, and actually it's also used to override some constitutional provisions that would otherwise have effect.

Hannah McCarthy:
Emergency powers are designed for moments when plans need to change and fast. And the president decides that they can't wait for the slow bureaucracy of Congress to act.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
For example, you know, presidents all the time declare national disasters or emergencies. If there are hurricanes, floods, giant snowstorms, you know various kinds of weather related emergencies, earthquakes would be another example. And when the president declares emergency powers, what the president can usually do is to take money that's been allocated for other purposes and redirect it to deal with the crisis that the country is facing at the moment.

Nick Capodice:
So an emergency allows the president to override certain laws and take money Congress at designated to one thing and use it somewhere else.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yes.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Constitution 101 says that Congress must appropriate funds for specific uses. And so here you've got a case where the president sort of overrides that and takes money. Congress has put aside for one purpose and uses it for another purpose.

Nick Capodice:
Is there any law that defines what actually counts as an emergency?

Hannah McCarthy:
There is no strict definition of a quote unquote "emergency" in our constitution, but the understanding of how that word can be used has evolved over time. All a president needs to do is issue a proclamation and file it with a federal register announcing a state of emergency because of a specific reason. A hurricane. An attack of some kind. A pandemic.

Nick Capodice:
It sounds like emergency powers are a way for a president to push their agenda without having to work with Congress, as this always been sort of a tried and true workaround for navigating the wheels of Congress.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Well, it used to be the case. If you go back far enough in American history, presidents would just declare emergencies on their own.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now, presidents weren't declaring emergencies with any regularity until the 1930s. It was right after the stock market crashed. It was the beginning of the Great Depression, and what happens is newly elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declares a Federal Bank Holiday.

Hannah McCarthy:
He closes the country's banks for four days, and this was the first step in the government reconstruction of our financial and economic fabric.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now, Roosevelt justified this move under the Trading with Enemies Act of 1917, which gave the president the power to restrict trade with enemies during wartime.

Nick Capodice:
This is 1933.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah.

Nick Capodice:
We weren't at war in 1933.

Hannah McCarthy:
No. But Roosevelt found a way to retroactively justify this act because at the time there were over 100 newly elected Democrats in Congress who also wanted to make radical changes to the banking system. Roosevelt asked Congress to pass a joint resolution that became the Emergency Banking Act, which not only gave the president the power to restrict trade in a national emergency, but also created 12 new Federal Reserve banks that could issue additional currency and stabilize the nation's economy.

Nick Capodice:
What it sounds like is that Roosevelt used an emergency situation as an opportunity to give the president more power to act in future emergency situations.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, and he also used it to drastically change the banking structure in the United States and for the next two decades. T

Hannah McCarthy:
he list of things presidents justified doing in certain situations like wartime or an emergency kept growing and growing. Like President Truman's decision to send troops to South Korea without congressional authorization during the Cold War and President Johnson's escalation of America's participation in the Vietnam War

Archival News Audio (Nixon):
"To protect our men who are in Vietnam..."

Hannah McCarthy:
And then President Nixon came along

Archival News Audio (Nixon):
"And to guarantee the continued success of our withdrawal and Vietnamization programs. I have concluded that the time has come for action."

Hannah McCarthy:
During the Vietnam War, Nixon ordered secret bombings in Cambodia without alerting Congress, and Congress was not pleased.

Archival News Audio (Nixon):
"I would rather be a one term president and do what I believe was right and to be a two term president at the cost of seeing America become a second rate power."

Hannah McCarthy:
Don't forget there was something else that pushed Congress and Nixon at odds.

Archival News Audio:
"Watergate. The White House called it a third rate burglary, but it escalated into the worst political scandal in American history."

Hannah McCarthy:
In 1972, someone broke into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate hotel, stole documents and bugged a phone. Nixon hampered the federal investigation into the break-in at one point ordering his attorney general to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, the very man who was investigating Nixon.

Archival News Audio:
"Half an hour after the special Watergate prosecutor had been fired. Agents of the FBI, acting at the direction of the White House, sealed off the offices of the special prosecutor. The offices of the attorney general and the offices of the deputy attorney general. That's a stunning..."

Hannah McCarthy:
Here's Kim Lane Scheppele again.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Congress got a little bit nervous about exactly what presidents can do, especially when investigations are closing in on them, and the president seems to have no limits on the way the president can, shall we say, hold off those kinds of investigations.

Nick Capodice:
I think of this is kind of like the political equivalent of a snowball fight. It's all fun and games until that one kid starts packing his snowballs with rocks.

Hannah McCarthy:
Congress passed a number of reforms throughout the 1970s to rein in the executive branch, starting with the War Powers Act of 1973, which limited the president's ability to take military action without congressional approval. It was vetoed by Nixon. That veto was overturned. And during this period, a Senate inquiry found that there were more than 450 statutes that the executive branch could use when a president declares a state of emergency.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Congress developed a series of laws that actually regulate presidential emergency powers.

Hannah McCarthy:
The result?

Hannah McCarthy:
Two acts that drew boundaries around presidential powers. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. We'll talk about them right after this.

Nick Capodice:
Hannah, you said there were two acts that gave Congress more checks on presidential power. How did they do that?

Hannah McCarthy:
Let's talk about the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or the IEEPA first, because it defines a type of national emergency called economic sanctions.

Archival News Audio (Clinton):
"I am formally announcing my intention to cut off all trade and investment with Iran."

Hannah McCarthy:
Which make up 65 of the 71 national emergencies that have been declared since 1976. Here's Kim Lane Scheppele, the author of Law in a Time of Emergency,

Kim Lane Scheppele:
And under that act, the president can designate certain individuals and organizations for sanctions that they can't receive certain kinds of materials or funds from the United States, for example.

Hannah McCarthy:
And if there is an actual attack, the president can confiscate property connected with a country group or person that aided in the attack.

Nick Capodice:
How does that actually work?

Hannah McCarthy:
Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, explains this process pretty well. So what happened is in twenty nineteen President Trump increased sanctions against Venezuela.

Archival News Audio:
"So basically one way to summarize this to a business, for example, is do you want to do business in Venezuela or do you want to do business with the United States?"

Hannah McCarthy:
The first national emergency declared under that law was that one from 1979 that we mentioned earlier. Jimmy Carter imposed economic sanctions on Iran after diplomats at the embassy were taken hostage. Those sanctions were lifted in 1981 as part of an agreement to release the hostages. But Reagan instated new sanctions in 1984 during the Iraq-Iran war, and we have had some form of sanctions against Iran pretty much ever since.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, the IEEPA defined economic sanctions on foreign enemies, but what about the other types of emergencies that wouldn't benefit from imposing sanctions on another country like hurricanes or floods, snowstorms or pandemics?

Hannah McCarthy:
This is where the National Emergencies Act comes in. One major thing this act did was to establish rules for what the president can and cannot do when they declare a national emergency. Remember how I said there were more than 400 statutes that the president could use in an emergency in the seventies? Now that number is one hundred and thirty six.

Nick Capodice:
Wow.

Hannah McCarthy:
Thirteen of those require congressional approval. But the president can carry out one hundred and twenty three without getting permission from Congress.

Nick Capodice:
So of those that remain, what kind of powers are we talking about?

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Yes, under certain laws, the president actually has the power, for example, to call out the National Guard to deal with emergencies and to deploy even some military forces.

Hannah McCarthy:
The executive branch can suspend regulation on things like weapons acquisition and testing and handling, including suspending the prohibition on testing weapons on humans,

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Things like curfews or preventive detention. We actually saw this with the outbreak of these various kind of diseases that come into the U.S. with U.S. carriers, and then those people are quarantined for a while. That's a different kind of emergency power where suddenly somebody's civil liberties are suspended and they have to spend time in a hospital for a while.

Archival News Audio:
"And in Japan, the numbers of confirmed cases continue to rise on that quarantined cruise ship near Tokyo. This is the site of the largest outbreak outside of mainland China, and it's caused that ship to be under quarantine."

Hannah McCarthy:
The president can lift certain restrictions on disposal of medical waste in the ocean. They can overturn some legal protections for farmlands if those lands need to be used for defensive purposes.

Hannah McCarthy:
And here's one that stuck out to me. The Secretary of Defense can postpone annual assessments of harassment, violence and discrimination on the basis of sex. Gender, race or ethnicity? If it is not practicable during a time of war or national emergency,

Nick Capodice:
That it's, it's just so shocking to me because it feels like during an emergency we can throw out a lot of the ways we normally do things because there's an emergency. But I never knew it could be used to justify denying basic civil rights protections

Hannah McCarthy:
And just the fact that they thought to include that right. What's very telling is what is in here and what is not. Every one of these statutes involves political decision making, and this one strikes me as something that does not obviously contribute to some sort of defense strategy other than it means focusing less on workplace conditions of your employees, whereas the other ones, at least to me, have a clearer function. Even suspending weapons testing on humans, as nightmarish as that seems, has a clear, if horrifying, defensive strategy.

Nick Capodice:
So all of those things are weirdly legal under states of emergency, because what Congress has done is to provide this whole catalog of alternative legalities, so to speak, alternative legal powers that the president can invoke as long as he first says the magic words I declare a state of emergency.

Nick Capodice:
Did the National Emergencies Act limit how long a national emergency lasts?

Kim Lane Scheppele:
There are limits. The president has at most 12 months to have a state of emergency before it has to be renewed.

Hannah McCarthy:
These restrictions, by the way, also apply to economic sanctions under the EPA.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
But it turns out to be extremely easy to renew it, and you can renew these states of emergency indefinitely.

Hannah McCarthy:
After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, President Bush declared a national emergency quote by reason of certain terrorist attacks so that he could increase the power of our military by re apportioning money toward defense spending and changing people's military contracts

Kim Lane Scheppele:
To sometimes extend their terms of duty to sometimes refuse to allow them to retire or leave at the end of their terms if they're needed. In other words, it was a set of powers that had to do with his role as commander in chief. So that was declared right after 9-11, and every year since that time, the president, whoever the president is. Signs the continuation of that declaration of emergency.

Hannah McCarthy:
In the 20 years since September 11th, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden have all extended this national emergency, which again allows the president and his secretary of defense to extend someone's military commitment or call them out of retirement.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
These are time limited, but the time limits are, shall we say, not terribly binding.

Nick Capodice:
How does Congress end a national emergency other than just hoping it's going to expire?

Hannah McCarthy:
The National Emergencies Act originally allowed Congress to end a national emergency through a concurrent resolution, which is when the Senate and the House passed identical resolutions that cannot be vetoed by the president. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this is unconstitutional in 1985, and the act was changed so that Congress needs a joint resolution to end a national emergency, which can be vetoed by the president.

Nick Capodice:
And I'm going to assume a president is pretty likely to veto an act that would limit their power.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yes, which means that in order for Congress to actually end a national emergency, both houses will likely need a supermajority. That's two thirds of the vote to overturn the veto.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
So it looks like Congress is kind of reining the president in which, you know, not a bad thing if you've got an out of control president. The problem is the reining in is not very serious. The president, whenever he thinks it's justified, can declare a state of emergency and then use powers that Congress has scattered throughout the laws to address the crisis.

Hannah McCarthy:
A recent example of this was Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the U.S. southern border in 2019.

Archival News Audio:
"This morning, the president plans to announce an end round around Congress, spending billions more on his border wall than Congress has approved."

Hannah McCarthy:
Trump wanted Congress to allocate money toward building a wall along the u.s.-mexico border. The fight between Trump and Congress over this funding led to a thirty five day government shutdown. Finally, Trump declared a national emergency to give himself the power to divert money that Congress had allocated to other places to border wall construction instead.

Nick Capodice:
We're the House and Senate able to pass a joint resolution to end the national emergency.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yes, but Trump vetoed it. And while the Senate was able to get a supermajority to override the veto, the House did not.

Archival News Audio:
"Two hundred and forty eight lawmakers voted to override, but that was thirty eight short of the two thirds majority needed. The emergency declaration along the southern border still faces..."

Hannah McCarthy:
The emergency only ended when President Joe Biden came into office, and in the meantime, billions of dollars of federal money was funneled into the construction of the border wall. Over the last 90 years or so, presidents have pushed against the checks placed on their power by Congress, and Congress has tried to push back.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Emergencies are so routinely declared in the U.S. and they are so routinely used for this kind of messaging purpose where they're designed to say, you know, yes for handling things that we forget that they really are exceptions to normal law. And in some cases, they really are truly extraordinary exceptions to that to regular law. We shouldn't be comforted by the sheer number of states of emergency that exist at any one time in the United States.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Surely, if this is a routine problem, you know you have some natural disaster and you have to get relief supplies across roads that otherwise would be closed or, you know, something of that kind. There's got to be some way we can handle that short of a generalized suspension of normal law.

Kim Lane Scheppele:
Because if you had really major states of emergency, which is to say massive civil liberties violation tanks in the streets, you know, all the kinds of things we associate with rogue government, for example, we wouldn't really have a way to theoretically distinguish it or to actually bring legal resources to bear to check it.

Nick Capodice:
What stands out to me from all this, Hannah, is that even after the National Emergencies Act, the use of emergency powers has just gone up. It feels like once Congress has defined what a president is and is not allowed to do when they declare an emergency, those powers have been more readily used. Well, that'll do it for today's episode on emergency powers.

Nick Capodice:
We hope you like that we didn't put any sirens in this episode. You know, we should have done it for like a joke, but is there anybody else who hates it more than anything when you're listening to something on the radio, in your car and the siren - drives me crazy. Anyhoo, this episode was written and produced by Christina Phillips. Well done, Christina, with help from me Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our Executive Producer, Music in this episode by BioUnit, Chris Zabriskie, Blue Note Sessions, Broke for Free, Komiku, Little Glass Man, Maarten Schellekens, and Bobby Renz. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including transcribe multiple languages, upload many different filetypes, powerful integrations and APIs, world-class support, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.


Archival News Audio: [00:02:20] "Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response"..."President Barack Obama has declared swine flu a national emergency"... "Now, not over the next 68 days, but right now"... "The bottom line is this we're in a national emergency. We need to act like we're in a national emergency."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:43] Nick, how common would you wager a national emergency is?

Nick Capodice: [00:02:49] A national emergency? Sounds like a very rare thing. Like it's it's reserved for emergencies. It's like break this glass, but only if there is an emergency.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:58] Currently in December 2021, when we are recording this, we have 40 active national emergencies.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:07] Forty!

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:07] Yeah, and some of these emergencies have been active for decades. The oldest is from nineteen seventy nine and started after the Iran hostage crisis.

Archival News Audio: [00:03:17] "An embassy in Tehran is in the hands of Muslim students tonight, spurred on by an anti-American speech by the Ayatollah Khomeini. They stormed the embassy..."

Nick Capodice: [00:03:27] I mean, I assume we're not just talking about something that happened that seemed like an emergency at the time. This is an official codified term, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:35] Yeah, it's more than someone just yelling, "It's an emergency!" Actually, it's not too different from that, but it is that the president is the one yelling it.

Archival News Audio (Trump): [00:03:46] "To unleash the full power of the federal government in this effort. Today, I am officially declaring a national emergency..."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:53] And in doing so, invoking their quote "emergency powers." It is the political equivalent of, as you said, breaking the glass or like pushing the big red button.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:02] Have there always been so many emergencies going on at the same time?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:06] Ok, so you said that a national emergency sounds like it should be a rare thing, right?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:11] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:11] And it used to be. In the last century, the president's use of emergency powers went from a rarity to a tool that presidents use dozens of times while in office, and they often extend into the next administration and the one after that. Our last four presidents have had 53 national emergencies between them. Clinton had 17, George W. Bush had 13. Obama had 12 and Trump had 11.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:41] But before we talk about how we ended up with dozens of simultaneous national emergencies, some decades old, we should talk about what emergency powers are and why they exist in the first place. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:55] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:56] And this is Civics 101. Today we are talking about the power that a president gets during a national emergency and how Congress has tried to put checks on that power.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:06] So what are emergency powers?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:09] I'm going to leave that up to Kim Lane Scheppele, the author of Law in a Time of Emergency, which is I really like that title. Virginia Prescott, the former host of Civics 101, spoke to her back in 2017.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:05:19] Emergency powers are used to override laws that would otherwise normally have effect, and actually it's also used to override some constitutional provisions that would otherwise have effect.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:34] Emergency powers are designed for moments when plans need to change and fast. And the president decides that they can't wait for the slow bureaucracy of Congress to act.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:05:44] For example, you know, presidents all the time declare national disasters or emergencies. If there are hurricanes, floods, giant snowstorms, you know various kinds of weather related emergencies, earthquakes would be another example. And when the president declares emergency powers, what the president can usually do is to take money that's been allocated for other purposes and redirect it to deal with the crisis that the country is facing at the moment.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:11] So an emergency allows the president to override certain laws and take money Congress at designated to one thing and use it somewhere else.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:20] Yes.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:06:20] Constitution 101 says that Congress must appropriate funds for specific uses. And so here you've got a case where the president sort of overrides that and takes money. Congress has put aside for one purpose and uses it for another purpose.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:37] Is there any law that defines what actually counts as an emergency?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:41] There is no strict definition of a quote unquote "emergency" in our constitution, but the understanding of how that word can be used has evolved over time. All a president needs to do is issue a proclamation and file it with a federal register announcing a state of emergency because of a specific reason. A hurricane. An attack of some kind. A pandemic.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:05] It sounds like emergency powers are a way for a president to push their agenda without having to work with Congress, as this always been sort of a tried and true workaround for navigating the wheels of Congress.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:07:19] Well, it used to be the case. If you go back far enough in American history, presidents would just declare emergencies on their own.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:27] Now, presidents weren't declaring emergencies with any regularity until the 1930s. It was right after the stock market crashed. It was the beginning of the Great Depression, and what happens is newly elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declares a Federal Bank Holiday.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:42] He closes the country's banks for four days, and this was the first step in the government reconstruction of our financial and economic fabric.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:51] Now, Roosevelt justified this move under the Trading with Enemies Act of 1917, which gave the president the power to restrict trade with enemies during wartime.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:03] This is 1933.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:04] Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:05] We weren't at war in 1933.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:07] No. But Roosevelt found a way to retroactively justify this act because at the time there were over 100 newly elected Democrats in Congress who also wanted to make radical changes to the banking system. Roosevelt asked Congress to pass a joint resolution that became the Emergency Banking Act, which not only gave the president the power to restrict trade in a national emergency, but also created 12 new Federal Reserve banks that could issue additional currency and stabilize the nation's economy.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:42] What it sounds like is that Roosevelt used an emergency situation as an opportunity to give the president more power to act in future emergency situations.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:52] Yeah, and he also used it to drastically change the banking structure in the United States and for the next two decades. T

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:59] he list of things presidents justified doing in certain situations like wartime or an emergency kept growing and growing. Like President Truman's decision to send troops to South Korea without congressional authorization during the Cold War and President Johnson's escalation of America's participation in the Vietnam War

Archival News Audio (Nixon): [00:09:19] "To protect our men who are in Vietnam..."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:22] And then President Nixon came along

Archival News Audio (Nixon): [00:09:25] "And to guarantee the continued success of our withdrawal and Vietnamization programs. I have concluded that the time has come for action."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:36] During the Vietnam War, Nixon ordered secret bombings in Cambodia without alerting Congress, and Congress was not pleased.

Archival News Audio (Nixon): [00:09:45] "I would rather be a one term president and do what I believe was right and to be a two term president at the cost of seeing America become a second rate power."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:01] Don't forget there was something else that pushed Congress and Nixon at odds.

Archival News Audio: [00:10:05] "Watergate. The White House called it a third rate burglary, but it escalated into the worst political scandal in American history."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:15] In 1972, someone broke into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate hotel, stole documents and bugged a phone. Nixon hampered the federal investigation into the break-in at one point ordering his attorney general to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, the very man who was investigating Nixon.

Archival News Audio: [00:10:38] "Half an hour after the special Watergate prosecutor had been fired. Agents of the FBI, acting at the direction of the White House, sealed off the offices of the special prosecutor. The offices of the attorney general and the offices of the deputy attorney general. That's a stunning..."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:55] Here's Kim Lane Scheppele again.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:10:57] Congress got a little bit nervous about exactly what presidents can do, especially when investigations are closing in on them, and the president seems to have no limits on the way the president can, shall we say, hold off those kinds of investigations.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:11] I think of this is kind of like the political equivalent of a snowball fight. It's all fun and games until that one kid starts packing his snowballs with rocks.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:20] Congress passed a number of reforms throughout the 1970s to rein in the executive branch, starting with the War Powers Act of 1973, which limited the president's ability to take military action without congressional approval. It was vetoed by Nixon. That veto was overturned. And during this period, a Senate inquiry found that there were more than 450 statutes that the executive branch could use when a president declares a state of emergency.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:11:54] Congress developed a series of laws that actually regulate presidential emergency powers.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:59] The result?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:00] Two acts that drew boundaries around presidential powers. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. We'll talk about them right after this.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:47] Hannah, you said there were two acts that gave Congress more checks on presidential power. How did they do that?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:53] Let's talk about the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or the IEEPA first, because it defines a type of national emergency called economic sanctions.

Archival News Audio (Clinton): [00:13:04] "I am formally announcing my intention to cut off all trade and investment with Iran."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:10] Which make up 65 of the 71 national emergencies that have been declared since 1976. Here's Kim Lane Scheppele, the author of Law in a Time of Emergency,

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:13:21] And under that act, the president can designate certain individuals and organizations for sanctions that they can't receive certain kinds of materials or funds from the United States, for example.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:32] And if there is an actual attack, the president can confiscate property connected with a country group or person that aided in the attack.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:39] How does that actually work?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:41] Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, explains this process pretty well. So what happened is in twenty nineteen President Trump increased sanctions against Venezuela.

Archival News Audio: [00:13:50] "So basically one way to summarize this to a business, for example, is do you want to do business in Venezuela or do you want to do business with the United States?"

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:01] The first national emergency declared under that law was that one from 1979 that we mentioned earlier. Jimmy Carter imposed economic sanctions on Iran after diplomats at the embassy were taken hostage. Those sanctions were lifted in 1981 as part of an agreement to release the hostages. But Reagan instated new sanctions in 1984 during the Iraq-Iran war, and we have had some form of sanctions against Iran pretty much ever since.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:32] Ok, the IEEPA defined economic sanctions on foreign enemies, but what about the other types of emergencies that wouldn't benefit from imposing sanctions on another country like hurricanes or floods, snowstorms or pandemics?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:48] This is where the National Emergencies Act comes in. One major thing this act did was to establish rules for what the president can and cannot do when they declare a national emergency. Remember how I said there were more than 400 statutes that the president could use in an emergency in the seventies? Now that number is one hundred and thirty six.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:10] Wow.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:12] Thirteen of those require congressional approval. But the president can carry out one hundred and twenty three without getting permission from Congress.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:21] So of those that remain, what kind of powers are we talking about?

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:15:25] Yes, under certain laws, the president actually has the power, for example, to call out the National Guard to deal with emergencies and to deploy even some military forces.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:35] The executive branch can suspend regulation on things like weapons acquisition and testing and handling, including suspending the prohibition on testing weapons on humans,

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:15:47] Things like curfews or preventive detention. We actually saw this with the outbreak of these various kind of diseases that come into the U.S. with U.S. carriers, and then those people are quarantined for a while. That's a different kind of emergency power where suddenly somebody's civil liberties are suspended and they have to spend time in a hospital for a while.

Archival News Audio: [00:16:06] "And in Japan, the numbers of confirmed cases continue to rise on that quarantined cruise ship near Tokyo. This is the site of the largest outbreak outside of mainland China, and it's caused that ship to be under quarantine."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:17] The president can lift certain restrictions on disposal of medical waste in the ocean. They can overturn some legal protections for farmlands if those lands need to be used for defensive purposes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:29] And here's one that stuck out to me. The Secretary of Defense can postpone annual assessments of harassment, violence and discrimination on the basis of sex. Gender, race or ethnicity? If it is not practicable during a time of war or national emergency,

Nick Capodice: [00:16:50] That it's, it's just so shocking to me because it feels like during an emergency we can throw out a lot of the ways we normally do things because there's an emergency. But I never knew it could be used to justify denying basic civil rights protections

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:06] And just the fact that they thought to include that right. What's very telling is what is in here and what is not. Every one of these statutes involves political decision making, and this one strikes me as something that does not obviously contribute to some sort of defense strategy other than it means focusing less on workplace conditions of your employees, whereas the other ones, at least to me, have a clearer function. Even suspending weapons testing on humans, as nightmarish as that seems, has a clear, if horrifying, defensive strategy.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:43] So all of those things are weirdly legal under states of emergency, because what Congress has done is to provide this whole catalog of alternative legalities, so to speak, alternative legal powers that the president can invoke as long as he first says the magic words I declare a state of emergency.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:03] Did the National Emergencies Act limit how long a national emergency lasts?

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:18:08] There are limits. The president has at most 12 months to have a state of emergency before it has to be renewed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:15] These restrictions, by the way, also apply to economic sanctions under the EPA.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:18:21] But it turns out to be extremely easy to renew it, and you can renew these states of emergency indefinitely.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:27] After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, President Bush declared a national emergency quote by reason of certain terrorist attacks so that he could increase the power of our military by re apportioning money toward defense spending and changing people's military contracts

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:18:44] To sometimes extend their terms of duty to sometimes refuse to allow them to retire or leave at the end of their terms if they're needed. In other words, it was a set of powers that had to do with his role as commander in chief. So that was declared right after 9-11, and every year since that time, the president, whoever the president is. Signs the continuation of that declaration of emergency.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:09] In the 20 years since September 11th, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden have all extended this national emergency, which again allows the president and his secretary of defense to extend someone's military commitment or call them out of retirement.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:19:24] These are time limited, but the time limits are, shall we say, not terribly binding.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:34] How does Congress end a national emergency other than just hoping it's going to expire?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:39] The National Emergencies Act originally allowed Congress to end a national emergency through a concurrent resolution, which is when the Senate and the House passed identical resolutions that cannot be vetoed by the president. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this is unconstitutional in 1985, and the act was changed so that Congress needs a joint resolution to end a national emergency, which can be vetoed by the president.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:04] And I'm going to assume a president is pretty likely to veto an act that would limit their power.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:09] Yes, which means that in order for Congress to actually end a national emergency, both houses will likely need a supermajority. That's two thirds of the vote to overturn the veto.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:20:20] So it looks like Congress is kind of reining the president in which, you know, not a bad thing if you've got an out of control president. The problem is the reining in is not very serious. The president, whenever he thinks it's justified, can declare a state of emergency and then use powers that Congress has scattered throughout the laws to address the crisis.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:41] A recent example of this was Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the U.S. southern border in 2019.

Archival News Audio: [00:20:47] "This morning, the president plans to announce an end round around Congress, spending billions more on his border wall than Congress has approved."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:56] Trump wanted Congress to allocate money toward building a wall along the u.s.-mexico border. The fight between Trump and Congress over this funding led to a thirty five day government shutdown. Finally, Trump declared a national emergency to give himself the power to divert money that Congress had allocated to other places to border wall construction instead.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:19] We're the House and Senate able to pass a joint resolution to end the national emergency.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:24] Yes, but Trump vetoed it. And while the Senate was able to get a supermajority to override the veto, the House did not.

Archival News Audio: [00:21:32] "Two hundred and forty eight lawmakers voted to override, but that was thirty eight short of the two thirds majority needed. The emergency declaration along the southern border still faces..."

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:44] The emergency only ended when President Joe Biden came into office, and in the meantime, billions of dollars of federal money was funneled into the construction of the border wall. Over the last 90 years or so, presidents have pushed against the checks placed on their power by Congress, and Congress has tried to push back.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:22:09] Emergencies are so routinely declared in the U.S. and they are so routinely used for this kind of messaging purpose where they're designed to say, you know, yes for handling things that we forget that they really are exceptions to normal law. And in some cases, they really are truly extraordinary exceptions to that to regular law. We shouldn't be comforted by the sheer number of states of emergency that exist at any one time in the United States.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:22:37] Surely, if this is a routine problem, you know you have some natural disaster and you have to get relief supplies across roads that otherwise would be closed or, you know, something of that kind. There's got to be some way we can handle that short of a generalized suspension of normal law.

Kim Lane Scheppele: [00:22:57] Because if you had really major states of emergency, which is to say massive civil liberties violation tanks in the streets, you know, all the kinds of things we associate with rogue government, for example, we wouldn't really have a way to theoretically distinguish it or to actually bring legal resources to bear to check it.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:15] What stands out to me from all this, Hannah, is that even after the National Emergencies Act, the use of emergency powers has just gone up. It feels like once Congress has defined what a president is and is not allowed to do when they declare an emergency, those powers have been more readily used. Well, that'll do it for today's episode on emergency powers.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:48] We hope you like that we didn't put any sirens in this episode. You know, we should have done it for like a joke, but is there anybody else who hates it more than anything when you're listening to something on the radio, in your car and the siren - drives me crazy. Anyhoo, this episode was written and produced by Christina Phillips. Well done, Christina, with help from me Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our Executive Producer, Music in this episode by BioUnit, Chris Zabriskie, Blue Note Sessions, Broke for Free, Komiku, Little Glass Man, Maarten Schellekens, and Bobby Renz. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

US vs: Two Party System

Since our founding, Americans have taken issue with political parties, as well as the system that ensures there shall only be two of them in power.

So what else is out there?

Today in our first episode of US vs, we explore how our democracy compares to others around the world. What are the pros and cons of the various systems? Is there a perfect democracy? And why are we talking so much about Street Fighter 2?

This episode features two professors of political science, Robin Best from Binghamton University and Guillermo Rosas from Washington University in St. Louis.

 

Transcript

Nick Capodice: You watch enough political speeches, Hannah, and it gets to the point you don't even hear it anymore.

: Oh, but don't let anyone tell you that America isn't great.

: I think we have to get back to what this election has to be about.

: Ok, listen, we this is the greatest country in the history of mankind. In the greatest nation on Earth. Thank you. I tell this story just to remind you of the magical, intoxicating power of America…

Nick Capodice: You're [00:00:30] listening to Civics 101, I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy,

Nick Capodice: And today we are asking how we measure up against the rest of the world. It seems, Hannah, every few weeks we come up with another series on our show, but this is one I desperately want to revisit. It's called us vs. or U.S. versus where we compare other successful or sometimes unsuccessful governmental systems to our own. And today something we get asked about constantly the [00:01:00] two party system. Why do we have it? Can it change? And most importantly, how does our system compare to other democracies? And yeah, I'm doing like a whole street fighter two thing. This is the opening music to that, by the way.

Hannah McCarthy: What is streetfighter two?

Nick Capodice: It's a violent lesson in democracy, Hannah. Players pick a fighter who lives in a country somewhere in the world, and they fly around the world visiting other countries and do battle with other fighters there.

Hannah McCarthy: So it's an arcade game,

Nick Capodice: It's an arcade game.

You win! [00:01:30]

Nick Capodice: And right off the bat, I have to say that is ridiculous. There is no M. Bison to defeat at the end of this episode, but I do want to say one thing, and it's a fast, personal anecdote. Did I ever tell you about the play that I was in in New York that was really bad?

Hannah McCarthy: From what I understand, you were in a lot of really bad plays,

Nick Capodice: That's fair.

Nick Capodice: This one was one of the worst and I'm not going to name the director, but I was having a tough time in rehearsal one night because I didn't like any of the choices they were making, and I was upset [00:02:00] and a friend of mine, said Nick. No matter how bad you think a director is, they've got a better seat than you, and I'm never going to forget that.

Hannah McCarthy: Meaning you can't accurately critique your own performance because you're You.

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: So to take that lesson to heart for civics, it's hard to study American governmental systems when you're in them, you're basically on stage,

Nick Capodice: Right. So first, I'm going to explain why we have a two party system, but then we'll talk about the pros, cons [00:02:30] and how other democracies do it.

Hannah McCarthy: Hold on a second, nick. I can hear the gathering of pitchforks. There are other parties in the United States.

Nick Capodice: There are, there are many other parties. Keep the pitchforks in the barn. But I will say, as of this recording December twenty twenty one, every member of the House of Representatives is a Republican or a Democrat, and in the Senate there are two independents, but they always caucus with the Democratic Party. Of the seven thousand three hundred and eighty three seats in state legislatures. [00:03:00] Only 25 of them are held by members of other parties.

Hannah McCarthy: So while there are other parties, we are known internationally as a country that has a two party system.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and to continue on that thread to put us in the US versus frame of mind, I talk to a specialist in that in comparative politics. Guillermo Rosas, he teaches at Washington University at St. Louis.

Guillermo Rosas: Comparative politics basically uses the comparative method to [00:03:30] say meaningful things about politics in general. And here the emphasis is in using a different, the domestic politics of different countries as data points, as observations that we can leverage to make general claims about political phenomena in general.

Nick Capodice: Guillermo told me that his students get very animated when he teaches the two party system because they are frustrated.

Guillermo Rosas: It's not that they are apathetic, but they certainly feel alienated [00:04:00] oftentimes, right? They see two options nowadays. It used to be that because I'm old enough to have to have had a student that are now in their 30s or 40s. There was a time when, you know, people complained that the parties were too similar, so there was no real option

Hannah McCarthy: When in modern history were the parties considered too similar?

Nick Capodice: Well, after World War Two, there was this era of political postwar consensus where policy had very [00:04:30] little to do with whether you had a D or an R next to your name. Most of the bills that passed in the nineteen fifties and sixties were with bipartisan support, and voters expressed frustration with the fuzziness of the two parties. They didn't know who to hold accountable or what it was their representatives even stood for.

Guillermo Rosas: Now, that's not the complaint. The complaint now is that there's certainly a lot of difference in the platforms of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, but [00:05:00] that they feel too far away from these parties that they would like some other option that's closer to them. And that's a common complaint when you have a two party system. It makes sense, right? Two parties, two options. And of course, these are parties that are going to have to pack a lot of content in their platforms.

Hannah McCarthy: This is something that I have heard, not just from listeners to our show, but guests. I did an episode on Independence, and one guest said she considered being an independent to [00:05:30] be an act of noncompliance, a political statement of great importance.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and I get that. We are at a moment right now of severe polarization. And if you told someone where you stood on a hot button social issue, they could predict the probability of where you stand on 20 other issues that aren't even related to it.

Hannah McCarthy: So you're saying there's frustration when the two parties are too similar. And also when they are too different, then why do we have it? Is the two party system in the Constitution? [00:06:00]

Robin Best: Yeah, that's a really good question. It is not enshrined anywhere in our founding documents.

Nick Capodice: This is Robin Best, professor of political science at Binghamton University, who also teaches comparative politics.

Robin Best: And in fact, there's nothing in the Constitution that needs that says that we have to have either a particular type of electoral system or a particular type of party system. The primary reason why we have a two party system in the United States is the electoral system that we use for many of our elections and almost all of our national [00:06:30] level elections, which is the single member district plurality method of election.

Hannah McCarthy: So I think many of our listeners know how we do elections in America, but they might not be familiar with that term. Can we define it?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Single member district plurality method of election. SMP for short also called first past the post voting, it's a winner take all system, it's just how we do it. You live in a geographic district and in that district you vote for one elected official [00:07:00] like a senator, congressperson, and the winner is the person with a plurality of votes. We can't say majority because there are usually more than two people on the ticket. It's it's usually a plurality. So say the first place gets 40 percent of the votes. Second place gets 30 percent and the rest of the votes go to other candidates.

Robin Best: And whoever wins that district, whichever candidate wins that district wins the seat and the loser gets absolutely nothing. And what this does is [00:07:30] it really focuses political competition between two candidates, but also two political parties, so one political party could conceivably win the district seat and then there's a political party that kind of comes in second. It might be able to overtake the winner the next time around.

Nick Capodice: But this leaves those parties that came in third or fourth with little to no chance of winning over time.

Hannah McCarthy: And is this why you see candidates leave third parties and join one of these big two?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. I mean, if you're losing [00:08:00] over and over as a Green Party or a libertarian candidate, chances are you might change your affiliation to a D or an R. So you got a chance. And the same goes for voters. Hannah, if a voter keeps voting for that third party and they never win anything in this winner take all system, they too will start to align with the red or the blue. And it's this combination of systems that creates a law.

What is the law?

Nick Capodice: Duverger's Law. [00:08:30]

Guillermo Rosas: Duverger was very celebrated and with good reason as having come up with a statement that, you know for political scientists, basically has the force of law.

Robin Best: This is one of the closest things we have to a law in political science is deeper. So this was Maurice Duverger who expressed this relationship between a single member district plurality method of election and a two party system. So different law is very simply that [00:09:00] the single member district plurality method of election tends to favor a two party system. There is the law it on man. And it's for precisely the reasons that we've been discussing, so Duverger himself separated the process here into a mechanical effects and then a set of psychological effects,

Nick Capodice: That law says as long as we have winner take all single district plurality voting, it's a pretty sure bet that will [00:09:30] be in the two party system.

Hannah McCarthy: But that's not to say that we're going to forever be Democrats and Republicans. We have had a lot of parties over the years.

Nick Capodice: Oh, we sure have. Should we go through the list just for old time's sake?

Hannah McCarthy: Maybe we should get you a button that you press that just as classical music and carriage running down a cobbled street because it would save you a lot of time?

Nick Capodice: It's true.

Nick Capodice: George Washington was our only president who wasn't aligned with a party. He hated parties. That man saw a balloon on a mailbox he would drive right by. He would see [00:10:00] them start to form during his administration. But in his farewell address, he excoriated parties. He said the spirit of parties "serves always to distract the public councils and enfeebled the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms. Kindles the animosity of one part against another. Foments occasionally riot and insurrection." But they happened right away. We started with the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton [00:10:30] and the anti-Federalists, led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The anti-federalists start to go by the Democratic Republicans, The Federalists die out around the War of 1812 and the Whigs rise to take their place. The Andrew Jackson led Democrats come to contend against the Whigs, the Republican Party branches off the Whigs and grows into power to battle the Democrats. And from 1854 to now, it has been two parties, Republicans and Democrats,

Hannah McCarthy: And I have to add what those parties stood for changed an awful lot over one hundred and fifty years. [00:11:00] We've done episodes on the Republican Party and the Democratic Party if anyone out there wants the full story on realignment. But I can't help but wonder, is there a possibility of fulfilling George Washington's fantasy? Can we exist without parties at all?

Nick Capodice: It seems improbable, Guillermo told me about a famed political scientist named Eric Elmer Schattschneider, who said that contemporary representative democracy is really not even imaginable in the absence of parties. [00:11:30]

Hannah McCarthy: Why?

Guillermo Rosas: Let me see if I can put this encapsulate this in a one minute elevator pitch. I may fail. But the best explanation is that once you have representatives in Congress, you are selecting people that come from geographically circumscribed territories. So there is in principle, no reason why people that show up in Congress or in parliament the first time have some sort of pre-built allegiance to a particular party, right? However, once they once they show up, they [00:12:00] realize that they are going to be there for a while, right? Their terms, their terms vary from two years to three or four whenever the next election is, and that they are going to have to be passing laws and building coalitions.

Nick Capodice: And if you want to succeed, if you want to get laws passed that your constituents love, and don't forget, if you want someone to bankroll your campaign, you align with one of these coalitions. You may not agree with them all the time, but you do most of the time.

Guillermo Rosas: The [00:12:30] dirty secret is that politicians themselves know that they are tying their hands when they enter into a party, right? They are tying their hands, and they are oftentimes called to do things that they do not necessarily believe are in their best personal interest. But they trade this off for the opportunity or for the predictability of belonging to a to a to a coalition that they understand

Hannah McCarthy: Parties in politics, two parties in America. They are here [00:13:00] and they're here to stay. But is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Nick Capodice: Well, we'll talk about that as well as how we measure up to other countries right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy: But first, if you want to read about how the parties changed as part of a complete primer on how America works. Check out our book A User's Guide to Democracy. It has got the 101 on everything and is peppered with wonderful cartoons by New Yorker cartoonist Tom Toro.

Nick Capodice: Also, we got a fun, goofy free newsletter called Extra Credit. Let [00:13:30] us say hello in your email every two weeks and tell you about the stuff we cut out from our episodes. Subscribe at civics101podcast.org.

Nick Capodice: We are back and don't forget Civics 101 is always free to listen to but thrives on listener support. Please contribute to civics education with a donation at Civics101podcast.org. All right, so we got our hands up, they're playing our song, it's two parties in the USA.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, now to the U.S. [00:14:00] versus do any other countries have a system like ours?

Nick Capodice: Here's Robin Best again.

Robin Best: It's really fun to teach American students about comparative politics because you learn how weird the U.S. is. The U.S. is actually really strange and unique on a number of dimensions. And the two party system is actually in this day and age, quite rare as well.

Nick Capodice: There are a few countries that have a system where the same two parties are vying for seats like us, notably Jamaica, the Bahamas [00:14:30] and Zimbabwe. And there are other countries that vote like we do, but don't have a two party system.

Robin Best: Some of the other countries that have, that use single member district plurality elections like Canada or the United Kingdom. They have very significant third parties that manage to enter their national legislatures, and we just don't. And one of the reasons why you might think that's the case is you might say that instead of two parties, we actually have one hundred.

Nick Capodice: And here is where we are truly one of a kind. Political parties in the U.S. [00:15:00] are organized on a state by state basis.

Robin Best: So you could think of the U.S. is having like a New York state Democratic Party and then a Texas Democratic Party or New Hampshire Republican Party and a Colorado Republican Party, and that you actually get some ideological and strategic differences between the party organizations by state. So the U.S. is actually quite unique in the structure of its party system, not only because it's a two [00:15:30] party system, but again because these parties are kind of they're very large, their umbrella parties. And because of that, they can mask a lot of underlying variations, a lot of which take place at the state level if

Hannah McCarthy: The two parties are Umbrella's, each encapsulating 50 state parties. I can see true federalism at work. A country where people are frustrated that they're Democrat or Republican Party isn't necessarily repped at the federal level.

Nick Capodice: It's a good point.

Hannah McCarthy: So let's get into it. Give me a country [00:16:00] that does it differently.

Nick Capodice: You got it. Here is Guillermo Rosas again, with Germany

Guillermo Rosas: In Germany, there probably are five to six parties represented in the in the Bundestag.

Nick Capodice: Germany has a multi-party system. They are a federal parliamentary representative Democratic Republic. The Bundestag, which he mentioned, is their federal parliament and members of it are elected by the German people. There are 736 seats in the Bundestag. Indeed, divided by six parties.

Guillermo Rosas: So there is in principle there's there's [00:16:30] something for everyone, right? You can you can feel very close to a particular party, but it is not entirely. It is not entirely obvious to voters what kind of governing arrangement they are going to get after all of the bargaining is done once the election has taken place.

Nick Capodice: And that's not the case in the U.S. Sure, we have moderates and far left and far right politicians, but they're [00:17:00] all aligned under a majority umbrella. In contrast, when you have a lot of parties, something for everyone, and there's no clear majority, how is anyone going to get legislation passed? Only through working with other parties. Sure, I'll sign your clean energy bill, but only if you add X, Y and Z and then you sign my bill, which may be your constituents are going to hate.

Hannah McCarthy: So the trade off here is that you can elect someone who lines up exactly with what you [00:17:30] want a member of your very specific party, but you have no idea if they're going to succeed at getting anything done.

Guillermo Rosas: And the corollary of that is that it's also going to be more difficult for you as a voter to know exactly who you whom you need to hold accountable for things that you dislike.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, that's an example of a multi-party system, is there such a thing as a one party system,

Guillermo Rosas: Most one party systems are occurring [00:18:00] in countries that are not democratic. Right. So China is a one party system. Cuba is a one party system. Vietnam is a one party system. There are other systems, more and more so we in political science were moving away from a strict dichotomous division between authoritarian countries and democratic countries. Think about the United, United Russia in in Putin's Russia, right? That would also be a competitive, authoritarian regime where other parties cannot take representation in the Duma. [00:18:30] But you know, it's it's a it's a pretty it's a pretty hegemonic presence of of the of the main party.

Nick Capodice: The State Duma is Russia's elected legislative body, and of its four hundred and fifty members, 326 are the United Russia party.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, we're not going to get into the pros and cons of non-democratic or authoritarian systems in this episode, but I will say, ah, it's pretty effective.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, it's easy to get stuff done if you just do away with elections and democracy [00:19:00] and representatives. A lot less gridlock.

Hannah McCarthy: I think I understand the pros and cons of two party versus multi-party. Two party systems like ours are relatively easier to govern. One party is in power for a while and they can get laws passed until the other party wins control. And the downside is a lack of choices. You've got two ways to address every issue in America, and multi-party systems offer more diversity of thought, [00:19:30] but have more trouble passing laws and there's less accountability.

Nick Capodice: That's a pretty good summation, and I think Guillermo and Robin would both be proud of it.

Hannah McCarthy: I bet Guillermo wouldn't say being a political scientist and all, but did he give any hint of what he thinks is the best of these democratic systems? Is there one that surpasses all others as champion?

Guillermo Rosas: Many students, especially the young ones, believe that somewhere out there there is a perfect political system that [00:20:00] has the right amount of parties that has the right configuration to allow laws to be passed effectively and implemented with some good sense. And it is true that I think some systems are better than others, but that that's a holy grail, right? I mean, it's well, it's not a search that we have a clear final goal where you're going to find the perfect system.

Nick Capodice: And I dared ask him, Guillermo, [00:20:30] I know there isn't a perfect system, but if you had to pick, which country do political scientists think is closest to that holy grail?

Hannah McCarthy: Did he choose one? He did. What was it?

Nick Capodice: Spain,

Hannah McCarthy: Spain?

Nick Capodice: Spain!

Guillermo Rosas: Spain would be kind of the place that people had in mind. And you know, if you have been following politics in Spain, it's anything but [00:21:00] placid, right? There's also a lot of problems. It's complicated. But the argument there would be that the way that Spanish voters send representatives to the courts to their parliaments is that they are also divided geographically.

Nick Capodice: I'm going to try to break down how Spain does it, and I hope we don't make a hash of things. But Spain is divided into 50 provinces and each province elects members to Spain's Congress called the general courts. The more people that live in a province, the more seats it sends to the courts.

Hannah McCarthy: It sounds a lot [00:21:30] like our own congressional districts,

Nick Capodice: Yes, but with two massive differences. They do not use the SMP winner take all method. They use a proportional method and the people don't vote for individuals. They vote for a party that has a pre-selected list of candidates. As an example, let's take Cadiz, that Old Town on the southwestern coast, Cadiz sends nine people to the courts. In their 2019 election, the Spanish Socialist Workers Party got 30 percent of the vote and thus [00:22:00] won three seats. The conservative Vox Party got 20 percent and they sent two people to the courts, and so on.

Guillermo Rosas: So what does that buy you? It buys you on in terms of the alienation that we've been talking about. It buys you the fact that you have more parties with, with more with more diverse platforms all over the spectrum, from far left to far right that you can choose from. So that's nice. At the same time, you are not fragmenting [00:22:30] the the the the assembly or the parliament all that much. After all, there's only so many ways in which you can divide eight votes, right? Even you have 14, 40 parties competing, most of them are not going to get a lot of representation.

Nick Capodice: Some political scientists say that Spain's system hits that sweet spot

Guillermo Rosas: In which you are obtaining some of the advantages of a system like the United States where you know who your Congress representative is. Where you know the Congress representative spends a lot of time [00:23:00] in in close to the constituents develops a home style. Once these babies and shake hands and talk to people and all of that and the advantages of the more proportional systems that we tend to find in continental Europe, where there is more possibility for different interests to be represented.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. My last question is how do we measure up? Who wins in this us versus.

Nick Capodice: Now I am not saying [00:23:30] if we want to go back to the Street Fighter two reference at the beginning that we should all choose Vega instead of Guile.

Hannah McCarthy: I think maybe one percent of our audience is going to get that reference.

Nick Capodice: Fair. That's fair. Guile is from the U.S. everyone, Vega's from Spain. But Spain is by no means a consensual nation. Politically, they've got divides and problems like we've all have divides and problems. But to know how the U.S. would do in a comparative matchup against Spain, Guillermo said, We can't. We have to wait and [00:24:00] see.

Guillermo Rosas: You know, the American Two-Party system has has its problems. I'm not going to stand here and say otherwise. But it also I I what I like about it is that it provides ample opportunity to build relatively lasting majority coalitions. I think we are going through a period in American history in which this is not quite working out because we seem to be in the middle of a process of realignment [00:24:30] where the two big parties are trying to figure out how they are going to capture constituencies that they didn't used to represent. And I think it's going to take a while for the parties to sort this out. But what? I like the two party system because of that, right, it's especially in a country that's as heterogeneous as the United States.

Nick Capodice: And in this liminal space of a realignment, the two big parties are looking to their constituents and deciding what their new platforms are, [00:25:00] what the party stands for. And once we get through this phase of what Guillermo referred to me as growing pains, only then can we better assess how we measure up on a global scale.

Hannah McCarthy: And until then, I'm sticking to Tekken.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:30]

Nick Capodice: That'll do it for a two party party cause a two party party is a party I like, this episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and in charge of all social media related to Get Back. Music in this episode by Electroswing, Creo, Bio Unit, George Gaskin that’s this guy, Ari Di Niro, Scott Holmes, Yoko Shimomura who is the brilliant composer of the music to Street Fighter 2, and that composer who didn’t write bobe made a kishke, Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Diplomacy

The United States charges nearly 8,000 people with being good at relationships. These are our diplomats, or Foreign Service Officers. These are the people who make us look good, make sure the world gives us what we want and need and try to keep tensions at a minimum.

To try to understand how this nuanced job actually works, we speak with Alison Mann, Public Historian at the National Museum of American Diplomacy and Naima Green-Riley, soon-to-be professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton and former diplomat.

 

: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

Diplomacy.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the This transcript may contain errors.

Hannah McCarthy:
Hello, everybody. Before we get started, some very quick and exciting news for you all. Civics 101 is now a weekly show. That's right. You might not have noticed, but before we were only coming out every other week, you will finally have a brand spanking new Civics 101 episode in your feed every single Tuesday. We recently joined Stitcher, and this is allowing us to do that much more for our listeners and learn so much more about American government. There are so many stories for us to explore, so many questions for us to answer, and now we're going to be able to do an even better job of that for you. So stay tuned. Keep listening and check for a new civics one one episode weekly in your podcast feed.

Hannah McCarthy:
Nick, earlier today I asked you, what do you think of when you think of a diplomat and before you answered, you did a little bit for me. Do you remember what you did?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, I do.

Hannah McCarthy:
Can you do that again?

Nick Capodice:
Diplomats are kind of like, I'm a fancy lad, I'm super fancy. I solve problems around the world.

Hannah McCarthy:
The reason I liked that, the reason I'm bringing it up now is because prior to about two weeks ago, if I thought of diplomats at all, I thought of fancy well-heeled people, mostly men in suits who hobnob with other fancy well-heeled men in suits like polo matches and brandy mixed with international intrigue due in part, I think to Hollywood. I mean, have you ever seen the movie the ambassador with Robert Mitchum? It's pretty dramatic. The ambassador, he's through negotiating anyway. It's not accurate. I'm ashamed.

Nick Capodice:
I also have this sort of vague idea of diplomatic immunity, meaning you can commit any crime and get away with it. But I imagine that's probably not true.

Hannah McCarthy:
Actually, it's that's a little bit true.

Nick Capodice:
Really.

Hannah McCarthy:
Depending on your rank, you might have carte blanche immunity unless the U.S. decides to take it away or hand it over to other authorities, which they do. Diplomatic immunity is fascinating.

Nick Capodice:
Fascinating.

Hannah McCarthy:
But let's start with the basics, shall we? This is Civics 101, I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy:
And today we are talking about the subtle system that attempts to keep our global relationships at a low simmer and fix them when they boil over.

Alison Mann:
Diplomacy is a practice. It's not foreign

Alison Mann:
Policy.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Dr. Alison Mann, the public historian at the National Museum of American Diplomacy.

Alison Mann:
Foreign policy is the directive and the foreign policy for your listeners. This is set by the administration. This is set by Congress, the administration and then formally our nation's diplomats. They will carry out that foreign policy through the secretary of State.

Hannah McCarthy:
Carrying out foreign policy means representing American interests to other nations and keeping things peaceful and prosperous. Diplomats establish and maintain trade and economic relations and keep an eye on politics abroad and try to keep the peace.

Alison Mann:
It's about relationships, it's about building those relationships and building trust. And I think that's the greatest, that's the greatest that they have in their toolkit. And a diplomatic toolkit is building those relationships. And how do you foster that relationship to withstand a period of time today?

Hannah McCarthy:
Those relationships are built by people in the five different what are called cones of diplomacy of the State Department. And Nick, I'm going to run through them real quick. Are you ready? Absolutely. There's public diplomacy promoting U.S. interests abroad through all kinds of engagement and cultural exchange. There are counselors, the people who provide services to Americans abroad, passports to Americans and visas to foreign nationals. There are economic officers who build and maintain positive trade and economic relations with other countries. There are political officers who keep a constant eye on politics in other countries and interpret them for the United States. And then finally, there is the management track. These are the people who are leaders at embassies. If you pass the test interviews and security clearance, you get to choose one of these tracks and then eventually you get an assignment.

Nick Capodice:
I'm going to bet American diplomacy has not always been so comprehensive and organized.

Hannah McCarthy:
There's quite right. Thomas Jefferson was our first secretary of state, and he had six people working for him. Today, we have around eight thousand diplomats, otherwise known as Foreign Service officers. But American diplomacy nick, it started long before Jefferson and his tiny fledgling department came along.

Alison Mann:
I would say the white American colonists had been practicing diplomacy even while they were British colonists.

Nick Capodice:
I mean, if we're going to talk about relationships with other nations, I want to know how diplomacy was done with the nations who are already here in North America. When the colonists arrived,

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, let's look at it from the peaceful and prosperous angle that I brought up, right? That works best when two nations can meet in good faith with the intention of relationship building. In the case of Native Americans, the colonists did not see those complex sovereign nations as complex sovereign nations. So even as tribes played the role of trading partners and allies in war, the skill of Native American diplomats was perpetually undercut by European and colonial prejudice. Colonial diplomacy with the French and Spanish, who were in North America was very different, and things got even more complicated when those colonists ceased to be British subjects.

Alison Mann:
In 1776, that's when they realized they now had to do it as United States citizens, and how are they going to do that? So if you read carefully the Declaration of Independence, it's really not only just an internal document, it's a declaration to the world and it is making that case for global recognition. And then you need allies, right? So almost immediately, the Continental Congress dispatched Benjamin Franklin, Arthur Lee and Silverstein over to France, which would be the natural ally of the Americans to try to broker an agreement of recognition.

Nick Capodice:
It is fascinating to think of the United States as a nation that's scrambling for recognition and connection at the global scale. We've been a quote unquote superpower for so long.

Hannah McCarthy:
I know, but it wasn't really until the major world wars that the U.S. fully took on that label. Allison told me that the museum has these diplomatic simulations that allow people to play out negotiations and, for example, the first Barbary War in the early 19th century.

Nick Capodice:
Diplomatic simulations.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is speaking to your game love.

Nick Capodice:
Can we do this?

Nick Capodice:
Can we do the Barbary, the Barbary Pirates?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, I'll do it later today.

Alison Mann:
All right. Usually the facilitator will divide them up and be like, OK, well, you're going to play this country, you're going to be the United States. And so the students are like United States. It's like, Yeah, Big Dog here, you know, and they reach in the materials and they're like, Oh, wait, a second, we actually have the least to work with here, especially the 18th century system where they don't really have that much, they don't have the upper hand. And that is so fascinating to to watch the students and then the students who are playing the other stakeholders to be like, Oh, wow, we have the upper hand here. And then they go into those negotiations with a little bit more confidence. So that's been really fascinating to watch. It was, you know, decades of decades and decades and decades of, you know, learning where where was the United States place in the world.

Hannah McCarthy:
For example, Nick, speaking of our place in the world, the United States shouts into the global void Hey, we're our own country now. And this is a tense moment because not only is this treason? It also doesn't mean much until other countries agree. So who would you guess was the first nation to shout back? Yes, indeed. United States, we recognize you. You are a country.

Nick Capodice:
I'm going to say because of our search for an ally in our early founding years, France.

Alison Mann:
Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States. It was not France. It was Morocco. The relationship between the United States and Morocco is the longest standing, unbroken relationship in American history. And it's over two hundred and thirty years old now, Mohammed, the third said. This is great. We have a great trading partner that we can. We can, we can box out Europe now like we're all for it. Excellent. So it was Morocco that was really like, yeah, we totally recognize the United States of America. But for the United States to go to France, it was really about the military support. It was about the global recognition and the fact that they felt very strongly that other European nations would follow suit. But within all of that is that layer of the negotiation with Native American, these sovereign tribes.

Hannah McCarthy:
But like you guessed, Nick, we did end up getting recognition from France as well. And in that case, it was really about needing military support for the Revolutionary War and hoping that if France recognized us, then other European nations would, too. And it wasn't just nations abroad that we needed something from.

Alison Mann:
In 1778 that crucial year of alliances when there was a brief moment of parity between the United States efforts of diplomacy with France, but also with the Lenape tribe in current-day Ohio kind of western Pennsylvania, the United States understood very well that they needed an ally in this native nation to pass freely through those lands to prosecute the war. But they also floated around the idea of creating a sovereign Lenape state within the United States of America, possibly being a 14th state when the United States was able to conclude the war. And it's interesting then, to see how the relationship with the French strengthened, but very quickly that that agreement that was signed at the Treaty of Fort Pitt in September of seventeen seventy eight dissolved a month or two later because of violence against the Native Americans.

Hannah McCarthy:
By violence.

Hannah McCarthy:
Alison means members of the continental militia continuing the attacks and murders of the Lenape people that had been going on. Prior to this peace treaty, and this highlights an important factor of American diplomacy, two governments can make all of the agreements and treaties they want, but citizens of those governments have to play along for the agreement to mean something. In the case of the Treaty of Fort Pitt, a treaty essentially establishing a formal alliance between the Lenape and the U.S. government. U.s. citizens went on to murder members of the Lenape tribe, not on the order of their government, but of their own accord. Still, it showed the Lenape that the U.S. could not effectively stand behind their alliance, and so that alliance dissolved.

Nick Capodice:
And speaking of American citizens breaking ranks. Tell me about diplomacy during the Civil War in the U.S. because we have this chunk of a country which is trying to secede. So how did other nations react to that? Were we communicating with them about it at all?

Alison Mann:
You know, something that's really fascinating to for our audience when they always learn like, wow, the Confederacy had diplomats were like, Yeah, because much like the United States, 80 years before, the Confederacy recognized that they only exist as far as the world sees them as existing. So they lobbied very hard for the British and the French to recognize them as independent from the United States of America and the United States. In their best interest was to prevent that from happening.

Nick Capodice:
I had no idea the Confederacy had diplomats, but it makes perfect sense. They're trying to, because they're trying to form their own country.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah. And for the record, there were people in Europe who were like, Hey, wait a minute, didn't you? United States just secede? And now you're telling people in your own country, No, you're not allowed to secede that that was one of the powerful talking points of the Confederacy.

Alison Mann:
Early on in eighteen sixty one, after the violence had begun, the Confederacy dispatched a couple of guys over to Great Britain, Great Britain, it said, We're neutral like we're just, we're waiting, you know, which infuriated the United States because is neutrality really neutral by the fact that you're saying you're neutral? Aren't you kind of taking their side because that means that you'll still do business with them like you can't do that? You know,

Hannah McCarthy:
It was a fine diplomatic balance because confederates know that Europe is reliant on American cotton, so they appeal to that trade issue in Great Britain and France are lured by that. Meanwhile, union diplomats are just scrambling madly to keep Europe neutral to make sure that Europe is not siding with anybody. And by the way, union diplomats are pushing the problem of secession. Not the problem of enslavement. It fell to American abolitionists, not official diplomats, to represent the most important cause of this national rift.

Alison Mann:
And so there was a woman. Her name was Sarah Parker Redman. She was an African-American woman who went on a speaking circuit in eighteen fifty nine throughout Scotland and England, and she spoke to the working classes and she spoke to them about the cotton that they were touching, that they were making in the textile mills. And she appealed to them based upon their common humanity, which is a just a diplomatic skill that is so important is to appeal to common humanity. And she was so effective in Manchester that workers, the textile refused to touch the raw cotton that they knew had come from the South. So that was a way that an American citizen was able to actually influence political decision making over in Great Britain.

Nick Capodice:
So while you had official diplomats trying to sway heads of state one way or another, here's this woman talking to fellow laypeople getting to the heart of the matter.

Hannah McCarthy:
And that subtlety, Nick, you know, like appealing not just to the heads of state, but to the rest of the people of a country. This is a vitally important aspect of diplomacy that took a long while for the United States to refine. After we managed to preserve the union, we started to grow rapidly as a nation and things really hit a fever pitch when the First World War rolled around. And then the second, as we became true powerbrokers on the global scale repping the U.S. became an increasingly complex dance because yes, it is about having good trade and economic partners who will help you. Should a war break out. But it's also about showing the world what America is like and making sure the world likes us. That's coming up after the break.

Nick Capodice:
Hey, we really love what we do, and we're really lucky to do it, and Hannah and I say this all the time, we say that we would do it for free if we were independently wealthy and tragically, the rich estranged uncle I never knew has yet to leave his entire state to me. Ditto for Hannah. So instead, we must work for money, for lucre. And in the case of Civics 101, that money comes in part from listener donations. So if you are a kindly soul who is able to make a contribution to the show, we would be so grateful. And you can do that by clicking the donate button at Civics101podcast.org. And if you are my rich, estranged uncle I don't know about, I live in Concord, New Hampshire, and I would love to cook for you. Let's get back to the show.

Hannah McCarthy:
In 1949, President Harry Truman did something unprecedented in the world of diplomacy. He appointed a woman. Eugenie Anderson as the U.S. ambassador to Denmark. Here's Alison Mahon, public historian at the National Museum of American Diplomacy.

Alison Mann:
She's a really fascinating figure. She was politically appointed to an ambassadorship by President Harry Truman, and she is our first female ambassador.

Eugenie Anderson:
That we have no choice but to build up

Eugenie Anderson:
Our defenses and to help our

Eugenie Anderson:
Allies to restore their defense forces.

Alison Mann:
But she was an early practitioner of what she called people to people diplomacy. There really wasn't that idea that the diplomat would go out among the people, right, that when they were over the stationed in there, they talk to their foreign counterparts, like they talk to the foreign affairs minister. They talk to us. But you didn't like walk around the street, you know, and talk to the people. But Eugenie Anderson said, Well, I'm going to go talk to the people. So she made it a point to learn Danish before she went to Denmark, and she would go and visit the fish market, and she would talk to the people in their own language and just get on that very basic person to person level. And in that way, building the trust of the people of the country and at the same time, advocating for the United States of America.

Hannah McCarthy:
When I asked Alison about her favorite diplomats, I heard stories like this. People who represented shifts in American diplomacy, who innovated new ways of communicating with other nations. This form of diplomacy that Alison is talking about, quote unquote public diplomacy. The State Department did not make that a part of its mission until the late 90s.

Nick Capodice:
So you you started this episode by saying you were ashamed to stereotype diplomats as fancy men with suits and brandy snifter who operated behind closed doors. But it also sounds like until very recently, it kind of was that way.

Naima Green-Riley:
Historically, the State Department has not been very diverse. The State Department is a place where until 1971, if a woman was a Foreign Service officer and wanted to serve abroad, she could not be married. And as soon as she got married, she had to resign at. The State Department is a place where the three primary adjectives to explain diplomats for many years 50 years ago, for example, were pale male and Yale. So it's a place where there was often a huge homogeneity of the diplomatic corps.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Naima Green-Riley soon to be Dr. Naima Green Riley and a professor at Princeton. She's currently completing her PhD at Harvard and writing about diplomacy. She also happens to be a former diplomat who worked in public diplomacy.

Naima Green-Riley:
I often felt like on the ground I could bring my personal experience to the job, and that was important to me because America is a diverse place where sometimes people in the country have very different views from mine. At the same time, there weren't enough, and there still are not enough people who are able to do that within the diplomatic corps. And to the extent that we can increase the diversity of the State Department, I think that we'll get people abroad. We'll get a better idea of really what it means to be American and its full sense of diversity and its full and its full spectrum

Hannah McCarthy:
Name is first diplomacy job was in Egypt.

Naima Green-Riley:
I got assigned to Egypt in late 2010, and shortly after I was told that I was going to Egypt for my first tour, a little thing called the Arab Spring happened

Hannah McCarthy:
And right away. This was an opportunity where sharing her personal experience in and of America was an asset.

Naima Green-Riley:
And my own experience as a black woman at the time when I was a diplomat as a pretty young black woman, had a huge impact on how I had experienced being an American and so going abroad, I found that I was able to bring those experiences to the table in order to set up programing. So there were times when we talked about the civil rights movement and protests that happened during the civil rights movement in the context of an Arab Spring in which you see people who are struggling to gain greater rights in both situations. There were times in which I had a soul food dinner and I got to introduce Black Eyed Peas and collard greens and fried chicken to schoolkids and in Egypt. There was a time when we did a Soul Train line in China. And so one thing that was important to me when I was a diplomat was to be able to share what my experience was as an American. And I think that that is actually something that many diplomats aim to do.

Hannah McCarthy:
I read this government report assessing public diplomacy. Think this was in 2005? Ok? Really recent. And it says that in this changed world, public diplomacy is as important as foreign policy and that. The State Department needs to do an even better job of it. But, you know, to me, that principle was evident back when Sarah Parker, Redmond, told mill workers in England the horrifying truth about where their cotton came from, the way other countries have perceived us has always mattered since our earliest days as a country. So yes, diplomacy is about conversations, about sharing, about making sure the U.S. knows what's going on politically and economically elsewhere, and making sure our interests are not compromised abroad. But it's also about desirable culture. Does your country have the it factor that's going to make people like it? Do your ambassadors represent that? Naima and I talked about this thing called soft power,

Naima Green-Riley:
The concept of soft power. Originally came from academia and I have now left the State Department. I've gone into an academic role. I'm about to start a role as a professor at Princeton, and I've had a lot of time to think about what public diplomacy is from an academic standpoint and how it seeks to to capture soft power. So soft power is this term that was coined in the late 80s early 90s by professor at Harvard named Joe Nye. And the idea is that through being attractive through things like it's entertainment industry or its fashion industry or its music industry, a country can somehow gain some sort of credit internationally that will translate into helping it to be more persuasive, helping it to get what it wants internationally. And so another way to talk about soft power is to say, if you're cool, if your country is cooler, then you'll get brownie points and those brownie points will help you to gain something tangible in international politics. That's that's the way the concept works.

Nick Capodice:
Wow. So there is such a thing as being the cool kid, even at the global level.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, there is. But you don't become the cool kid overnight. You don't develop strong international relationships overnight. You don't create or de-escalate conflict overnight. You don't establish a desirable culture overnight. One major takeaway for me about diplomacy is that it is a long game. It is the long game.

Alison Mann:
It's the skills. It's the tools. It's the getting to. Yes, it's the getting to. Maybe. And to understand that there really is no quick fix that what we see kind of evolving over the course of time is just very lengthy relationship building of the work of our nation's diplomats, you know, to get to that point that we don't see, quite frankly, you know, the work of the diplomacy and our diplomats is quiet often.

Hannah McCarthy:
Nick, you know, I struggled in this episode to pin diplomacy to the corkboard, to define it. And I came to realize the reason I couldn't is that it is so many things. It is so nuanced a practice. It takes place over such a long period of time and over so many small and large interactions that you cannot pin it down. And when it comes to the diplomats themselves, I asked Naima, OK, what makes a good diplomat? And she gave me the ultimate non definition.

Naima Green-Riley:
Diplomats can get training in and there's lots of training that goes into being diplomat. One thing that I always look back to and sort of laugh at is that when you first become a Foreign Service officer, the State Department puts you into a class called a one hundred. And it was about six weeks when I took it in twenty ten. But basically You in a class of other First-Year diplomats all joined the State Department at the same time. And you go to a place called the Foreign Service Institute and walk around with your suit and your briefcase, and it's kind of like a Hogwarts for diplomats. So I just remember going to the Foreign Service Institute and getting this training. But as much as you can have trainings on sort of what to expect in your role as a diplomat, I think that much of what makes diplomats talented is sort of innate. The people who are bridge builders and other situations, the people who are able to understand different languages are the people who have traveled internationally in the past often tend to be the people who are good at being diplomats. And so I don't know that there's anything that you can learn in a class that's going to really, really when things get get tough, you know, be the magic bullet.

Hannah McCarthy:
Today's episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. We try to fit a lot into these episodes, but there is a lot on the cutting room floor and that is what our newsletter is for Extra Credit. You can subscribe by going to civics101podcast.org. And by the way, if you like the show, whether you're a regular listener or brand new, leave us a review on iTunes and let us know what you think. Music in this episode by Xylo Zico Spring Tide Bio Unit Anthem of Rain and Ketsa. Civics 101 is a production of Nhpr, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including enterprise-grade admin tools, collaboration tools, upload many different filetypes, automated transcription, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: Hello, everybody. Before we get started, some very quick and exciting news for you all. Civics 101 is now a weekly show. That's right. You might not have noticed, but before we were only coming out every other week, you will finally have a brand spanking new Civics 101 episode in your feed every single Tuesday. We recently joined Stitcher, and this is allowing us to do that much more for our listeners and learn so much more about American government. There are so many stories for us to explore, so many questions for us to answer, [00:00:30] and now we're going to be able to do an even better job of that for you. So stay tuned. Keep listening and check for a new civics one one episode weekly in your podcast feed.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, earlier today I asked you, what do you think of when you think of a diplomat and before you answered, you did a little bit for me. Do you remember what you did?

 

Nick Capodice: Yeah, I do.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Can you do that again?

 

Nick Capodice: Diplomats [00:01:00] are kind of like, I'm a fancy lad, I'm super fancy. I solve problems around the world.

 

Hannah McCarthy: The reason I liked that, the reason I'm bringing it up now is because prior to about two weeks ago, if I thought of diplomats at all, I thought of fancy well-heeled people, mostly men in suits who hobnob with other fancy well-heeled [00:01:30] men in suits like polo matches and brandy mixed with international intrigue due in part, I think to Hollywood. I mean, have you ever seen the movie the ambassador with Robert Mitchum? It's pretty dramatic. The ambassador, he's through negotiating anyway. It's not accurate. I'm ashamed.

 

Nick Capodice: I also have this sort of vague idea of diplomatic immunity, meaning you can commit any crime and get away with it. But I [00:02:00] imagine that's probably not true.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Actually, it's that's a little bit true.

 

Nick Capodice: Really.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Depending on your rank, you might have carte blanche immunity unless the U.S. decides to take it away or hand it over to other authorities, which they do. Diplomatic immunity is fascinating.

 

Nick Capodice: Fascinating.

 

Hannah McCarthy: But let's start with the basics, shall we? This is Civics 101, I'm Hannah McCarthy.

 

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And today we are talking about the subtle system that attempts to keep our global relationships at a low simmer [00:02:30] and fix them when they boil over.

 

Alison Mann: Diplomacy is a practice. It's not foreign

 

Alison Mann: Policy.

 

Hannah McCarthy: This is Dr. Alison Mann, the public historian at the National Museum of American Diplomacy.

 

Alison Mann: Foreign policy is the directive and the foreign policy for your listeners. This is set by the administration. This is set by Congress, the administration and then formally our nation's diplomats. They will carry out that foreign policy through the secretary of State. [00:03:00]

 

Hannah McCarthy: Carrying out foreign policy means representing American interests to other nations and keeping things peaceful and prosperous. Diplomats establish and maintain trade and economic relations and keep an eye on politics abroad and try to keep the peace.

 

Alison Mann: It's about relationships, it's about building those relationships and building trust. And I think that's the greatest, that's the greatest that they have in their toolkit. And a diplomatic toolkit is building those relationships. And how do you foster that relationship [00:03:30] to withstand a period of time today?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Those relationships are built by people in the five different what are called cones of diplomacy of the State Department. And Nick, I'm going to run through them real quick. Are you ready? Absolutely. There's public diplomacy promoting U.S. interests abroad through all kinds of engagement and cultural exchange. There are counselors, the people who provide services to Americans abroad, passports to Americans and visas to foreign nationals. There are economic officers who build and maintain positive trade [00:04:00] and economic relations with other countries. There are political officers who keep a constant eye on politics in other countries and interpret them for the United States. And then finally, there is the management track. These are the people who are leaders at embassies. If you pass the test interviews and security clearance, you get to choose one of these tracks and then eventually you get an assignment.

 

Nick Capodice: I'm going to bet American diplomacy has not always been so comprehensive and organized.

 

Hannah McCarthy: There's quite right. [00:04:30] Thomas Jefferson was our first secretary of state, and he had six people working for him. Today, we have around eight thousand diplomats, otherwise known as Foreign Service officers. But American diplomacy nick, it started long before Jefferson and his tiny fledgling department came along.

 

Alison Mann: I would say the white American colonists had been practicing diplomacy even while they were British colonists.

 

Nick Capodice: I mean, if we're going to talk about relationships with other nations, I want to know how diplomacy [00:05:00] was done with the nations who are already here in North America. When the colonists arrived,

 

Hannah McCarthy: Well, let's look at it from the peaceful and prosperous angle that I brought up, right? That works best when two nations can meet in good faith with the intention of relationship building. In the case of Native Americans, the colonists did not see those complex sovereign nations as complex sovereign nations. So even as tribes played the role of trading partners and allies in war, [00:05:30] the skill of Native American diplomats was perpetually undercut by European and colonial prejudice. Colonial diplomacy with the French and Spanish, who were in North America was very different, and things got even more complicated when those colonists ceased to be British subjects.

 

Alison Mann: In 1776, that's when they realized they now had to do it as United States citizens, and how are they going to do that? So if you read carefully the Declaration of Independence, [00:06:00] it's really not only just an internal document, it's a declaration to the world and it is making that case for global recognition. And then you need allies, right? So almost immediately, the Continental Congress dispatched Benjamin Franklin, Arthur Lee and Silverstein over to France, which would be the natural ally of the Americans to try to broker an agreement of recognition.

 

Nick Capodice: It is fascinating to think of the United States as a nation that's scrambling [00:06:30] for recognition and connection at the global scale. We've been a quote unquote superpower for so long.

 

Hannah McCarthy: I know, but it wasn't really until the major world wars that the U.S. fully took on that label. Allison told me that the museum has these diplomatic simulations that allow people to play out negotiations and, for example, the first Barbary War in the early 19th century.

 

Nick Capodice: Diplomatic simulations.

 

Hannah McCarthy: This is speaking to your game love.

 

Nick Capodice: Can we do this?

 

Nick Capodice: Can we do the [00:07:00] Barbary, the Barbary Pirates?

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I'll do it later today.

 

Alison Mann: All right. Usually the facilitator will divide them up and be like, OK, well, you're going to play this country, you're going to be the United States. And so the students are like United States. It's like, Yeah, Big Dog here, you know, and they reach in the materials and they're like, Oh, wait, a second, we actually have the least to work with here, especially the 18th century system where they don't really have that much, they don't have the upper hand. And that is so fascinating to to watch the students [00:07:30] and then the students who are playing the other stakeholders to be like, Oh, wow, we have the upper hand here. And then they go into those negotiations with a little bit more confidence. So that's been really fascinating to watch. It was, you know, decades of decades and decades and decades of, you know, learning where where was the United States place in the world.

 

Hannah McCarthy: For example, Nick, speaking of our place in the world, the United States [00:08:00] shouts into the global void Hey, we're our own country now. And this is a tense moment because not only is this treason? It also doesn't mean much until other countries agree. So who would you guess was the first nation to shout back? Yes, indeed. United States, we recognize you. You are a country.

 

Nick Capodice: I'm going to say because of our search for an ally in our early founding years, France.

 

Alison Mann: Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States. It [00:08:30] was not France. It was Morocco. The relationship between the United States and Morocco is the longest standing, unbroken relationship in American history. And it's over two hundred and thirty years old now, Mohammed, the third said. This is great. We have a great trading partner that we can. We can, we can box out Europe now like we're all for it. Excellent. So it was Morocco that was really like, yeah, we totally recognize the United States of America. [00:09:00] But for the United States to go to France, it was really about the military support. It was about the global recognition and the fact that they felt very strongly that other European nations would follow suit. But within all of that is that layer of the negotiation with Native American, these sovereign tribes.

 

Hannah McCarthy: But like you guessed, Nick, we did end up getting recognition from France as well. And in that case, it was really about needing military support for the Revolutionary [00:09:30] War and hoping that if France recognized us, then other European nations would, too. And it wasn't just nations abroad that we needed something from.

 

Alison Mann: In 1778 that crucial year of alliances when there was a brief moment of parity between the United States efforts of diplomacy with France, but also with the Lenape tribe in current-day Ohio kind of western Pennsylvania, the United States understood very well that they [00:10:00] needed an ally in this native nation to pass freely through those lands to prosecute the war. But they also floated around the idea of creating a sovereign Lenape state within the United States of America, possibly being a 14th state when the United States was able to conclude the war. And it's interesting then, to see how the relationship with the French strengthened, but very quickly that that agreement that was signed [00:10:30] at the Treaty of Fort Pitt in September of seventeen seventy eight dissolved a month or two later because of violence against the Native Americans.

 

Hannah McCarthy: By violence.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Alison means members of the continental militia continuing the attacks and murders of the Lenape people that had been going on. Prior to this peace treaty, and this highlights an important factor of American diplomacy, two governments can make all of the agreements and treaties they want, but citizens of those governments have to [00:11:00] play along for the agreement to mean something. In the case of the Treaty of Fort Pitt, a treaty essentially establishing a formal alliance between the Lenape and the U.S. government. U.s. citizens went on to murder members of the Lenape tribe, not on the order of their government, but of their own accord. Still, it showed the Lenape that the U.S. could not effectively stand behind their alliance, and so that alliance dissolved.

 

Nick Capodice: And speaking of American citizens breaking ranks. Tell [00:11:30] me about diplomacy during the Civil War in the U.S. because we have this chunk of a country which is trying to secede. So how did other nations react to that? Were we communicating with them about it at all?

 

Alison Mann: You know, something that's really fascinating to for our audience when they always learn like, wow, the Confederacy had diplomats were like, Yeah, because much like the United States, 80 years before, the Confederacy recognized that they only exist as far [00:12:00] as the world sees them as existing. So they lobbied very hard for the British and the French to recognize them as independent from the United States of America and the United States. In their best interest was to prevent that from happening.

 

Nick Capodice: I had no idea the Confederacy had diplomats, but it makes perfect sense. They're trying to, because they're trying to form their own country.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. And for the record, there were people in Europe who were like, Hey, wait a minute, didn't you? United [00:12:30] States just secede? And now you're telling people in your own country, No, you're not allowed to secede that that was one of the powerful talking points of the Confederacy.

 

Alison Mann: Early on in eighteen sixty one, after the violence had begun, the Confederacy dispatched a couple of guys over to Great Britain, Great Britain, it said, We're neutral like we're just, we're waiting, you know, which infuriated the United States [00:13:00] because is neutrality really neutral by the fact that you're saying you're neutral? Aren't you kind of taking their side because that means that you'll still do business with them like you can't do that? You know,

 

Hannah McCarthy: It was a fine diplomatic balance because confederates know that Europe is reliant on American cotton, so they appeal to that trade issue in Great Britain and France are lured by that. Meanwhile, union diplomats are just scrambling madly to keep Europe neutral to make sure that Europe is not siding with anybody. And [00:13:30] by the way, union diplomats are pushing the problem of secession. Not the problem of enslavement. It fell to American abolitionists, not official diplomats, to represent the most important cause of this national rift.

 

Alison Mann: And so there was a woman. Her name was Sarah Parker Redman. She was an African-American woman who went on a speaking circuit in eighteen fifty nine throughout Scotland and England, and she spoke to the working classes and she spoke to [00:14:00] them about the cotton that they were touching, that they were making in the textile mills. And she appealed to them based upon their common humanity, which is a just a diplomatic skill that is so important is to appeal to common humanity. And she was so effective in Manchester that workers, the textile refused to touch the raw cotton that they knew had come from the South. So that was a way that an American citizen was able to actually [00:14:30] influence political decision making over in Great Britain.

 

Nick Capodice: So while you had official diplomats trying to sway heads of state one way or another, here's this woman talking to fellow laypeople getting to the heart of the matter.

 

Hannah McCarthy: And that subtlety, Nick, you know, like appealing not just to the heads of state, but to the rest of the people of a country. This is a vitally important aspect of diplomacy that took a long while for the United States to refine. After we managed to preserve the union, [00:15:00] we started to grow rapidly as a nation and things really hit a fever pitch when the First World War rolled around. And then the second, as we became true powerbrokers on the global scale repping the U.S. became an increasingly complex dance because yes, it is about having good trade and economic partners who will help you. Should a war break out. But it's also about showing the world what America is like and making sure the world likes us. That's coming up after the break. [00:15:30]

 

Nick Capodice: Hey, we really love what we do, and we're really lucky to do it, and Hannah and I say this all the time, we say that we would do it for free if we were independently wealthy and tragically, the rich estranged uncle I never knew has yet to leave his entire state to me. Ditto for Hannah. So instead, we must work for money, for lucre. And in the case of Civics [00:16:00] 101, that money comes in part from listener donations. So if you are a kindly soul who is able to make a contribution to the show, we would be so grateful. And you can do that by clicking the donate button at Civics101podcast.org. And if you are my rich, estranged uncle I don't know about, I live in Concord, New Hampshire, and I would love to cook for you. Let's get back to the show.

 

Hannah McCarthy: In  [00:16:30]1949, President Harry Truman did something unprecedented in the world of diplomacy. He appointed a woman. Eugenie Anderson as the U.S. ambassador to Denmark. Here's Alison Mahon, public historian at the National Museum of American Diplomacy.

 

Alison Mann: She's a really fascinating figure. She was politically appointed to an ambassadorship by President Harry Truman, and she is our first female [00:17:00] ambassador.

 

Eugenie Anderson: That we have no choice but to build up

 

Eugenie Anderson: Our defenses and to help our

 

Eugenie Anderson: Allies to restore their defense forces.

 

Alison Mann: But she was an early practitioner of what she called people to people diplomacy. There really wasn't that idea that the diplomat would go out among the people, right, that when they were over the stationed in there, they talk to their foreign counterparts, like they talk to the foreign affairs minister. They talk to us. But you didn't like walk around the street, you know, and talk to the people. But Eugenie Anderson said, Well, I'm going to go talk to the people. [00:17:30] So she made it a point to learn Danish before she went to Denmark, and she would go and visit the fish market, and she would talk to the people in their own language and just get on that very basic person to person level. And in that way, building the trust of the people of the country and at the same time, advocating for the United States of America.

 

Hannah McCarthy: When I asked Alison about her favorite diplomats, I heard stories like this. People who represented shifts [00:18:00] in American diplomacy, who innovated new ways of communicating with other nations. This form of diplomacy that Alison is talking about, quote unquote public diplomacy. The State Department did not make that a part of its mission until the late 90s.

 

Nick Capodice: So you you started this episode by saying you were ashamed to stereotype diplomats as fancy men with suits and brandy snifter who operated behind closed doors. But it also sounds like until very recently, it kind of was that way.

 

Naima Green-Riley: Historically, [00:18:30] the State Department has not been very diverse. The State Department is a place where until 1971, if a woman was a Foreign Service officer and wanted to serve abroad, she could not be married. And as soon as she got married, she had to resign at. The State Department is a place where the three primary adjectives to explain diplomats for many years 50 years ago, for example, were pale male and Yale. So [00:19:00] it's a place where there was often a huge homogeneity of the diplomatic corps.

 

Hannah McCarthy: This is Naima Green-Riley soon to be Dr. Naima Green Riley and a professor at Princeton. She's currently completing her PhD at Harvard and writing about diplomacy. She also happens to be a former diplomat who worked in public diplomacy.

 

Naima Green-Riley: I often felt like on the ground I could bring my personal experience to the job, and that was important to [00:19:30] me because America is a diverse place where sometimes people in the country have very different views from mine. At the same time, there weren't enough, and there still are not enough people who are able to do that within the diplomatic corps. And to the extent that we can increase the diversity of the State Department, I think that we'll get people abroad. We'll get a better idea of really what it means to be American and its full sense of diversity and its full and its full spectrum

 

Hannah McCarthy: Name is first diplomacy job was in Egypt.

 

Naima Green-Riley: I got [00:20:00] assigned to Egypt in late 2010, and shortly after I was told that I was going to Egypt for my first tour, a little thing called the Arab Spring happened

 

Hannah McCarthy: And right away. This was an opportunity where sharing her personal experience in and of America was an asset.

 

Naima Green-Riley: And my own experience as a black woman at the time when I was a diplomat as a pretty young black woman, had a huge impact on how I had experienced being [00:20:30] an American and so going abroad, I found that I was able to bring those experiences to the table in order to set up programing. So there were times when we talked about the civil rights movement and protests that happened during the civil rights movement in the context of an Arab Spring in which you see people who are struggling to gain greater rights in both situations. There were times in which I had a soul food dinner [00:21:00] and I got to introduce Black Eyed Peas and collard greens and fried chicken to schoolkids and in Egypt. There was a time when we did a Soul Train line in China. And so one thing that was important to me when I was a diplomat was to be able to share what my experience was as an American. And I think that that is actually something that many diplomats aim to do.

 

Hannah McCarthy: I read this government report assessing public diplomacy. Think this was in [00:21:30] 2005? Ok? Really recent. And it says that in this changed world, public diplomacy is as important as foreign policy and that. The State Department needs to do an even better job of it. But, you know, to me, that principle was evident back when Sarah Parker, Redmond, told mill workers in England the horrifying truth about where their cotton came from, the way other countries have perceived us has always mattered [00:22:00] since our earliest days as a country. So yes, diplomacy is about conversations, about sharing, about making sure the U.S. knows what's going on politically and economically elsewhere, and making sure our interests are not compromised abroad. But it's also about desirable culture. Does your country have the it factor that's going to make people like it? Do your ambassadors represent that? Naima and I talked [00:22:30] about this thing called soft power,

 

Naima Green-Riley: The concept of soft power. Originally came from academia and I have now left the State Department. I've gone into an academic role. I'm about to start a role as a professor at Princeton, and I've had a lot of time to think about what public diplomacy is from an academic standpoint and how it seeks to to capture soft power. So soft power is this term that was coined in the late 80s early 90s by professor at Harvard named Joe [00:23:00] Nye. And the idea is that through being attractive through things like it's entertainment industry or its fashion industry or its music industry, a country can somehow gain some sort of credit internationally that will translate into helping it to be more persuasive, helping it to get what it wants internationally. And so another way to talk about soft power is to say, if you're cool, if your country is cooler, then [00:23:30] you'll get brownie points and those brownie points will help you to gain something tangible in international politics. That's that's the way the concept works.

 

Nick Capodice: Wow. So there is such a thing as being the cool kid, even at the global level.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, there is. But you don't become the cool kid overnight. You don't develop strong international relationships overnight. You don't create or de-escalate conflict overnight. You [00:24:00] don't establish a desirable culture overnight. One major takeaway for me about diplomacy is that it is a long game. It is the long game.

 

Alison Mann: It's the skills. It's the tools. It's the getting to. Yes, it's the getting to. Maybe. And to understand that there really is no quick fix that what we see kind of evolving over the course of time is just very lengthy relationship building [00:24:30] of the work of our nation's diplomats, you know, to get to that point that we don't see, quite frankly, you know, the work of the diplomacy and our diplomats is quiet often.

 

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, you know, I struggled in this episode to pin diplomacy to the corkboard, to define it. And I came to realize the reason I couldn't is that it is so many things. It is so nuanced a practice. It takes place over such a long period of time and [00:25:00] over so many small and large interactions that you cannot pin it down. And when it comes to the diplomats themselves, I asked Naima, OK, what makes a good diplomat? And she gave me the ultimate non definition.

 

Naima Green-Riley: Diplomats can get training in and there's lots of training that goes into being diplomat. One thing that I always look back to and sort of laugh at is that when you first become a Foreign Service officer, [00:25:30] the State Department puts you into a class called a one hundred. And it was about six weeks when I took it in twenty ten. But basically You in a class of other First-Year diplomats all joined the State Department at the same time. And you go to a place called the Foreign Service Institute and walk around with your suit and your briefcase, and it's kind of like a Hogwarts for diplomats. So I just remember going to the Foreign Service Institute and getting this training. But as [00:26:00] much as you can have trainings on sort of what to expect in your role as a diplomat, I think that much of what makes diplomats talented is sort of innate. The people who are bridge builders and other situations, the people who are able to understand different languages are the people who have traveled internationally in the past often tend to be the people who are good at being diplomats. And so [00:26:30] I don't know that there's anything that you can learn in a class that's going to really, really when things get get tough, you know, be the magic bullet.

 

 [00:27:00]

 

Hannah McCarthy: Today's episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. We try to fit a lot into these episodes, but there is a lot on the cutting room floor and that is what our newsletter is for Extra Credit. You can subscribe by going to civics101podcast.org. And by the way, if you like the show, whether you're a regular listener or brand new, leave us a review on iTunes and let us know what you think. [00:27:30] Music in this episode by Xylo Zico Spring Tide Bio Unit Anthem of Rain and Ketsa. Civics 101 is a production of Nhpr, New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Gerrymandering

The 2020 census has concluded, which means it's time for states to redraw their congressional districts. Today we're exploring partisan gerrymandering, the act of drawing those maps to benefit one party over the other. In this episode you'll learn about stacking, cracking, packing, and many other ways politicians choose voters (instead of the other way round). 

Taking us through the story of Gerry's salamander and beyond are professors Justin LevittRobin Best, and Nancy Miller.

Click here for a graphic organizer for students to take notes upon while they listen to the episode.


gerrymandering final.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

gerrymandering final.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Nick Capodice:
Ok. Ok. Yeah. Ok, hold on. Ok. Take a look at this. Ok.

Hannah McCarthy:
It's like a Rorschach test.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, so that's Maryland's Third District, and it's called it's nicknamed the praying mantis. Check this one out.

Hannah McCarthy:
There's a long thing that could be like a trunk that looks like it might be like squirting water out of it.

Nick Capodice:
That's Texas's Thirty Fifth District, and it's nicknamed the Upside-Down Elephant.

Hannah McCarthy:
Is it Rorschach or Rorschach?

Nick Capodice:
Rorschach.

Hannah McCarthy:
Good I got it right.

Nick Capodice:
There's an old joke like, Who is this guy Rorschach? And Why did he draw so many pictures of my parents fighting?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, that's funny. This one looks like someone like yelling at someone else and kicking their butt.

Nick Capodice:
That is Pennsylvania's 7th District. It doesn't exist anymore, and it's got my favorite nickname, which is Goofy kicking Donald Duck.

Hannah McCarthy:
So these are congressional districts, right? Why do they look so weird?

Nick Capodice:
Ok, so you know, every two years, a bunch of Americans go into a voting booth and they pick someone, right?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yes, voting.

Nick Capodice:
What these are extreme instances of are not citizens picking representatives. But representatives picking them. You're listening to Civics 101, I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm Hannah McCarthy,

Nick Capodice:
And today we are talking about gerrymandering, the political maneuver of drawing a map to divide voters so on Election Day, one party is more likely to win. To start off, if you live in the United States, you live in a congressional district. Your physical address determines who you can vote for in an election. And even if you live in a state that only has one district, your address still matters because it determines who you can vote for in your state legislature.

Hannah McCarthy:
And I know that as we speak November 2021, these maps are being drawn, right?

Nick Capodice:
Yes, they are, because we draw our state and federal congressional districts after each census.

Hannah McCarthy:
I have heard news stories from multiple states about these new maps. Nick, people care so deeply about them, and I think that that's in part because we are going to be stuck with them for 10 years.

Nick Capodice:
And because of that, Hannah, gerrymandering is always a current events issue.

Justin Levitt:
Well it's no surprise if I could guarantee my job in the job of my friends and guarantee that I could punish the people I don't like. I'd be mighty tempted to use that power, no matter what field that we're in.

Nick Capodice:
This is Justin Levitt. He's a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.

Justin Levitt:
Legislators aren't any different. Legislators. They're just like us. And since the dawn of the redistricting process, legislators have used the power to draw the lines to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is interesting. I tend to think of gerrymandering as this modern day political practice that involves computers and data analysis and a lot of critique. But it sounds like Justin is saying that this is something that we have always done.

Nick Capodice:
Always, since the very beginning before we even had a word for it. Some scholars have suggested that Patrick Henry, Mr. Give me liberty or give me death, almost gerrymandered James Madison out of Congress in 1788 by redrawing Virginia's maps. But I'm going to jump ahead to the creation of the term, which is in 1812, and I'm going to start with the fact that we're probably saying it wrong.

Nancy Miller:
You reached out to your nana to see if there's anything you wanted me to to address to the congressman when he comes out next.

Yes, she had a few things. She said he should know that his district was the first to be gerrymandered. And I said, Yeah, I know. Yeah,

Nick Capodice:
That was John Mulaney on Late Night with Seth Meyers and his grandmother's right. The term comes from that signer of the Declaration of Independence, Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry. Gerry was a Democratic Republican at the time, and he signed a redistricting act that cut up the districts of Essex County so it would be much harder for the other party, the Federalists, to get any seats in the Legislature. And the map of these districts was such a long, curved shape that a cartoonist put wings and a reptilian head on it and published it in the Boston Gazette with the name Gerrymander. It's a portmanteau word of Gerry and Salamander.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now I'm not a herpetologist here, but I don't believe that salamanders have wings.

Nick Capodice:
That's fair. I think it comes from when we used to use the word salamander to just mean dragon.

Hannah McCarthy:
Was that 1812 gerrymander successful?

Nick Capodice:
Lord Yes. In the following election, Federalists won only a third of seats in the state legislature, even though they had a majority of the popular vote.

Hannah McCarthy:
But how does that work? How do these maps hold so much power?

Nick Capodice:
Well, to understand gerrymandering, we have to first understand the process that we're going through now, congressional redistricting. And Justin told me that redistricting is one of the most important facets of our democracy because whatever you care about Hannah, whether it's like national security or universal health care or a woman's right to choose or gun rights, whatever, it all comes down to our election process, we do things through the representatives that we elect.

Justin Levitt:
And if you care about the election process, then you care about redistricting. It's the infrastructure of infrastructure. It's how we do absolutely everything else because it makes sure that some voices get lifted up in choosing who those representatives will be that decide what kind of a world we're going to be living together.

Nancy Miller:
Redistricting is something we have to do, or it's it's good that we have to do it every 10 years now since the 1960s, because people move around.

Nick Capodice:
This is Professor Nancy Miller. She teaches political science at the University of Dayton.

Nancy Miller:
From a congressional standpoint, we've decided that the House of Representatives is going to be 435 people, and I don't think there's any appetite to make that larger right now. And so people move from the northeast to the South or the Midwest to the South. Sometimes they move from the south up to the Pacific Northwest. And in order to keep with the principle of one man, one vote, some states have to lose some seats and some states will gain some seats. And if you're going to change the number of seats in a state, then you, of course, you've got to redraw the lines.

Nick Capodice:
And if we're keeping the house at four hundred and thirty five members, it's only fair that each of those members represents about the same number of people.

Nancy Miller:
So what would commonly happen in particular in state legislatures, but also in congressional delegations? Oftentimes, they would just map districts on the counties like, especially at the state legislative level. And as cities grew, there was a lot of what we would call malapportionment.

Hannah McCarthy:
It's called malapportionment,

Nick Capodice:
Malapportionment. Apportionment that is unfair. So you'd have a city of a million people represented by one person and then a lot of rural communities of like 20000 people with one representative each for those. So if you lived in the city, your vote meant a lot less. And there were fewer people in Congress standing up for city issues.

Nancy Miller:
So rural rural interests were always dominating the Legislature. Oftentimes to the detriment of urban populations, which couldn't get some of the services or the infrastructure things they needed because it wasn't a priority for rural legislators

Nick Capodice:
On the national level there are four hundred and thirty five congressional districts in the United States, and each one represents about seven hundred thousand people. There are some exceptions, though.

Hannah McCarthy:
For example, I'm thinking of those states that have one congressional district and a smaller population than 700000, like Wyoming.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, Vermont. Those outliers aside, since the 1960s, every 10 years after each federal census states redraw their federal congressional districts and their state congressional districts to make sure that malapportionment doesn't occur. And this process is when we get to the world of the praying mantis, the upside-down elephant, goofy kicking Donald Duck.

Robin Best:
Partisan gerrymandering, of course, doesn't have to happen.

Nick Capodice:
This is Professor Robin Best, who teaches political science at Binghamton University.

Robin Best:
But the redistricting process that happens every 10 years gives the people drawing these lines the opportunity to draw those lines in a way that might advantage one political party and disadvantage the other political party. After the last round of redistricting in 2010, we saw a good number of people drawing those district lines actually do so to try to benefit one party at the expense of the other.

Hannah McCarthy:
And that is what separates redistricting from gerrymandering. Right. Redistricting is a necessary democratic process, but gerrymandering is done to favor one party.

Nick Capodice:
Yes, and there are three tried and true methods of gerrymandering packing, cracking and stacking, and we're going to cover all three. First up, packing

Robin Best:
When you pack partisans, you cram as many of them as you possibly can into a few districts as possible. So for example, if you are Republicans and you want to advantage your own party when you're drawing district lines, you would try to cram as many Democratic voters into a few districts as possible. And you kind of give them those districts, right? So say you have 10 districts that you're trying to create. You put as many Democrats as you can into two of them where they constitute like a ninety five percent majority. You give them those two districts and then you spread out your Republicans across the remaining eight districts so that you receive a majority of the vote in each of those districts.

Nick Capodice:
And cracking is the opposite. Let's say you're a Democrat-controlled legislature and you want to draw a map that favors your party, the Democrats. So what you do is you take a Republican district and you crack it up, putting those Republican voters into nearby Democrat dominant districts. So instead of four super blue districts and one Super Red District, you have five barely blue districts, five Democratic elected officials.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok. It seems to me, then, that the most dastardly gerrymander, the perfect crime, if you will, would be to crack districts so deftly that your party wins every district by the slimmest margin.

Nick Capodice:
And that is a map, just like goofy kicking Donald Duck. Pennsylvania's 7th District, it so obviously cracked several urban neighborhoods into outlying rural areas that there was a public outcry and a lawsuit. Party leaders couldn't agree how to fix it, and it fell to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to redraw the district more equitably in 2018.

Hannah McCarthy:
All right. I got packing. I got cracking. But stacking is one that I have never heard of

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, stacking is, in my opinion, the most nefarious. When you stack a congressional district, you draw the lines to create a perceived majority in it. A majority of people who are either minorities and a lower income bracket or less educated three demographics that statistically due to various circumstances, have a much lower voter turnout than educated, wealthy white voters.

Hannah McCarthy:
So it's kind of like misdirection. You grant a clear majority presence in a district. The official, elected in November, is not the one who represents the majority of people who live there.

Nick Capodice:
Absolutely. And there are other methods of gerrymandering that don't get talked about as much. I just want to give them a brief mention here. There's prison-based gerrymandering where a district with a large incarcerated population which cannot vote counts those citizens as part of that district's population instead of their hometown, giving that district more representative power. And finally, there's sweetheart gerrymandering. That's where incumbents from both parties reach a tacit handshake, an agreement to draw the lines so everybody just gets to keep their job.

Hannah McCarthy:
Who specifically is in charge of physically drawing these maps?

Nick Capodice:
All right, here's Robin again.

Robin Best:
Yes, that is actually probably the most important question. So in the majority of states, the state legislatures will draw the lines and then often the maps that they create have to be approved by the governor in a much smaller proportion of states. The lines are drawn by redistricting commissions, some of which are independent, some of which are political, some of which are bipartisan. There are lots of different variations of those, but in the vast majority of states, they're still drawn by state legislatures.

Nick Capodice:
And those variations are interesting. Some states have independent commissions that draw the maps, and each commission is completely different. California's redistricting commission comprises five Democrats, five Republicans and four individuals unaffiliated with any party drawn by a lottery. But as of right now, maps are drawn by the state legislature in thirty three states.

Robin Best:
And as you can imagine, you know, the state legislatures are not entirely neutral observers of elections. So we actually see we tend to see the more egregious gerrymanders occur as a result of the lines that are drawn by state legislatures with approval of the governor. So when one party, for example, controls all three branches of the state government, we call that a trifecta. Under those trifecta, we are likely to see the more egregious gerrymander to take place. If there is divided control, so a legislature of one party and a governor from another party, we're less likely to see those types of kind of egregious partisan gerrymanders.

Hannah McCarthy:
As to the result of those different gerrymanders, I do happen to know that they are tremendously effective. Most significantly, I know that in 2012, Democrats received over a million more votes for the House, but the GOP won a thirty three seat majority. Which brings me to a bigger question. Is this legal?

Nick Capodice:
A good question, and one that I'm going to get to right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, but before that, I want to tell listeners that they can read all about the deep dives that are too full of ephemera and trivial tidbits to make it into our show in our free, biweekly newsletter. It's called extra credit. You can subscribe at our website, civics101podcast.org

Nick Capodice:
And quickly, speaking of reading, Hannah and I took the stuff we've learned from making three years worth of episodes and compressed it into a book. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy, How America Works. It's illustrated by the wonderful New Yorker cartoonist Tom Toro. You can get it wherever you get your books.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, we're back, where were we?

Hannah McCarthy:
You were about to answer the question of whether all of this is legal.

Nick Capodice:
Ok. Here's Nancy Miller again.

Nancy Miller:
So there were two cases in the nineteen sixties Reynolds V. Sims and Baker V. Carr. So everybody's probably mostly familiar with Baker V. Carr, because that's the congressional one. Reynolds V. Sims handled state legislative districts, so it's basically the same principle that the districts you draw have to allow for roughly equal representation.

Nick Capodice:
Both of these cases ruled that redistricting is a justiciable issue. It's a funny word. Justiciable. Justiciable means it's something that can be addressed by the Supreme Court or the State Supreme Court. And those two decisions dealt with equal numbers of people in districts that malapportionment thing we talked about earlier. These are the cases that ruled we are obligated to redraw our maps after every census, and you can't draw a district so that it has significantly fewer citizens than another.

Hannah McCarthy:
Did we redraw them at a different time prior to these court cases?

Nancy Miller:
Prior to the nineteen sixties, the districts were just redrawn whenever the state felt like it. Pretty much so. There was a whole, yeah. So there was a whole lot of malapportionment.

Nick Capodice:
But while the Supreme Court ruled that in equal numbers of people in a state and federal districts is unconstitutional when it comes to the issue of partisan gerrymandering, I'm talking, cracking, packing and stacking. That is something else entirely.

Chief Justice Roberts:
And others set forth, in our opinion. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. We vacate the judgments below and remand with instructions to dismiss...

Nick Capodice:
That was Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the 2019 decision in Rucho V. Common Cause. It was a five to four decision which stated that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justifiable. The Supreme Court cannot rule on questions of a political nature, and it's no surprise that John Roberts wrote the opinion because a year earlier, in another case, he referred to methods to determine partisan gerrymandering as "sociological gobbledygook."

Hannah McCarthy:
I didn't know you were allowed to use the word gobbledygook when you were a chief justice. So we know that this is happening, political scientists agree that gerrymandering is real, but it is not technically illegal.

Nick Capodice:
It is not technically illegal at the federal level. Some states have legislation that bans certain types of gerrymander, like the prison gerrymander we spoke of earlier. Twenty four states have laws requiring that maintaining communities of interest has to be considered when they're drawing the maps. But even then, it's not easy to prove in a court of law if gerrymandering is happening. And Justin Levitt told me that just because a map looks strange and snaky, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a gerrymander.

Justin Levitt:
It's dangerous to judge a book by its cover. And so you can have some really nice looking districts that do some pretty bad things, and you can have some strange looking districts that do some pretty great things.

Hannah McCarthy:
So we've talked about strange and like bad maps a lot so far. But can you give me an example of a strange but positive map?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, and radio is a bad medium to talk about map design, but listeners should take a look at Illinois's 4th Congressional District. It looks absurd. It's like, what do you call the thing you like in a movie and you say... a clapperboard? It's like a clapperboard on a movie set. But what that strange clapperboard district does is it unites two Latino communities that share a lot of characteristics and thus a lot of representational needs.

Justin Levitt:
And so it's not often the strangely drawn nature of a district that tells you whether it's good or bad. People make assumptions just like they make assumptions about other people based on how they look that aren't always true.

Hannah McCarthy:
Can I ask about the argument that we should just do away with human beings drawing districts entirely and just let a computer do it randomly?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, I always thought, that's like the perfect solution. It's just, you know, take the humans out of the equation, and there are a lot of people who do advocate for that. But I want to share two arguments against random redistricting. First off, Robin said even that could favor one party over the other.

Robin Best:
The problem was kind of the natural geography in the U.S. is that Democrats tend to be very packed together. So New York City, you can't really draw competitive districts in New York City. They are going to be packed full of Democrats, no matter what you do. So a lot of those votes are not going to kind of be effectively used. They're just going to be wasted. So the entire country actually kind of looks like that. So you have Democrats that are kind of packed more tightly into these urban geographic centers and Republican votes that are distributed kind of more efficiently is what we call it in terms of elections across the other areas in the state. So that if you just kind of let the computer draw the maps, you're likely to just perpetuate that kind of natural gerrymander that's already in place, which is then going to end up being a bit biased against Democrats and in favor of Republicans.

Nick Capodice:
And finally, Justin said something that made me realize that when I was staring at maps and numbers, I had lost sight of the whole reason we have congressional districts in the first place. Hannah, why do we elect our representatives in the United States?

Hannah McCarthy:
Because they represent us. It is, it's right there in their name, representative. And if we feel they don't do a good job representing us, we get to pick someone else

Nick Capodice:
And it's much easier to gauge how well they're doing at it if people in their district have things in common.

Justin Levitt:
Sometimes those are geographic. People from a particular town or particular county. Sometimes that's based on industry. Sometimes it's based on racial or ethnic affiliation. It can be based on lots of things. But when people have common interests, when a community together as common interests, they can hold their representatives accountable for whether their representatives are standing up and representing those interests or not. If your district represents the tech sector, then your representative should be out there advocating for the tech sector in ways that are Republican or Democrat, but should be advocating for the tech sector. If your district represents St. Louis, then your representative should be advocating for St. Louis. Whether they're Republican or Democrat should also be advocating for St. Louis. So there's a lot to be said for having districts where there's something common about the people who live in the district. There's something that binds them together beyond just party. And when you have districts that are created to reward or punish friends or enemies, that makes it really hard to hold the representatives accountable.

Hannah McCarthy:
So when I asked if gerrymandering is legal, the answer is kind of like the answer to Can I make a right on a red light? It depends where you are.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, though I will add there is language in the Freedom to Vote Act, which was introduced in the Senate in October of Twenty Twenty One, which explicitly bans partisan gerrymandering, and it puts up safeguards to fix maps that are unfairly drawn. But the bill did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. But to your question, gerrymandering can be legal depending on your state.

Hannah McCarthy:
May I take the question just one step further?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy:
Is gerrymandering cheating?

Nick Capodice:
That was a real... That was a really hard question, because like when you Google is gerrymandering cheating, you're not going to get an answer. Yeah, I didn't. I didn't ask Robin that when I was interviewing her, so I wrote her an email after to ask that exact question. And here's her response to Is gerrymandering cheating? She says, I think it would be fair to say that partisan gerrymandering violates our notions of fairness and democratic principles. So would most of the population view it as cheating, even if it's not explicitly illegal? Yes. Probably.

Nick Capodice:
And that is it for gerrymandering. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with You Hannah McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy:
Thank you. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and stan of the Nicholas Cage Vehicle, Valley Girl. Music.

Nick Capodice:
Music in today's episode by Blue Note Sessions, Sir Cubworth, Quincas Moreira, Cory Gray, Makiah Beats, Ikimashu Oi, and that composer with the chords never miss-keyed, Chris Zabriskie.

Hannah McCarthy:
Civics 101 is a production of Nhpr.org New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including share transcripts, transcribe multiple languages, upload many different filetypes, advanced search, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

Transcript

Nick Capodice: Ok. Ok. Yeah. Ok, hold on. Ok. Take a look at this. Ok.

Hannah McCarthy: It's like a Rorschach test.

Nick Capodice: Ok, so that's Maryland's Third District, and it's called it's nicknamed the praying mantis. Check this one out.

Hannah McCarthy: There's a long thing that could be like a trunk that looks like it might be like squirting water out of it.

Nick Capodice: That's Texas's Thirty Fifth District, and it's nicknamed the Upside-Down Elephant.

Hannah McCarthy: Is it [00:00:30] Rorschach or Rorschach?

Nick Capodice: Rorschach.

Hannah McCarthy: Good I got it right.

Nick Capodice: There's an old joke like, Who is this guy Rorschach? And Why did he draw so many pictures of my parents fighting?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, that's funny. This one looks like someone like yelling at someone else and kicking their butt.

Nick Capodice: That is Pennsylvania's 7th District. It doesn't exist anymore, and it's got my favorite nickname, which is Goofy kicking Donald Duck.

Hannah McCarthy: So these are congressional districts, right? Why do they look so weird?

Nick Capodice: Ok, so you know, every two years, a bunch of Americans go into a voting [00:01:00] booth and they pick someone, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Yes, voting.

Nick Capodice: What these are extreme instances of are not citizens picking representatives. But representatives picking them. You're listening to Civics 101, I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy,

Nick Capodice: And today we are talking about gerrymandering, the political maneuver of drawing a map to divide voters so on Election Day, one party is more likely to win [00:01:30]. To start off, if you live in the United States, you live in a congressional district. Your physical address determines who you can vote for in an election. And even if you live in a state that only has one district, your address still matters because it determines who you can vote for in your state legislature.

Hannah McCarthy: And I know that as we speak November 2021, these maps are being drawn, right?

Nick Capodice: Yes, they are, because we draw our state and federal congressional districts after each census.

Hannah McCarthy: I have heard news stories from multiple [00:02:00] states about these new maps. Nick, people care so deeply about them, and I think that that's in part because we are going to be stuck with them for 10 years.

Nick Capodice: And because of that, Hannah, gerrymandering is always a current events issue.

Justin Levitt: Well it's no surprise if I could guarantee my job in the job of my friends and guarantee that I could punish the people I don't like. I'd be mighty tempted to use that power, no matter what field that we're in.

Nick Capodice: This is Justin Levitt. He's a professor of law at Loyola Marymount [00:02:30] University.

Justin Levitt: Legislators aren't any different. Legislators. They're just like us. And since the dawn of the redistricting process, legislators have used the power to draw the lines to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

Hannah McCarthy: This is interesting. I tend to think of gerrymandering as this modern day political practice that involves computers and data analysis and a lot of critique. But it sounds like Justin is saying that this is something that we have always done.

Nick Capodice: Always, since the very beginning before we even had a word for it. [00:03:00] Some scholars have suggested that Patrick Henry, Mr. Give me liberty or give me death, almost gerrymandered James Madison out of Congress in 1788 by redrawing Virginia's maps. But I'm going to jump ahead to the creation of the term, which is in 1812, and I'm going to start with the fact that we're probably saying it wrong.

Nancy Miller: You reached out to your nana to see if there's anything you wanted me to to address to the congressman when he comes out next.

Yes, she had a few things. She said he should know that his district was the first to be gerrymandered. And I said, Yeah, I know. Yeah,

Nick Capodice: That [00:03:30] was John Mulaney on Late Night with Seth Meyers and his grandmother's right. The term comes from that signer of the Declaration of Independence, Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry. Gerry was a Democratic Republican at the time, and he signed a redistricting act that cut up the districts of Essex County so it would be much harder for the other party, the Federalists, to get any seats in the Legislature. And the map of these [00:04:00] districts was such a long, curved shape that a cartoonist put wings and a reptilian head on it and published it in the Boston Gazette with the name Gerrymander. It's a portmanteau word of Gerry and Salamander.

Hannah McCarthy: Now I'm not a herpetologist here, but I don't believe that salamanders have wings.

Nick Capodice: That's fair. I think it comes from when we used to use the word salamander to just mean dragon.

Hannah McCarthy: Was that 1812 gerrymander successful?

Nick Capodice: Lord Yes. In the following election, Federalists won [00:04:30] only a third of seats in the state legislature, even though they had a majority of the popular vote.

Hannah McCarthy: But how does that work? How do these maps hold so much power?

Nick Capodice: Well, to understand gerrymandering, we have to first understand the process that we're going through now, congressional redistricting. And Justin told me that redistricting is one of the most important facets of our democracy because whatever you care about Hannah, whether it's like national security or universal health care or a woman's right to choose or gun rights, [00:05:00] whatever, it all comes down to our election process, we do things through the representatives that we elect.

Justin Levitt: And if you care about the election process, then you care about redistricting. It's the infrastructure of infrastructure. It's how we do absolutely everything else because it makes sure that some voices get lifted up in choosing who those representatives will be that decide what kind of a world we're going to be living together.

Nancy Miller: Redistricting [00:05:30] is something we have to do, or it's it's good that we have to do it every 10 years now since the 1960s, because people move around.

Nick Capodice: This is Professor Nancy Miller. She teaches political science at the University of Dayton.

Nancy Miller: From a congressional standpoint, we've decided that the House of Representatives is going to be 435 people, and I don't think there's any appetite to make that larger right now. And so people move from the northeast to the South or the Midwest to the South. Sometimes they move from the south [00:06:00] up to the Pacific Northwest. And in order to keep with the principle of one man, one vote, some states have to lose some seats and some states will gain some seats. And if you're going to change the number of seats in a state, then you, of course, you've got to redraw the lines.

Nick Capodice: And if we're keeping the house at four hundred and thirty five members, it's only fair that each of those members represents about the same number of people.

Nancy Miller: So what would commonly happen in particular in state legislatures, [00:06:30] but also in congressional delegations? Oftentimes, they would just map districts on the counties like, especially at the state legislative level. And as cities grew, there was a lot of what we would call malapportionment.

Hannah McCarthy: It's called malapportionment,

Nick Capodice: Malapportionment. Apportionment that is unfair. So you'd have a city of a million people represented by one person and then a lot of rural communities of like 20000 people with one representative each for those. So if you [00:07:00] lived in the city, your vote meant a lot less. And there were fewer people in Congress standing up for city issues.

Nancy Miller: So rural rural interests were always dominating the Legislature. Oftentimes to the detriment of urban populations, which couldn't get some of the services or the infrastructure things they needed because it wasn't a priority for rural legislators

Nick Capodice: On the national level there are four hundred and thirty five congressional districts in the United States, and each one represents about seven hundred thousand [00:07:30] people. There are some exceptions, though.

Hannah McCarthy: For example, I'm thinking of those states that have one congressional district and a smaller population than 700000, like Wyoming.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, Vermont. Those outliers aside, since the 1960s, every 10 years after each federal census states redraw their federal congressional districts and their state congressional districts to make sure that malapportionment doesn't occur. And this process is when we get to the world of the praying mantis, the upside-down elephant, [00:08:00] goofy kicking Donald Duck.

Robin Best: Partisan gerrymandering, of course, doesn't have to happen.

Nick Capodice: This is Professor Robin Best, who teaches political science at Binghamton University.

Robin Best: But the redistricting process that happens every 10 years gives the people drawing these lines the opportunity to draw those lines in a way that might advantage one political party and disadvantage the other political party. After the last round of redistricting in 2010, [00:08:30] we saw a good number of people drawing those district lines actually do so to try to benefit one party at the expense of the other.

Hannah McCarthy: And that is what separates redistricting from gerrymandering. Right. Redistricting is a necessary democratic process, but gerrymandering is done to favor one party.

Nick Capodice: Yes, and there are three tried and true methods of gerrymandering packing, cracking and [00:09:00] stacking, and we're going to cover all three. First up, packing

Robin Best: When you pack partisans, you cram as many of them as you possibly can into a few districts as possible. So for example, if you are Republicans and you want to advantage your own party when you're drawing district lines, you would try to cram as many Democratic voters into a few districts as possible. And you kind of give them those districts, right? So say you [00:09:30] have 10 districts that you're trying to create. You put as many Democrats as you can into two of them where they constitute like a ninety five percent majority. You give them those two districts and then you spread out your Republicans across the remaining eight districts so that you receive a majority of the vote in each of those districts.

Nick Capodice: And cracking is the opposite. Let's say you're a Democrat-controlled legislature and you want to draw a map that favors your party, the Democrats. So what you do is you take a Republican district [00:10:00] and you crack it up, putting those Republican voters into nearby Democrat dominant districts. So instead of four super blue districts and one Super Red District, you have five barely blue districts, five Democratic elected officials.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok. It seems to me, then, that the most dastardly gerrymander, the perfect crime, if you will, would be to crack districts so deftly that your party wins every district by the slimmest margin. [00:10:30]

Nick Capodice: And that is a map, just like goofy kicking Donald Duck. Pennsylvania's 7th District, it so obviously cracked several urban neighborhoods into outlying rural areas that there was a public outcry and a lawsuit. Party leaders couldn't agree how to fix it, and it fell to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to redraw the district more equitably in 2018.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. I got packing. I got cracking. But stacking is one that I have never heard of

Nick Capodice: Yeah, stacking is, in my opinion, the most nefarious. When [00:11:00] you stack a congressional district, you draw the lines to create a perceived majority in it. A majority of people who are either minorities and a lower income bracket or less educated three demographics that statistically due to various circumstances, have a much lower voter turnout than educated, wealthy white voters.

Hannah McCarthy: So it's kind of like misdirection. You grant a clear majority presence in a district. The official, elected [00:11:30] in November, is not the one who represents the majority of people who live there.

Nick Capodice: Absolutely. And there are other methods of gerrymandering that don't get talked about as much. I just want to give them a brief mention here. There's prison-based gerrymandering where a district with a large incarcerated population which cannot vote counts those citizens as part of that district's population instead of their hometown, giving that district more representative power. And finally, there's sweetheart gerrymandering. That's where incumbents [00:12:00] from both parties reach a tacit handshake, an agreement to draw the lines so everybody just gets to keep their job.

Hannah McCarthy: Who specifically is in charge of physically drawing these maps?

Nick Capodice: All right, here's Robin again.

Robin Best: Yes, that is actually probably the most important question. So in the majority of states, the state legislatures will draw the lines and then often the maps that they create have to be approved by the governor in a much smaller proportion of states. The lines are drawn by redistricting [00:12:30] commissions, some of which are independent, some of which are political, some of which are bipartisan. There are lots of different variations of those, but in the vast majority of states, they're still drawn by state legislatures.

Nick Capodice: And those variations are interesting. Some states have independent commissions that draw the maps, and each commission is completely different. California's redistricting commission comprises five Democrats, five Republicans and four individuals unaffiliated with any party drawn by a lottery. But as of right now, maps are [00:13:00] drawn by the state legislature in thirty three states.

Robin Best: And as you can imagine, you know, the state legislatures are not entirely neutral observers of elections. So we actually see we tend to see the more egregious gerrymanders occur as a result of the lines that are drawn by state legislatures with approval of the governor. So when one party, for example, controls all three branches of the state government, we call that a trifecta. Under those trifecta, [00:13:30] we are likely to see the more egregious gerrymander to take place. If there is divided control, so a legislature of one party and a governor from another party, we're less likely to see those types of kind of egregious partisan gerrymanders.

Hannah McCarthy: As to the result of those different gerrymanders, I do happen to know that they are tremendously effective. Most significantly, I know that in 2012, Democrats received over a million more votes for the House, but [00:14:00] the GOP won a thirty three seat majority. Which brings me to a bigger question. Is this legal?

Nick Capodice: A good question, and one that I'm going to get to right after the break.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, but before that, I want to tell listeners that they can read all about the deep dives that are too full of ephemera and trivial tidbits to make it into our show in our free, biweekly newsletter. It's called extra credit. You can subscribe at our website, civics101podcast.org

Nick Capodice: And quickly, speaking [00:14:30] of reading, Hannah and I took the stuff we've learned from making three years worth of episodes and compressed it into a book. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy, How America Works. It's illustrated by the wonderful New Yorker cartoonist Tom Toro. You can get it wherever you get your books.

Nick Capodice: Ok, we're back, where were we?

Hannah McCarthy: You were about to answer the question of whether all of this is legal.

Nick Capodice: Ok. Here's Nancy Miller again.

Nancy Miller: So there were two cases in the nineteen sixties Reynolds V. Sims and Baker [00:15:00] V. Carr. So everybody's probably mostly familiar with Baker V. Carr, because that's the congressional one. Reynolds V. Sims handled state legislative districts, so it's basically the same principle that the districts you draw have to allow for roughly equal representation.

Nick Capodice: Both of these cases ruled that redistricting is a justiciable issue. It's a funny word. Justiciable. Justiciable means it's something that can be addressed by the Supreme Court or the State Supreme Court. And those two decisions dealt with equal numbers [00:15:30] of people in districts that malapportionment thing we talked about earlier. These are the cases that ruled we are obligated to redraw our maps after every census, and you can't draw a district so that it has significantly fewer citizens than another.

Hannah McCarthy: Did we redraw them at a different time prior to these court cases?

Nancy Miller: Prior to the nineteen sixties, the districts were just redrawn whenever the state felt like it. Pretty much so. There was a whole, yeah. So there was a whole lot of malapportionment.

Nick Capodice: But while [00:16:00] the Supreme Court ruled that in equal numbers of people in a state and federal districts is unconstitutional when it comes to the issue of partisan gerrymandering, I'm talking, cracking, packing and stacking. That is something else entirely.

Chief Justice Roberts: And others set forth, in our opinion. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. We vacate the judgments below and remand with instructions to dismiss...

Nick Capodice: That was Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the 2019 [00:16:30] decision in Rucho V. Common Cause. It was a five to four decision which stated that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justifiable. The Supreme Court cannot rule on questions of a political nature, and it's no surprise that John Roberts wrote the opinion because a year earlier, in another case, he referred to methods to determine partisan gerrymandering as "sociological gobbledygook."

Hannah McCarthy: I didn't know you were allowed to use the word gobbledygook when you were a chief justice. So we [00:17:00] know that this is happening, political scientists agree that gerrymandering is real, but it is not technically illegal.

Nick Capodice: It is not technically illegal at the federal level. Some states have legislation that bans certain types of gerrymander, like the prison gerrymander we spoke of earlier. Twenty four states have laws requiring that maintaining communities of interest has to be considered when they're drawing the maps. But even then, it's not easy to prove in a court of law if gerrymandering is happening [00:17:30]. And Justin Levitt told me that just because a map looks strange and snaky, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a gerrymander.

Justin Levitt: It's dangerous to judge a book by its cover. And so you can have some really nice looking districts that do some pretty bad things, and you can have some strange looking districts that do some pretty great things.

Hannah McCarthy: So we've talked about strange and like bad maps a lot so far. But can you give me an example of a strange but positive map?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and radio [00:18:00] is a bad medium to talk about map design, but listeners should take a look at Illinois's 4th Congressional District. It looks absurd. It's like, what do you call the thing you like in a movie and you say... a clapperboard? It's like a clapperboard on a movie set. But what that strange clapperboard district does is it unites two Latino communities that share a lot of characteristics and thus a lot of representational needs.

Justin Levitt: And so it's not often the strangely drawn nature of a district that [00:18:30] tells you whether it's good or bad. People make assumptions just like they make assumptions about other people based on how they look that aren't always true.

Hannah McCarthy: Can I ask about the argument that we should just do away with human beings drawing districts entirely and just let a computer do it randomly?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, I always thought, that's like the perfect solution. It's just, you know, take the humans out of the equation, and there are a lot of people who do advocate for that. But I want to share two arguments against random redistricting. First off, Robin said even [00:19:00] that could favor one party over the other.

Robin Best: The problem was kind of the natural geography in the U.S. is that Democrats tend to be very packed together. So New York City, you can't really draw competitive districts in New York City. They are going to be packed full of Democrats, no matter what you do. So a lot of those votes are not going to kind of be effectively used. They're just going to be wasted. So the entire country actually kind of looks like that. So you have Democrats that are kind of packed more tightly [00:19:30] into these urban geographic centers and Republican votes that are distributed kind of more efficiently is what we call it in terms of elections across the other areas in the state. So that if you just kind of let the computer draw the maps, you're likely to just perpetuate that kind of natural gerrymander that's already in place, which is then going to end up being a bit biased against Democrats and in favor of Republicans.

Nick Capodice: And finally, Justin said something that made me realize that when I was staring at maps and numbers, [00:20:00] I had lost sight of the whole reason we have congressional districts in the first place. Hannah, why do we elect our representatives in the United States?

Hannah McCarthy: Because they represent us. It is, it's right there in their name, representative. And if we feel they don't do a good job representing us, we get to pick someone else

Nick Capodice: And it's much easier to gauge how well they're doing at it if people in their district have things in common.

Justin Levitt: Sometimes those are geographic [00:20:30]. People from a particular town or particular county. Sometimes that's based on industry. Sometimes it's based on racial or ethnic affiliation. It can be based on lots of things. But when people have common interests, when a community together as common interests, they can hold their representatives accountable for whether their representatives are standing up and representing those interests or not. If your district represents the tech sector, then your representative should be out there advocating for the tech sector in ways [00:21:00] that are Republican or Democrat, but should be advocating for the tech sector. If your district represents St. Louis, then your representative should be advocating for St. Louis. Whether they're Republican or Democrat should also be advocating for St. Louis. So there's a lot to be said for having districts where there's something common about the people who live in the district. There's something that binds them together beyond just party. And when you have districts that are created to reward or punish friends or enemies, that [00:21:30] makes it really hard to hold the representatives accountable.

Hannah McCarthy: So when I asked if gerrymandering is legal, the answer is kind of like the answer to Can I make a right on a red light? It depends where you are.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, though I will add there is language in the Freedom to Vote Act, which was introduced in the Senate in October of Twenty Twenty One, which explicitly bans partisan gerrymandering, and it puts up safeguards to fix maps that are unfairly drawn. But [00:22:00] the bill did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. But to your question, gerrymandering can be legal depending on your state.

Hannah McCarthy: May I take the question just one step further?

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: Is gerrymandering cheating?

Nick Capodice: That was a real... That was a really hard question, because like when you Google is gerrymandering cheating, you're not going to get an answer. Yeah, I didn't. I didn't ask Robin that when I was interviewing her, so I wrote her an [00:22:30] email after to ask that exact question. And here's her response to Is gerrymandering cheating? She says, I think it would be fair to say that partisan gerrymandering violates our notions of fairness and democratic principles. So would most of the population view it as cheating, even if it's not explicitly illegal? Yes. Probably.

Nick Capodice: And [00:23:00] that is it for gerrymandering. Today's episode was produced by me Nick Capodice with You Hannah McCarthy. Thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: Thank you. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer and stan of the Nicholas Cage Vehicle, Valley Girl. Music.

Nick Capodice: Music in today's episode by Blue Note Sessions, Sir Cubworth, Quincas Moreira, Cory Gray, Makiah Beats, Ikimashu Oi, and that composer with the chords never miss-keyed, Chris Zabriskie.

Hannah McCarthy: Civics 101 is a production of Nhpr.org New [00:23:30] Hampshire Public Radio.


Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

After 9/11: Department of Homeland Security

The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, made one thing very obvious: our country’s national security strategy was flawed. What followed was one of the biggest reorganizations of our federal government in history: the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in November, 2002.

What about 9/11, the attacks, and their aftermath, made it possible for the government to transform, in just over a year? And how has that transformation changed how our government makes decisions about threats to our country, and responds to them?

Helping us untangle this story are: David Schanzer, the director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University; Darren Davis, a politics professor at the University of Notre Dame who studies public opinion and political behavior; and Eileen Sullivan, the Homeland Security Correspondent for the New York Times.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this episode misstated that prior to 9/11, a person applied for a visa through the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Click here for a Graphic Organizer for students to fill out while listening to the episode

 

Episode Resources

Christina’s attempt to organize the Department of Homeland Security by mission. To find DHS’s complete organizational chart, click here.

 

Episode Segments


DHS final.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

DHS final.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Christina Phillips:
I have hit record! We are going.

Nick Capodice:
Well, let me start by saying it is lovely to see you in this chair, Christina.

Christina Phillips:
It is so wonderful to be here in the studio with you, face to face.

Nick Capodice:
Everyone. This is Christina Phillips. She is our senior producer, and she's going to be stepping in for Hannah this week. She is about to take us on a journey and she has been, quite frankly, busy.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, so I thought I'd given myself a pretty straightforward task, which was explaining how September eleventh led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and why that matters.

Nick Capodice:
And this is the executive department that combined twenty two agencies from several different departments under one roof, right?

Christina Phillips:
Yeah. And created a few new agencies on top of that, all for the purpose of preparing for preventing and responding to domestic emergencies, especially terrorism. And let me tell you, just trying to figure out what moved where and why was a pretty enormous task. I ended up mapping it out on a whiteboard that is the size of a window. Wow. Imagine what it was like for the federal government to decide to do this in the first place, upend dozens of agencies and more than one hundred and sixty nine thousand employees, and fold them into a brand new department that has one mission to protect the homeland.

Nick Capodice:
Now this need to protect the homeland that didn't exist before 9/11.

Christina Phillips:
Well, our government has always had the role of providing for the common defense since the founding of our nation. It's in our constitution, right? But it took one day, one series of attacks for the government to be able to completely reshape what that means over an extremely compressed timeline. You'd think that something as serious as national security would still be subject to the slow grind of democracy that our government love so much. But it only took 14 months for Congress to pass the Homeland Security Act on November 25th, 2002 and establish a brand new executive department

Nick Capodice:
A very short time.

Christina Phillips:
And what I'm so interested in is what was it about that day, about that moment that made it so urgent, so possible for the government to start looking at itself differently enough so that it could create a new department? And once we've created this thing, what does that actually look like? Before we can talk about what the Department of Homeland Security is and does, we've got to take a step back and talk about how we got there.

Nick Capodice:
All right, let's get into it.

Christina Phillips:
Five strangers come into contact with the federal government. At the same time, a woman arrives at the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border with a temporary work visa.

Archival Audio:
"The National Weather Service has issued a tornado warning."

Christina Phillips:
An emergency services dispatcher in Missouri issues a tornado warning.

Christina Phillips:
The captain of a shipping vessel from England sails into a port in Newark, New Jersey. The vice president climbs into a car that takes her to a speaking engagement near the U.S. Capitol.

Archival Audio:
"This is a final boarding call for the..."

Christina Phillips:
A man arrives at an airport in New York City to board a flight.

Christina Phillips:
What each of these people have in common is that they are face to face with the Department of Homeland Security, but their experiences would have been very different if they happened prior to 9/11. Before the terrorist group Al-Qaida hijacked four planes and killed nearly 3000 civilians in an attack on U.S. soil.

Archival Audio:
Eyewitness News. The unthinkable happened today the World Trade Center.

Archival Audio:
Both towers gone and we are all and we're just beginning to understand the extent of the catastrophe.

President Bush:
Tonight is the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since the 1940s. During his presidency, Harry Truman recognized that our nation...

Christina Phillips:
This is the story of how the government transformed itself after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by creating a new executive department designed specifically to prevent and respond to threats. So Nick, what do you remember about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security?

Nick Capodice:
I remember it was swift and massive.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, this was the biggest reorganization of the federal government since 1947, which, by the way, that reorganization was also because of national security. It was called the National Security Act of 1947, and it moved military operations like the Army, Navy and Air Force under a Department of Defense and created the CIA and the National Security Council.

Nick Capodice:
And this was after World War Two with a brewing Cold War on the horizon. But September 11th was not a war. It was an attack, and it took place on a single day.

Christina Phillips:
I asked David Schanzer, who's the director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, to walk me through the aspects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that felt different from anything the government had responded to before.

David Schanzer:
The attacks demonstrated multiple vulnerabilities and multiple, you know, gaps and things that went wrong during the day.

Christina Phillips:
David was a staffer for the U.S. Senate on 9/11, and he was there for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He talks about some of the systems that were exploited by Al Qaida.

David Schanzer:
All the hijackers were able to enter the United States. Their applications were generally fraudulent, but they entered. They got visas to come into the US.

Christina Phillips:
I just want to pause here because that's two agencies in two different departments right there. Before nine eleven, a person applied for a visa through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was in the Justice Department. And when they reach the border like an airport, they pass through U.S. customs, which was in the Treasury Department.

Nick Capodice:
I think I'm starting to see where you're going here.

David Schanzer:
Our aviation system, of course, was shown to be extremely vulnerable that they could bring knives on planes. And we know nothing about people as they were boarding.

Nick Capodice:
And that's airport security, which used to be just private security agencies. When I was a kid, there was a metal detector, but that was about it. You didn't even need an I.D. to get on a plane back then. You could just walk up to the gate.

Christina Phillips:
Well before 9/11, there was something called the computer assisted passenger prescreening system, or CAPPS, which was shared between the Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI. It was created in the 1990s because of concerns about terrorism, so certain passengers would have their checked baggage screened for explosives. But you're right, there was minimal security screening for most passengers, and airlines had to hire their own security. The Transportation Security Administration did not exist.

David Schanzer:
They were shown to be a lack of real coordination between the different law enforcement and intelligence entities. The CIA knew that al Qaeda was planning some sort of spectacular attack. They didn't know where or when. Of course, a lot of that information didn't get passed on to the FBI. The FBI was tracking some people. Then they lost track of them.

Christina Phillips:
By the way, we covered this in more depth in our episode about the FBI. So check that out. The point is, the style of terrorist attacks planned by Al Qaida revealed just how vulnerable our country was and that the existing approach to national security wasn't sufficient and that there were some security measures that didn't exist at all.

David Schanzer:
So all of these issues led to this movement to create many different reforms. The most comprehensive one was to create a Department of Homeland Security that was placing all the different agencies with responsibility for the protection. The regulation, essentially the creation of borders, whether they be borders by air, by sea, by land, all into one department.

Nick Capodice:
But terrorism wasn't unheard of in the United States until September 11th. And it wasn't even the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. I remember in 1993, a terrorist detonated a bomb in a truck in the parking garage below the North Tower.

Christina Phillips:
That's what I think is key here. The federal government had been thinking about new threats to national security, but politicians were also thinking about everything else the economy, health care, education. There had actually been a study in 1998 called the Commission on National Security in the 21st Century that was quote "the most comprehensive review of American security since the National Security Act of 1947"

Nick Capodice:
Which, as you said earlier, was the last time the government had undergone a major reorganization.

Christina Phillips:
The study was more commonly known as the Hart Rudman Commission after lead author Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. They said that a lack of coordination across agencies in the circumstances of a terrorist attack or disaster was a huge concern. In fact, Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, talked about this exact problem in February 2001 on C-SPAN

Nick Capodice:
February, seven months before nine eleven.

Warren Rudman:
Yes, the responsibility for dealing with that kind of a disaster in this country currently is spread across 46 federal agencies, which do not have good coordination with each other. We believe that this is such a serious threat that we're not talking about creating a new bureaucracy. We're talking about probably reducing the bureaucracy by moving the functions and these units into a Homeland Security Agency, which will then be.

Nick Capodice:
Oh, interesting. So that term Homeland Security was being tossed around in government circles before September 11.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, the term is not new. But before the September 11th attacks, the discussions around protecting the homeland were much more theoretical. I watched some of the congressional hearings about the Hart Rudman Commission, and the politicians were talking a lot about budgeting and turf. You know who's going to do what? Who is going to pay for it? What are we going to give up in order to do it? And what makes that national security threat go from something theoretical into an actual plan? And action has to do with the experience of the attacks for the public. The September 11th attacks felt new.

Darren Davis:
The crucial difference for nine 11 for the average American citizen was that there were innocent victims.

Christina Phillips:
This is Darren Davis. He's a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. He actually surveyed Americans right after 9-11 and asked how they were feeling in that moment about terrorist attacks and their government.

Darren Davis:
In the immediate aftermath. Many American citizens were thinking that there were more terrorist attacks to follow. So there's this belief that they needed to be protected.

Christina Phillips:
Darren talks about this trade off that people have to make between being protected from terrorism and being protected from the government's encroachment on our civil liberties.

Darren Davis:
When the government is attacked, when American citizens are attacked, when they've been attacked in the past. American citizens can be expected to give up their rights. Congress can be expected to concede to a more powerful president for fear of being considered unpatriotic.

Christina Phillips:
The media also played a role in this.

Darren Davis:
The media acquiescence to a more powerful president for fear of being considered unpatriotic.

Nick Capodice:
The coverage was relentless. There was nothing else being talked about on radio or TV or in newspapers for months, like my friend and I used to say, walking around whatever we'd see the sign that said, never forget. We're like, I don't think that's very likely. I don't think anybody's going to be forgetting this anytime soon.

Christina Phillips:
The media does set a tone and for example, in World War Two, when media was reporting on what was happening during the war, there were choices made like suppressing information until after an attack happened for the greater purpose of success in the war.

Nick Capodice:
So it's yeah, it's just so interesting in such a tenuous line, right? I'm keeping you misinformed for your safety and for the country's safety. It always leads to an ultimate question is this a good thing or not? So was that happening in the aftermath of the attacks on 9-11?

Christina Phillips:
Well, after 9-11, there was a lot of coverage of how the government was acting to keep people safe. There was a lot of opportunity for politicians to talk to the people. I mean, they were on the news all the time. And so there was a lot of access to the government and the government was getting a lot of access to the public through the media. Which brings me to the last big factor that made this massive reorganization possible. 9-11 had a uniting effect on the country.

Darren Davis:
Normally, the two political parties are deliberative. But one of the things I want to point out is that this came months after the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, and the government was extremely divided because that election had to be decided by the Supreme Court

Christina Phillips:
Because the decision is being taken out of the hands of the people and put into the hands of the Supreme Court. It just draws out this political tension. It was a really divisive moment, especially when it came to trusting that democratic process in supporting the incoming president

Darren Davis:
And politicians, and the public began to rally as expected behind George Bush.

Christina Phillips:
After nine 11, President Bush's approval rating rose from around 60 percent to 92 percent, including 88 percent of Democrats. This was one of the highest approval ratings for a president ever.

Nick Capodice:
To add to that, presidents and congresses are more effective when they have high approval ratings. They can get more done.

Darren Davis:
So here's the irony of all of this is that over time, as the government began to use. Its ability to protect its citizens, it began to lose support when the government began to lose support and trust declined, people were unwilling at that point to concede their civil liberties. So the immediate context of 911 is really, really important. What happened over time is also important because it shows that without trust, government can't do very much.

Nick Capodice:
We're going to keep exploring this new umbrella department, but first we're going to take a quick break. But before we do, if anyone is interested in all the ephemera, trivia and stuff that gets left on the cutting room floor of our episodes, Hannah and I write a biweekly newsletter called Extra Credit. It's free, and you can sign up at our website, civics101podcast.org.

Christina Phillips:
Civics 101 is produced by a nonprofit journalism outlet, New Hampshire Public Radio. We can only do what we do because listeners just like you chip in a few bucks, sometimes more than a few, to support our work. If you'd like to donate to the cause. Head over to Civics101podcast.org or click the link in the show notes.

Nick Capodice:
All right, so you've got this massive pressure from the American people to focus on terrorism. What were the first steps towards this massive consolidation to address that?

Christina Phillips:
The first thing President Bush did was issue an executive order creating a new Office of Homeland Security on September 20th, 2001. So this is not a department. President Bush said that this office and the director he appointed would develop a national strategy of Homeland Security and coordinate efforts across other departments.

Nick Capodice:
Had they plan to create this department by this time?

Christina Phillips:
No, no. So at this point, it's really like President Bush recognized that there's a whole bunch of agencies that are responding to terrorism, and he says, OK, I'm going to put this one guy in charge of helping communicate and organize all of these departments and agencies that are all trying to respond to terrorism in different ways.

Nick Capodice:
He's going to figure out a way to get them to, like, talk to each other.

Christina Phillips:
Yes, and and set a plan for how they'll respond in the future.

Nick Capodice:
So tell me about the guy they decided to put in charge.

Christina Phillips:
That would be Tom Ridge. He is the governor of Pennsylvania, and he started on October 8th, 2001.

Nick Capodice:
And what was Tom Ridge actually able to do? Could he give orders to the FBI, to the DOJ Department of Transportation just to make sure they're all now focused on this new Homeland Security strategy?

Christina Phillips:
So you're not the only person to ask that question.

Archival Audio:
If there's a bioterrorist, a large scale bioterrorist act in the future, who is in charge of the response, who has authority to make decisions related to the response, but I'm trying to find out basically is are you the boss here or are you a coordinator?

Tom Ridge:
If there is A well, I guess, you know, the coordinator, it's like a conductor with an orchestra. The music doesn't start playing until he taps the baton.

Christina Phillips:
That was a reporter at a press conference 10 days after Ridge started his official duties as director. It was in the middle of this other big attack that happened after 911, when someone mailed anthrax spores to congressional delegates and news agencies from a New Jersey post office, which ended up killing five people.

Archival Audio:
In just a week's time, we have had four confirmed cases of anthrax, all with media connections and a number of anthrax scares as well.

Christina Phillips:
In this press conference to explain how the government was responding to the anthrax attack and explaining his role as this new director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was on stage with the head of the FBI leaders from the Department of Health and Human Services, the postmaster general, and several other people who were all responding to the anthrax attack. Ok, I promise this is related, but when I trained to be a wilderness EMT,

Nick Capodice:
You were a wilderness EMT.

Christina Phillips:
Yes, I was. It was mostly for my own safety, especially when I went on hikes. I'm very accident prone. But anyway, one thing you learn in search and rescue situations where you actually need to go out and find someone and provide medical attention in the wilderness like an injured hiker is that there needs to be an obvious hierarchy and there are people who understand what their role is. The person carrying the water, the person following the map, the person monitoring the patient, everyone there knows what they're doing and what everyone else is doing. And you've all agreed ahead of time on how it will work. And there's one person who's in charge of the whole thing, which is ideally how things could have worked with Tom Ridge in this new Office of Homeland Security.

Nick Capodice:
The difference here between the government and a hiker is that this is a federal emergency, but the government is still running at the same time.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, and they're not used to responding to attacks like these in a coordinated way. They're writing the manual as they go and the guy in charge of making sure everything comes together. Tom Ridge is the newest person on the team.

Nick Capodice:
It sounds like a recipe for utter chaos.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, that press conference showed that.

Tom Ridge:
If we think we've overlooked something, I make the call.

Nick Capodice:
So how do we get from an Office of Homeland Security to the creation of this massive department?

Christina Phillips:
It was later clear to many people that this solution an Office of Homeland Security with Tom Ridge as the director, wasn't enough. Agencies involved in national security were spread across departments with separate missions, and coordination wasn't happening as well as it needed to. In the months after the attacks on September 11th, as the government had to grapple with the major holes in national security, as the public had united around President Bush and was seeking protection, Bush announced the plan to establish a new cabinet Department of Homeland Security.

Christina Phillips:
I've been thinking of it like a bucket, the Homeland Security bucket, if you will. There would be twenty two agencies from other department buckets and they were going to be new agencies put in there. But that bucket didn't have everything.

Nick Capodice:
So Homeland Security wasn't this catch all. There's still work happening in other agencies that had to do with national security that weren't in the department.

Christina Phillips:
One of the major things that was not put in the Homeland Security bucket was the intelligence community, the Justice Department, FBI, CIA. So President Bush had to distinguish how the Department of Homeland Security would fit in with those other agencies.

Eileen Sullivan:
Dhs is primarily a law enforcement agency. It is enforcing the laws that the administration argues for in the Congress passes. And so they're not necessarily coming up with the laws. They're just but they are. They are enforcing them.

Christina Phillips:
This is Eileen Sullivan. She's the New York Times correspondent for the Department of Homeland Security.

President Bush:
Tonight, I propose a permanent cabinet level Department of Homeland Security to unite essential agencies that must work more closely together. Among them the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the Customs Service, immigration officials, the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Employees of this new agency will come to work every morning knowing their most important job is to protect their fellow citizens.

Nick Capodice:
So have we reached the moment when you can explain what this whole new department looks like?

Christina Phillips:
Yes, it is time to pull out the giant whiteboard where I mapped out which agencies were absorbed into Homeland Security and how they fit into the purpose of the department, which President Bush very helpfully broke down into four different missions.

Nick Capodice:
By the way, we'll make sure to include a photo of this beast of a whiteboard on our website so you can follow along if you want at civics101podcast.org. Let's go through them one at a time. Tell me about mission number one.

Christina Phillips:
Mission number one is border control.

President Bush:
This new agency will control our borders and prevent terrorists and explosives from entering our country.

Christina Phillips:
Remember how I said there were four missions? Yeah, well, this first mission also has four different agencies in it focused on protection, enforcement and security at the border.

Nick Capodice:
So I see here the first one is U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Is that a new agency?

Christina Phillips:
Yes. So it's a new agency that absorbed customs and immigration agencies from the Treasury and Justice Department, as well as plant and animal inspection from the Department of Agriculture.

Nick Capodice:
So basically, like everything that comes across the border.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, everything.

Christina Phillips:
The second agency is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is also known as ICE, and this is also a new agency. It's created specifically to protect the U.S. from cross-border crime and illegal immigration.

Nick Capodice:
Number three is another new agency under this border control mission the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA, which, as we already mentioned, did not exist before nine eleven.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, this is the new law enforcement arm that puts airport security directly in the hands of the government.

Nick Capodice:
And the final part of the first mission of border control is the U.S. Coast Guard, which I always thought was part of the military.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, it depends. The Coast Guard is technically overseen by the Department of Homeland Security and Peace, Peacetime and the Navy in wartime. Ok. It's not a simple system, especially considering that we've spent the majority of the 20 years since 9/11 at war.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, that's mission one. What's Mission two?

Christina Phillips:
Emergencies.

President Bush:
It will work with state and local authorities to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies.

Christina Phillips:
This is the Federal Emergency Management Administration, or FEMA, which was designed to coordinate disaster response between local and federal agencies. And it did exist before 9/11. But under the new reorganization, there was an additional focus on coordinating the response to terrorism related disasters.

Eileen Sullivan:
One of the original concepts of Homeland Security was that it would be the one to talk to state and local officials about about threats and about what they need to know. And so instead of getting multiple reports from different federal agencies, it should all be one.

Christina Phillips:
Homeland Security absorbed FEMA and FEMA absorbed the nuclear incident response team from the Department of Energy, the domestic emergency support team from the Department of Justice and the Center for Domestic Preparedness from the Justice Department and the FBI.

Nick Capodice:
Wow. So Mission Two: Emergency response. What about Mission Three?

Christina Phillips:
I'm not sure I can actually summarize this one into a couple of words. Let's just listen to President Bush.

President Bush:
It will bring together our best scientists to develop technologies that detect biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and to discover the drugs and treatments to best protect our citizens.

Nick Capodice:
I'm going to bite my tongue about the nuclear thing. Tell me, what is Bush saying here?

Christina Phillips:
From what I can tell, this is the research and development arm of Homeland Security, but it's basically six different things. What's it called?

Christina Phillips:
The Science and Technology Directorate Directorate.

Nick Capodice:
Can you give me some examples of what a directorate actually looks like?

Christina Phillips:
So one thing the directorate has done is develop technology that helps first responders communicate effectively in emergencies. The directorate also works a lot with private companies that are developing the technology. The government may want to use things like security technology for screening people and goods or threat forecasting.

Nick Capodice:
Ok. Mission Three: Science and Technology Directorate. What's mission four?

Christina Phillips:
Information analysis and infrastructure protection.

President Bush:
And this new department will review intelligence and law enforcement information from all agencies of government and produce a single daily picture of threats against our homeland. Analysts will be responsible for imagining the worst and planning to counter it.

Nick Capodice:
So cybersecurity and data gathering. But I also see the Federal Protective Service, which I don't know anything about, and the U.S. Secret Service, which I do, are also in this umbrella.

Christina Phillips:
Yeah, I had to look this up to the Federal Protective Service is the law enforcement that protects federal properties around the U.S. like federal courthouses and post offices.

Nick Capodice:
And the Secret Service, which was initially created to combat counterfeiting, provide security for the president, vice president, White House. But they still do investigate crimes against the U.S. financial system. With the reorganization, this massive Cristina, I assume it's not as simple as telling all these people, OK, you used to work for this department and now you're being moved to another department and your new mission is to protect the American people and prevent terrorists from killing Americans.

Christina Phillips:
One of the biggest hurdles for the department was Congress, specifically congressional oversight. See, in our system of checks and balances, one check on the power of the executive department is congressional committees. They monitor the work being done in the executive branch, and that work didn't stop when agencies were moved into a new department. Here's Eileen Sullivan, the Homeland Security correspondent for the New York Times.

Eileen Sullivan:
So while the agencies were pulled from their parent departments and formed DHS, the Congress didn't really give anything up.

Christina Phillips:
At the start, all the committees that were overseeing those individual agencies continued to oversee them under Homeland Security. It was over a hundred different committees by some count, 123.

Nick Capodice:
How does that number compare to other departments?

Christina Phillips:
Well, the Department of Defense, which is the largest cabinet department, is overseen by 30 committees. At one point, Secretary Chertoff, who was appointed in 2005, said that the department had written over 5000 briefings and attended over 300 hearings for Congress in a single year,

Nick Capodice:
And has that number changed since.

Christina Phillips:
Over the years, the number of committees have been winnowed down to around 90.

Nick Capodice:
So not much change at all,

Eileen Sullivan:
Which just shows you how difficult it is to take away turf anywhere, ever.

Christina Phillips:
And that kind of turf battle was bad, even when the focus of the department was still pretty narrow.

David Schanzer:
Well, first of all, there was really an almost exclusive laser like focus on the threat from Al Qaida and other like minded groups.

Christina Phillips:
That's David Schanzer, who was working in Congress on Homeland Security in the early years of the department.

David Schanzer:
Another nine 11 style attack where people or weaponry or explosives or weapons of mass destruction could be smuggled into into the U.S. and deployed.

Nick Capodice:
So what happens when time goes on and the focus isn't so laser like? What changed over the next 20 years?

Eileen Sullivan:
Current events have kind of defined each chapter of the department.

Christina Phillips:
As the department has encountered new challenges and new leadership. Its mission has evolved. There have been some major failures, like in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast and in each successive administration after Bush, the commander in chief, appointed heads of the department that fulfilled their agendas. You can see over time how the department's power has been applied in new ways, determined by what the government and its leader consider the biggest threats to our country. For example, President Obama made border security and cybersecurity. His major focuses during his presidency. He about doubled the number of Border Patrol agents and unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, that surveyed the border.

Nick Capodice:
And then what happened under President Trump?

Christina Phillips:
He wanted to limit who was allowed to enter the United States legally or not. This included his highly controversial executive actions that restricted travel to the U.S. for citizens from several majority Muslim countries.

Archival Audio:
Protesters gathered outside JFK International Airport in New York and demanded the release of refugees blocked from entering the United States.

Christina Phillips:
And under President Trump, the federal government also enforced a family separation policy at the U.S.- Mexico border.

Archival Audio:
Border Patrol officials said today that since April, more than 2300 children have been separated from their families, with some held in makeshift tent cities.

Nick Capodice:
And what's most interesting to me is that the Department of Homeland Security was specifically created to help prevent something like 9/11 from ever happening again. But with each successive administration, it's become much more than that.

Christina Phillips:
This is a story of what happens when the way our government does things is held up to a microscope in a moment of violence and pain. Pair that with a public united by fear, anger and patriotism, and the outcome is a massive reorganization under a short timeline where the government is trying to protect the nation as its writing its own manual on what that actually means.

Christina Phillips:
The Department of Homeland Security has given us a name for our feeling of safety and security the homeland and has drawn lines around the borders of safe and dangerous. And in the 20 years since, given our leaders the tools to enforce them, from cybersecurity to law enforcement at the border, to screenings at the airport.

Christina Phillips:
So that's it for the Department of Homeland Security. This episode was written and produced by me, Christina Phillips, with help from You Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer.

Christina Phillips:
Music In this episode by Audiobringer, Broke for Free, KiloKaz, Martin Skeleton's Blue Dot Sessions, Makiah, UNCan, Chris Zabriskie, Jason Leonard and Yung Kartz

Nick Capodice:
Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including share transcripts, powerful integrations and APIs, collaboration tools, enterprise-grade admin tools, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

Transcript

DHS final.mp3

Christina Phillips: [00:00:03] I have hit record! We are going.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:09] Well, let me start by saying it is lovely to see you in this chair, Christina.

Christina Phillips: [00:00:13] It is so wonderful to be here in the studio with you, face to face.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:17] Everyone. This is Christina Phillips. She is our senior producer, and she's going to be stepping in for Hannah this week. She is about to take us on a journey and she has been, quite frankly, busy.

Christina Phillips: [00:00:28] Yeah, so I thought I'd given myself a pretty straightforward task, which was explaining how September eleventh led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and why that matters.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:40] And this is the executive department that combined twenty two agencies from several different departments under one roof, right?

Christina Phillips: [00:00:47] Yeah. And created a few new agencies on top of that, all for the purpose of preparing for preventing and responding to domestic emergencies, especially terrorism. And let me tell you, just trying to figure out what moved where and why was a pretty enormous task. I ended up mapping it out on a whiteboard that is the size of a window. Wow. Imagine what it was like for the federal government to decide to do this in the first place, upend dozens of agencies and more than one hundred and sixty nine thousand employees, and fold them into a brand new department that has one mission to protect the homeland.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:22] Now this need to protect the homeland that didn't exist before 9/11.

Christina Phillips: [00:01:27] Well, our government has always had the role of providing for the common defense since the founding of our nation. It's in our constitution, right? But it took one day, one series of attacks for the government to be able to completely reshape what that means over an extremely compressed timeline. You'd think that something as serious as national security would still be subject to the slow grind of democracy that our government love so much. But it only took 14 months for Congress to pass the Homeland Security Act on November 25th, 2002 and establish a brand new executive department

Nick Capodice: [00:02:01] A very short time.

Christina Phillips: [00:02:03] And what I'm so interested in is what was it about that day, about that moment that made it so urgent, so possible for the government to start looking at itself differently enough so that it could create a new department? And once we've created this thing, what does that actually look like? Before we can talk about what the Department of Homeland Security is and does, we've got to take a step back and talk about how we got there.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:29] All right, let's get into it.

Christina Phillips: [00:02:34] Five strangers come into contact with the federal government. At the same time, a woman arrives at the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border with a temporary work visa.

Archival Audio: [00:02:43] "The National Weather Service has issued a tornado warning."

Christina Phillips: [00:02:46] An emergency services dispatcher in Missouri issues a tornado warning.

Christina Phillips: [00:02:51] The captain of a shipping vessel from England sails into a port in Newark, New Jersey. The vice president climbs into a car that takes her to a speaking engagement near the U.S. Capitol.

Archival Audio: [00:03:03] "This is a final boarding call for the..."

Christina Phillips: [00:03:04] A man arrives at an airport in New York City to board a flight.

Christina Phillips: [00:03:09] What each of these people have in common is that they are face to face with the Department of Homeland Security, but their experiences would have been very different if they happened prior to 9/11. Before the terrorist group Al-Qaida hijacked four planes and killed nearly 3000 civilians in an attack on U.S. soil.

Archival Audio: [00:03:25] Eyewitness News. The unthinkable happened today the World Trade Center.

Archival Audio: [00:03:29] Both towers gone and we are all and we're just beginning to understand the extent of the catastrophe.

President Bush: [00:03:36] Tonight is the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since the 1940s. During his presidency, Harry Truman recognized that our nation...

Christina Phillips: [00:03:47] This is the story of how the government transformed itself after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by creating a new executive department designed specifically to prevent and respond to threats. So Nick, what do you remember about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:07] I remember it was swift and massive.

Christina Phillips: [00:04:10] Yeah, this was the biggest reorganization of the federal government since 1947, which, by the way, that reorganization was also because of national security. It was called the National Security Act of 1947, and it moved military operations like the Army, Navy and Air Force under a Department of Defense and created the CIA and the National Security Council.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:31] And this was after World War Two with a brewing Cold War on the horizon. But September 11th was not a war. It was an attack, and it took place on a single day.

Christina Phillips: [00:04:43] I asked David Schanzer, who's the director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, to walk me through the aspects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that felt different from anything the government had responded to before.

David Schanzer: [00:04:56] The attacks demonstrated multiple vulnerabilities and multiple, you know, gaps and things that went wrong during the day.

Christina Phillips: [00:05:06] David was a staffer for the U.S. Senate on 9/11, and he was there for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He talks about some of the systems that were exploited by Al Qaida.

David Schanzer: [00:05:15] All the hijackers were able to enter the United States. Their applications were generally fraudulent, but they entered. They got visas to come into the US.

Christina Phillips: [00:05:26] I just want to pause because that's three different departments right there. Before 9/11, a person applied for a visa through the State Department, and before entering the U.S. their visa was screened by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was in the Justice Department. And then their property was examined by U.S. customs, which was in the Treasury Department.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:45] I think I'm starting to see where you're going here.

David Schanzer: [00:05:48] Our aviation system, of course, was shown to be extremely vulnerable that they could bring knives on planes. And we know nothing about people as they were boarding.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:59] And that's airport security, which used to be just private security agencies. When I was a kid, there was a metal detector, but that was about it. You didn't even need an I.D. to get on a plane back then. You could just walk up to the gate.

Christina Phillips: [00:06:11] Well before 9/11, there was something called the computer assisted passenger prescreening system, or CAPPS, which was shared between the Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI. It was created in the 1990s because of concerns about terrorism, so certain passengers would have their checked baggage screened for explosives. But you're right, there was minimal security screening for most passengers, and airlines had to hire their own security. The Transportation Security Administration did not exist.

David Schanzer: [00:06:40] They were shown to be a lack of real coordination between the different law enforcement and intelligence entities. The CIA knew that al Qaeda was planning some sort of spectacular attack. They didn't know where or when. Of course, a lot of that information didn't get passed on to the FBI. The FBI was tracking some people. Then they lost track of them.

Christina Phillips: [00:07:02] By the way, we covered this in more depth in our episode about the FBI. So check that out. The point is, the style of terrorist attacks planned by Al Qaida revealed just how vulnerable our country was and that the existing approach to national security wasn't sufficient and that there were some security measures that didn't exist at all.

David Schanzer: [00:07:21] So all of these issues led to this movement to create many different reforms. The most comprehensive one was to create a Department of Homeland Security that was placing all the different agencies with responsibility for the protection. The regulation, essentially the creation of borders, whether they be borders by air, by sea, by land, all into one department.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:46] But terrorism wasn't unheard of in the United States until September 11th. And it wasn't even the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. I remember in 1993, a terrorist detonated a bomb in a truck in the parking garage below the North Tower.

Christina Phillips: [00:08:01] That's what I think is key here. The federal government had been thinking about new threats to national security, but politicians were also thinking about everything else the economy, health care, education. There had actually been a study in 1998 called the Commission on National Security in the 21st Century that was quote "the most comprehensive review of American security since the National Security Act of 1947"

Nick Capodice: [00:08:24] Which, as you said earlier, was the last time the government had undergone a major reorganization.

Christina Phillips: [00:08:29] The study was more commonly known as the Hart Rudman Commission after lead author Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. They said that a lack of coordination across agencies in the circumstances of a terrorist attack or disaster was a huge concern. In fact, Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, talked about this exact problem in February 2001 on C-SPAN

Nick Capodice: [00:08:53] February, seven months before nine eleven.

Warren Rudman: [00:08:57] Yes, the responsibility for dealing with that kind of a disaster in this country currently is spread across 46 federal agencies, which do not have good coordination with each other. We believe that this is such a serious threat that we're not talking about creating a new bureaucracy. We're talking about probably reducing the bureaucracy by moving the functions and these units into a Homeland Security Agency, which will then be.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:25] Oh, interesting. So that term Homeland Security was being tossed around in government circles before September 11.

Christina Phillips: [00:09:32] Yeah, the term is not new. But before the September 11th attacks, the discussions around protecting the homeland were much more theoretical. I watched some of the congressional hearings about the Hart Rudman Commission, and the politicians were talking a lot about budgeting and turf. You know who's going to do what? Who is going to pay for it? What are we going to give up in order to do it? And what makes that national security threat go from something theoretical into an actual plan? And action has to do with the experience of the attacks for the public. The September 11th attacks felt new.

Darren Davis: [00:10:04] The crucial difference for nine 11 for the average American citizen was that there were innocent victims.

Christina Phillips: [00:10:11] This is Darren Davis. He's a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. He actually surveyed Americans right after 9-11 and asked how they were feeling in that moment about terrorist attacks and their government.

Darren Davis: [00:10:24] In the immediate aftermath. Many American citizens were thinking that there were more terrorist attacks to follow. So there's this belief that they needed to be protected.

Christina Phillips: [00:10:35] Darren talks about this trade off that people have to make between being protected from terrorism and being protected from the government's encroachment on our civil liberties.

Darren Davis: [00:10:44] When the government is attacked, when American citizens are attacked, when they've been attacked in the past. American citizens can be expected to give up their rights. Congress can be expected to concede to a more powerful president for fear of being considered unpatriotic.

Christina Phillips: [00:11:03] The media also played a role in this.

Darren Davis: [00:11:05] The media acquiescence to a more powerful president for fear of being considered unpatriotic.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:15] The coverage was relentless. There was nothing else being talked about on radio or TV or in newspapers for months, like my friend and I used to say, walking around whatever we'd see the sign that said, never forget. We're like, I don't think that's very likely. I don't think anybody's going to be forgetting this anytime soon.

Christina Phillips: [00:11:33] The media does set a tone and for example, in World War Two, when media was reporting on what was happening during the war, there were choices made like suppressing information until after an attack happened for the greater purpose of success in the war.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:49] So it's yeah, it's just so interesting in such a tenuous line, right? I'm keeping you misinformed for your safety and for the country's safety. It always leads to an ultimate question is this a good thing or not? So was that happening in the aftermath of the attacks on 9-11?

Christina Phillips: [00:12:04] Well, after 9-11, there was a lot of coverage of how the government was acting to keep people safe. There was a lot of opportunity for politicians to talk to the people. I mean, they were on the news all the time. And so there was a lot of access to the government and the government was getting a lot of access to the public through the media. Which brings me to the last big factor that made this massive reorganization possible. 9-11 had a uniting effect on the country.

Darren Davis: [00:12:29] Normally, the two political parties are deliberative. But one of the things I want to point out is that this came months after the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, and the government was extremely divided because that election had to be decided by the Supreme Court

Christina Phillips: [00:12:52] Because the decision is being taken out of the hands of the people and put into the hands of the Supreme Court. It just draws out this political tension. It was a really divisive moment, especially when it came to trusting that democratic process in supporting the incoming president

Darren Davis: [00:13:08] And politicians, and the public began to rally as expected behind George Bush.

Christina Phillips: [00:13:16] After nine 11, President Bush's approval rating rose from around 60 percent to 92 percent, including 88 percent of Democrats. This was one of the highest approval ratings for a president ever.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:28] To add to that, presidents and congresses are more effective when they have high approval ratings. They can get more done.

Darren Davis: [00:13:36] So here's the irony of all of this is that over time, as the government began to use. Its ability to protect its citizens, it began to lose support when the government began to lose support and trust declined, people were unwilling at that point to concede their civil liberties. So the immediate context of 911 is really, really important. What happened over time is also important because it shows that without trust, government can't do very much.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:12] We're going to keep exploring this new umbrella department, but first we're going to take a quick break. But before we do, if anyone is interested in all the ephemera, trivia and stuff that gets left on the cutting room floor of our episodes, Hannah and I write a biweekly newsletter called Extra Credit. It's free, and you can sign up at our website, civics101podcast.org.

Christina Phillips: [00:14:38] Civics 101 is produced by a nonprofit journalism outlet, New Hampshire Public Radio. We can only do what we do because listeners just like you chip in a few bucks, sometimes more than a few, to support our work. If you'd like to donate to the cause. Head over to Civics101podcast.org or click the link in the show notes.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:57] All right, so you've got this massive pressure from the American people to focus on terrorism. What were the first steps towards this massive consolidation to address that?

Christina Phillips: [00:15:07] The first thing President Bush did was issue an executive order creating a new Office of Homeland Security on September 20th, 2001. So this is not a department. President Bush said that this office and the director he appointed would develop a national strategy of Homeland Security and coordinate efforts across other departments.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:28] Had they plan to create this department by this time?

Christina Phillips: [00:15:30] No, no. So at this point, it's really like President Bush recognized that there's a whole bunch of agencies that are responding to terrorism, and he says, OK, I'm going to put this one guy in charge of helping communicate and organize all of these departments and agencies that are all trying to respond to terrorism in different ways.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:48] He's going to figure out a way to get them to, like, talk to each other.

Christina Phillips: [00:15:51] Yes, and and set a plan for how they'll respond in the future.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:56] So tell me about the guy they decided to put in charge.

Christina Phillips: [00:15:59] That would be Tom Ridge. He is the governor of Pennsylvania, and he started on October 8th, 2001.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:06] And what was Tom Ridge actually able to do? Could he give orders to the FBI, to the DOJ Department of Transportation just to make sure they're all now focused on this new Homeland Security strategy?

Christina Phillips: [00:16:19] So you're not the only person to ask that question.

Archival Audio: [00:16:23] If there's a bioterrorist, a large scale bioterrorist act in the future, who is in charge of the response, who has authority to make decisions related to the response, but I'm trying to find out basically is are you the boss here or are you a coordinator?

Tom Ridge: [00:16:37] If there is A well, I guess, you know, the coordinator, it's like a conductor with an orchestra. The music doesn't start playing until he taps the baton.

Christina Phillips: [00:16:47] That was a reporter at a press conference 10 days after Ridge started his official duties as director. It was in the middle of this other big attack that happened after 911, when someone mailed anthrax spores to congressional delegates and news agencies from a New Jersey post office, which ended up killing five people.

Archival Audio: [00:17:03] In just a week's time, we have had four confirmed cases of anthrax, all with media connections and a number of anthrax scares as well.

Christina Phillips: [00:17:10] In this press conference to explain how the government was responding to the anthrax attack and explaining his role as this new director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was on stage with the head of the FBI leaders from the Department of Health and Human Services, the postmaster general, and several other people who were all responding to the anthrax attack. Ok, I promise this is related, but when I trained to be a wilderness EMT,

Nick Capodice: [00:17:33] You were a wilderness EMT.

Christina Phillips: [00:17:35] Yes, I was. It was mostly for my own safety, especially when I went on hikes. I'm very accident prone. But anyway, one thing you learn in search and rescue situations where you actually need to go out and find someone and provide medical attention in the wilderness like an injured hiker is that there needs to be an obvious hierarchy and there are people who understand what their role is. The person carrying the water, the person following the map, the person monitoring the patient, everyone there knows what they're doing and what everyone else is doing. And you've all agreed ahead of time on how it will work. And there's one person who's in charge of the whole thing, which is ideally how things could have worked with Tom Ridge in this new Office of Homeland Security.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:13] The difference here between the government and a hiker is that this is a federal emergency, but the government is still running at the same time.

Christina Phillips: [00:18:21] Yeah, and they're not used to responding to attacks like these in a coordinated way. They're writing the manual as they go and the guy in charge of making sure everything comes together. Tom Ridge is the newest person on the team.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:33] It sounds like a recipe for utter chaos.

Christina Phillips: [00:18:36] Yeah, that press conference showed that.

Tom Ridge: [00:18:37] If we think we've overlooked something, I make the call.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:45] So how do we get from an Office of Homeland Security to the creation of this massive department?

Christina Phillips: [00:18:51] It was later clear to many people that this solution an Office of Homeland Security with Tom Ridge as the director, wasn't enough. Agencies involved in national security were spread across departments with separate missions, and coordination wasn't happening as well as it needed to. In the months after the attacks on September 11th, as the government had to grapple with the major holes in national security, as the public had united around President Bush and was seeking protection, Bush announced the plan to establish a new cabinet Department of Homeland Security.

Christina Phillips: [00:19:24] I've been thinking of it like a bucket, the Homeland Security bucket, if you will. There would be twenty two agencies from other department buckets and they were going to be new agencies put in there. But that bucket didn't have everything.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:38] So Homeland Security wasn't this catch all. There's still work happening in other agencies that had to do with national security that weren't in the department.

Christina Phillips: [00:19:45] One of the major things that was not put in the Homeland Security bucket was the intelligence community, the Justice Department, FBI, CIA. So President Bush had to distinguish how the Department of Homeland Security would fit in with those other agencies.

Eileen Sullivan: [00:20:00] Dhs is primarily a law enforcement agency. It is enforcing the laws that the administration argues for in the Congress passes. And so they're not necessarily coming up with the laws. They're just but they are. They are enforcing them.

Christina Phillips: [00:20:16] This is Eileen Sullivan. She's the New York Times correspondent for the Department of Homeland Security.

President Bush: [00:20:21] Tonight, I propose a permanent cabinet level Department of Homeland Security to unite essential agencies that must work more closely together. Among them the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the Customs Service, immigration officials, the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Employees of this new agency will come to work every morning knowing their most important job is to protect their fellow citizens.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:50] So have we reached the moment when you can explain what this whole new department looks like?

Christina Phillips: [00:20:54] Yes, it is time to pull out the giant whiteboard where I mapped out which agencies were absorbed into Homeland Security and how they fit into the purpose of the department, which President Bush very helpfully broke down into four different missions.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:08] By the way, we'll make sure to include a photo of this beast of a whiteboard on our website so you can follow along if you want at civics101podcast.org. Let's go through them one at a time. Tell me about mission number one.

Christina Phillips: [00:21:19] Mission number one is border control.

President Bush: [00:21:22] This new agency will control our borders and prevent terrorists and explosives from entering our country.

Christina Phillips: [00:21:28] Remember how I said there were four missions? Yeah, well, this first mission also has four different agencies in it focused on protection, enforcement and security at the border.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:36] So I see here the first one is U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Is that a new agency?

Christina Phillips: [00:21:42] Yes. So it's a new agency that absorbed customs and immigration agencies from the Treasury and Justice Department, as well as plant and animal inspection from the Department of Agriculture.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:51] So basically, like everything that comes across the border.

Christina Phillips: [00:21:54] Yeah, everything.

Christina Phillips: [00:21:55] The second agency is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is also known as ICE, and this is also a new agency. It's created specifically to protect the U.S. from cross-border crime and illegal immigration.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:07] Number three is another new agency under this border control mission the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA, which, as we already mentioned, did not exist before nine eleven.

Christina Phillips: [00:22:18] Yeah, this is the new law enforcement arm that puts airport security directly in the hands of the government.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:23] And the final part of the first mission of border control is the U.S. Coast Guard, which I always thought was part of the military.

Christina Phillips: [00:22:30] Yeah, it depends. The Coast Guard is technically overseen by the Department of Homeland Security and Peace, Peacetime and the Navy in wartime. Ok. It's not a simple system, especially considering that we've spent the majority of the 20 years since 9/11 at war.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:44] Ok, that's mission one. What's Mission two?

Christina Phillips: [00:22:46] Emergencies.

President Bush: [00:22:47] It will work with state and local authorities to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies.

Christina Phillips: [00:22:53] This is the Federal Emergency Management Administration, or FEMA, which was designed to coordinate disaster response between local and federal agencies. And it did exist before 9/11. But under the new reorganization, there was an additional focus on coordinating the response to terrorism related disasters.

Eileen Sullivan: [00:23:13] One of the original concepts of Homeland Security was that it would be the one to talk to state and local officials about about threats and about what they need to know. And so instead of getting multiple reports from different federal agencies, it should all be one.

Christina Phillips: [00:23:30] Homeland Security absorbed FEMA and FEMA absorbed the nuclear incident response team from the Department of Energy, the domestic emergency support team from the Department of Justice and the Center for Domestic Preparedness from the Justice Department and the FBI.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:43] Wow. So Mission Two: Emergency response. What about Mission Three?

Christina Phillips: [00:23:49] I'm not sure I can actually summarize this one into a couple of words. Let's just listen to President Bush.

President Bush: [00:23:54] It will bring together our best scientists to develop technologies that detect biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and to discover the drugs and treatments to best protect our citizens.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:05] I'm going to bite my tongue about the nuclear thing. Tell me, what is Bush saying here?

Christina Phillips: [00:24:10] From what I can tell, this is the research and development arm of Homeland Security, but it's basically six different things. What's it called?

Christina Phillips: [00:24:17] The Science and Technology Directorate Directorate.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:20] Can you give me some examples of what a directorate actually looks like?

Christina Phillips: [00:24:25] So one thing the directorate has done is develop technology that helps first responders communicate effectively in emergencies. The directorate also works a lot with private companies that are developing the technology. The government may want to use things like security technology for screening people and goods or threat forecasting.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:42] Ok. Mission Three: Science and Technology Directorate. What's mission four?

Christina Phillips: [00:24:46] Information analysis and infrastructure protection.

President Bush: [00:24:50] And this new department will review intelligence and law enforcement information from all agencies of government and produce a single daily picture of threats against our homeland. Analysts will be responsible for imagining the worst and planning to counter it.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:05] So cybersecurity and data gathering. But I also see the Federal Protective Service, which I don't know anything about, and the U.S. Secret Service, which I do, are also in this umbrella.

Christina Phillips: [00:25:15] Yeah, I had to look this up to the Federal Protective Service is the law enforcement that protects federal properties around the U.S. like federal courthouses and post offices.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:23] And the Secret Service, which was initially created to combat counterfeiting, provide security for the president, vice president, White House. But they still do investigate crimes against the U.S. financial system. With the reorganization, this massive Cristina, I assume it's not as simple as telling all these people, OK, you used to work for this department and now you're being moved to another department and your new mission is to protect the American people and prevent terrorists from killing Americans.

Christina Phillips: [00:25:52] One of the biggest hurdles for the department was Congress, specifically congressional oversight. See, in our system of checks and balances, one check on the power of the executive department is congressional committees. They monitor the work being done in the executive branch, and that work didn't stop when agencies were moved into a new department. Here's Eileen Sullivan, the Homeland Security correspondent for the New York Times.

Eileen Sullivan: [00:26:15] So while the agencies were pulled from their parent departments and formed DHS, the Congress didn't really give anything up.

Christina Phillips: [00:26:26] At the start, all the committees that were overseeing those individual agencies continued to oversee them under Homeland Security. It was over a hundred different committees by some count, 123.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:36] How does that number compare to other departments?

Christina Phillips: [00:26:39] Well, the Department of Defense, which is the largest cabinet department, is overseen by 30 committees. At one point, Secretary Chertoff, who was appointed in 2005, said that the department had written over 5000 briefings and attended over 300 hearings for Congress in a single year,

Nick Capodice: [00:26:55] And has that number changed since.

Christina Phillips: [00:26:57] Over the years, the number of committees have been winnowed down to around 90.

Nick Capodice: [00:27:01] So not much change at all,

Eileen Sullivan: [00:27:02] Which just shows you how difficult it is to take away turf anywhere, ever.

Christina Phillips: [00:27:08] And that kind of turf battle was bad, even when the focus of the department was still pretty narrow.

David Schanzer: [00:27:13] Well, first of all, there was really an almost exclusive laser like focus on the threat from Al Qaida and other like minded groups.

Christina Phillips: [00:27:22] That's David Schanzer, who was working in Congress on Homeland Security in the early years of the department.

David Schanzer: [00:27:27] Another nine 11 style attack where people or weaponry or explosives or weapons of mass destruction could be smuggled into into the U.S. and deployed.

Nick Capodice: [00:27:39] So what happens when time goes on and the focus isn't so laser like? What changed over the next 20 years?

Eileen Sullivan: [00:27:47] Current events have kind of defined each chapter of the department.

Christina Phillips: [00:27:51] As the department has encountered new challenges and new leadership. Its mission has evolved. There have been some major failures, like in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast and in each successive administration after Bush, the commander in chief, appointed heads of the department that fulfilled their agendas. You can see over time how the department's power has been applied in new ways, determined by what the government and its leader consider the biggest threats to our country. For example, President Obama made border security and cybersecurity. His major focuses during his presidency. He about doubled the number of Border Patrol agents and unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, that surveyed the border.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:32] And then what happened under President Trump?

Christina Phillips: [00:28:33] He wanted to limit who was allowed to enter the United States legally or not. This included his highly controversial executive actions that restricted travel to the U.S. for citizens from several majority Muslim countries.

Archival Audio: [00:28:45] Protesters gathered outside JFK International Airport in New York and demanded the release of refugees blocked from entering the United States.

Christina Phillips: [00:28:53] And under President Trump, the federal government also enforced a family separation policy at the U.S.- Mexico border.

Archival Audio: [00:28:59] Border Patrol officials said today that since April, more than 2300 children have been separated from their families, with some held in makeshift tent cities.

Nick Capodice: [00:29:08] And what's most interesting to me is that the Department of Homeland Security was specifically created to help prevent something like 9/11 from ever happening again. But with each successive administration, it's become much more than that.

Christina Phillips: [00:29:24] This is a story of what happens when the way our government does things is held up to a microscope in a moment of violence and pain. Pair that with a public united by fear, anger and patriotism, and the outcome is a massive reorganization under a short timeline where the government is trying to protect the nation as its writing its own manual on what that actually means.

Christina Phillips: [00:29:49] The Department of Homeland Security has given us a name for our feeling of safety and security the homeland and has drawn lines around the borders of safe and dangerous. And in the 20 years since, given our leaders the tools to enforce them, from cybersecurity to law enforcement at the border, to screenings at the airport.

Christina Phillips: [00:30:17] So that's it for the Department of Homeland Security. This episode was written and produced by me, Christina Phillips, with help from You Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:30:25] Our staff includes Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer.

Christina Phillips: [00:30:28] Music In this episode by Audiobringer, Broke for Free, KiloKaz, Martin Skeleton's Blue Dot Sessions, Makiah, UNCan, Chris Zabriskie, Jason Leonard and Yung Kartz

Nick Capodice: [00:30:40] Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

Government Shutdown

Congress agrees on a budget and the President signs it. Or… not. This is what happens when we don’t have a full and final budget or a continuing resolution. This is what happens when the government shuts down and how our idea of a shutdown has changed over time. Our guest this time around is Charles Tiefer, Professor of Law at Baltimore School of Law.


: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the This transcript may contain errors.

Hannah McCarthy:
Nick?

Nick Capodice:
Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy:
I think that I have done a pretty good job of not referencing the West Wing on this show. I think I've shown a lot of restraint.

Nick Capodice:
I think that's fair.

Hannah McCarthy:
For someone who works on a show that's largely about government and still cries about a quarter of the time when I watch the West Wing. I will admit I occasionally bring up the Bartlet for America napkin, but that's it, right?

Nick Capodice:
You do bring that up, but in your defense, it's a pretty cinematic moment.

Hannah McCarthy:
It is.

Hannah McCarthy:
But today I'm I'm doing it. I'm breaking. I'm going to reference the West Wing quite a bit. Also, by the way, for anyone who has never heard of or never seen the West Wing, it is a TV show from the 90s and the early aughts about a fictional president, Jeb Bartlet, and his administration, and it has been roundly praised for being relatively true to the actual goings on of the West Wing. If pretty idealistic and sentimental, which is why I cry all the time. And the government of Myanmar reportedly used the West Wing to study how democracy works,

Nick Capodice:
Although I do know that Gerald Ford's daughter couldn't watch it, apparently because they got the layout wrong and the frequent walking talks they turn left when it's actually a right turn and they turn right when it's actually a left turn.

Hannah McCarthy:
Whatever. Nevertheless, I recently rewatched a certain episode and nick my how the world has changed.

West Wing, Season 5, Episode 8: Shutdown:
And I said No. Let's be clear, sir. You will be held responsible for shutting down the federal government, then shut it down.

Nick Capodice:
Oh, it's so dramatic.

Hannah McCarthy:
It is so dramatic. But Nick? Government shutdowns actually used to mean something. The name of that episode, by the way, for anyone who's looking for it, is just shut down. I mean, can you even imagine at this stage a United States in which a shutdown warrants this kind of music?

Nick Capodice:
I feel like nowadays the announcement of a government shutdown would elicit nothing more than like a trombone going wah-wah-wahhhh.

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
I'm Nick Capodice.

And this is Civics 101, and today we are talking about the grind to a halt disaster that has taken on new meaning in recent years. The government shutdown.

Archival:
Top Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer tonight. The possible shutdown less of a concern now than to the lawmakers racing to prevent a government shutdown.

Archival:
Both chambers, so we told the president we needed the government open. He resisted. In fact, he said he'd keep the government closed.

Archival:
A new poll shows more Americans blame the president and his party for this historic.

Archival:
Fortunately, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibility. It's failed to pass a budget, and as a result, much of our government must now shut down until Congress funds it again.

Nick Capodice:
I feel like government shutdowns are pretty commonplace nowadays, but I do want to point out, I don't remember hearing about them when I was a kid.

Hannah McCarthy:
OK.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yes, the thing is the government shutdowns were certainly happening as you were growing up. The public just was not paying as much attention to them.

Nick Capodice:
Why wouldn't you pay attention to the government itself shutting down?

Hannah McCarthy:
Well before we talk about what a government shutdown used to be? Let's quickly establish what it actually is.

Charles Tiefer:
A shutdown is like a disease in the budgetary process.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore. He spoke with the original host of Civics 101 Virginia Prescott back in 2017.

Nick Capodice:
Right. So before we stumbled into our longest shutdown ever,

Hannah McCarthy:
Correct just before the twenty eighteen shutdown. This is when we were on the verge of it and everyone was like, what does a shutdown mean again?

Charles Tiefer:
Annual spending bills are supposed to regularly follow one after the other. So as one expires, the one for the spending for the next year takes over. But if you have a giant glitch in the spending process, the one for a prior fiscal year expires and there's no new one in place. And that means the government finds it has an empty wallet without any money in it they can spend.

Nick Capodice:
In other words, a government shutdown is when the government fails to fund itself

Hannah McCarthy:
And to understand government shutdowns. Today, it helps to know where this relatively recent phenomenon came from.

Nick Capodice:
We haven't always had them.

Hannah McCarthy:
No, our government did not have its first shutdown until nineteen seventy six.

Nick Capodice:
So for the first two hundred years of our government's existence, we didn't have a single shutdown.

Hannah McCarthy:
Correct.

Hannah McCarthy:
So what on earth went wrong?

Hannah McCarthy:
All right. Before the mid 70s, the president had way more control over the budgeting process than Richard Nixon came along and took it to the next level. He refused to spend congressionally appropriated funds.

Archival:
The time has come for a new economic policy for the United States. Its targets are unemployment, inflation and international speculation. And this is how we are going to attack those targets.

Hannah McCarthy:
Congress got mad and passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to gain more control, as is in the name. Nineteen seventy six came along and President Gerald Ford vetoed an appropriations bill because he felt trapped by a Democratic Congress. He wanted more control and the government shut down for 10 days.

Nick Capodice:
Did everyone freak out?

Hannah McCarthy:
Not really. Everyone assumed Congress would just figure it out, and they did. Also because we'd never had a shutdown before the government just went on spending money that it hadn't appropriated. The attorney general later decided during the Reagan administration that spending money you didn't have was illegal.

Nick Capodice:
All right. But I grew up in the Reagan administration, and I still don't remember shutdowns.

Hannah McCarthy:
Reagan had eight government shutdowns during his administration.

Nick Capodice:
Eight shutdowns.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, the most of any president ever.

Nick Capodice:
Wait, we hear about Reagan's legacy all the time. Why doesn't anybody mention that he had eight shutdowns?

Hannah McCarthy:
All right. So here is the big shift that changed government shutdowns forever. Before the 1990s, government shutdowns were typically about line item quibbles. Disputes over very specific funding decisions. For example, we shut down under Carter for a full 18 days when he vetoed an appropriations bill that funded an expensive nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

President Carter:
We are going to hold down government spending, reduce the budget deficit and eliminate government waste.

Nick Capodice:
So what changed in the nineties?

Charles Tiefer:
Oh, that was a titanic clash. In 1995, a new Republican House Republican Senate had been elected in the 1994 election. So you had the first Republican Congress in ages and ages and ages had been decades since there had been a Republican House. This was led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, and he thought that this would batter down the doors of the White House and that he would make them sign bills about key spending programs, including perhaps cuts in entitlements like Medicare Medicaid.

Newt Gingrich:
He talked about letting Medicare wither on the vine. The fact is, there is a forty five percent increase in general Medicare spending that is twice the inflation rate over the next seven years.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, I do remember it being a huge deal that Republicans had control of Congress for the first time in like 40 years,

Charles Tiefer:
And President Clinton, who had lost the Congress in the 1994 election, had been elected with a strong Democratic Congress in the 1992 election and then lost it in the midterm election. He had lay low for a while. He hadn't been fighting. He hadn't been standing up visibly against the Republican Congress, but he stood up on the shutdown and said, You want to shut me down, go ahead and shut me down. I'm here to protect Medicare, Medicaid, the environment and Social Security. And he drew the line in the sand, and that was what the government closed down on that clash at the top level.

Nick Capodice:
This sounds familiar.

Hannah McCarthy:
Doesn't it, though.

West Wing, Season 5, Episode 8: Shutdown:
You will be held responsible for shutting down the federal government, then shut it down.

Hannah McCarthy:
Ok, so this major shutdown happens in the nineties and it lasts 21 days. And this is a big deal, and I don't know why you don't remember it, probably because you were a teenager and had other things on your mind. But the point is the government shuts down for a long time, and this time it is about something big. It's not some small line item, it's about political ideologies of a president

Nick Capodice:
Just like Jeb Bartlet.

Hannah McCarthy:
Just like Jeb Bartlet.

West Wing, Season 5, Episode 8: Shutdown:
We still haven't cut enough spending. I agree. I want you to cut agriculture subsidies and you want me to cut Medicaid again. You know, I'll veto any Medicaid cuts, and I know you won't give me any agriculture cuts. So here we are.

Hannah McCarthy:
And by the way, Republicans in the 90s made a bet that the public would back them in this fight, and they were wrong. It divided and hurt the Republican Party, and everyone was so wounded by this moment that for the next 17 years, we avoided another shutdown.

Nick Capodice:
What year did that episode of the West Wing come out?

Hannah McCarthy:
As two thousand and three.

Nick Capodice:
Ok. So when that episode came out, government shutdown had become a different, scarier political beast and a really big deal that we all worked hard to avoid.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, even when we had budget issues which happen all the time, Congress was able to prevent shutdown by passing what's called a continuing resolution. Here's Charles Tiefer again.

Charles Tiefer:
When you have a gap, it's possible for Congress to say we don't have our act together to pass another full length appropriation bill that would be 100 pages or much more, depending on which one it is. We don't have our act to do that, but we could pass a one paragraph statement that you just continue spending for the next 30, 60 or 90 days at the rate from last year. And that's it's like a bandage over the sore and it works. During that period, the government has a wallet. There are many complaints about that situation, but it is not a shutdown,

Nick Capodice:
Which is something that President Biden signed to avoid the first government shutdown threat of his administration. But our longest shutdown, Hannah. Thirty five days under President Trump. That seemed to confirm this new normal, that government shutdowns will be the inevitable result of partisan battles between Congress and the president. And they don't seem to have any lasting political consequences. So what happened?

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, we saw our first government shutdown since Clinton during the Obama administration with this big fight over the Affordable Care Act.

Barack Obama:
About three weeks ago, as the federal government shut down the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplaces open for business across the

Nick Capodice:
Country. Another example of a party not getting what they wanted and gambling on a shutdown.

Hannah McCarthy:
And also, I think another example of partisanship of a Congress that does not want to compromise because before the 90s, remember, shutdowns were typically short and represented the time that it took to make a compromise on usually something smaller. And that's just not really the case anymore. So Obama had just the one shutdown, but then Trump had three, although one of them only lasted for nine hours. And now, you know, so for me, when someone at the FDA tells me, as they recently did, that they might not be able to do an interview in a week because the government might be shut down, I'm like, Yup, that sounds about right.

Nick Capodice:
All right. So government shutdown has gone from this sort of temporary hiccup, barring negotiation to a commonplace political tactic,

Hannah McCarthy:
At least in our current political climate. And for us laypeople, US and nongovernment employees who can kind of shrug it a shutdown because it isn't reflected in our paychecks. I feel like we should emphasize that he shutdown does matter to everyone. It does affect your life and we're going to find out how after the break.

Nick Capodice:
I just want to invite any listeners out there who might be interested in trivia and ephemera and deeper dives into our episode topics to subscribe to our newsletter, it's called Extra Credit. It's every two weeks, it's a goof. Next week, I'm going to have some Civics 101 trivia that we asked on air and a photo of our executive producers most hideous new pair of leggings. You can subscribe at civics101podcast.org. All right, let's get back to it. What actually happens when the government shuts down?

Hannah McCarthy:
Great question. Here's Charles Tiefer.

Charles Tiefer:
The government has various guides, legal opinions of the past, practices of the past guidelines and so forth to follow, which say some activities can continue to be funded. Sort of on an emergency basis so that the armed forces aren't left without the ability to to get ammunition. Things that must continue on an emergency basis are able to. But the government splits apart and quite a lot of its activity isn't. Emergency is just a continuing need of the public and that it can't spend on during a shutdown.

Hannah McCarthy:
And for many of us, the problem does start and end at inconvenience.

Charles Tiefer:
Among the examples so most of the IRS shuts down if you have a question and you need to get an answer, you can't get an answer. You can't call up. No one will answer the phone.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now what shuts down during a shutdown all depends on what has or has not been funded at that point. But you're usually going to see the parks services close up shop, meaning bye bye to your trip to Yellowstone. The same goes for Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo. Immigration courts typically close as if the backlog wasn't bad enough. Most of the Department of Agriculture, which monitors farming and forest regulation, shuts down. Nasa even has to power down some of its large scale instruments.

Nick Capodice:
Yeah, I didn't know that. What about stuff like regulation like food and drug inspection? Does that continue?

Charles Tiefer:
Food inspections are considered an emergency service, and they do continue

Hannah McCarthy:
And things like entitlements, meaning Medicare and Social Security, those don't need annual spending bills, so those keep churning. But there are examples of people being disastrously affected by a government shutdown.

Charles Tiefer:
I can tell you what one of the most horrible examples of what happens during a shutdown in the Health and Human Services. They have what they call trials, tryouts, tests for new drugs, new treatments and new people cannot be enrolled in a clinical trial. New patients, desperate new patients cannot be enrolled in clinical trials during a shutdown period. And so you would see saw the last time that there was a shutdown. These frantic parents saying I can't get my son or daughter into a trial. They've got one of these rare types of childhood cancers that there's no good regular treatment for. I can't imagine what insanity is going on, that they're not letting my child get enrolled.

Hannah McCarthy:
And just to be clear, in terms of who is affected by something like that, as of October, twenty twenty one. There were over a hundred thousand clinical trials registered in the United States alone. Halting that much work can have devastating consequences.

Nick Capodice:
So if Health and human services were to shut down during a pandemic, what would happen to all the research, the response and vaccine development?

Hannah McCarthy:
Well, fortunately, that's considered an emergency service. And for example, HHS created a full. What we're going to do with COVID 19 if the government shuts down plan. But keep in mind these emergency workers, these people who still show up and do the job, they are technically working without pay.

Charles Tiefer:
There is no money for them. It used to be the custom that when the shutdown was over, they would pay people retroactively. But there have been threats during recent pre shutdown periods. By some, you might call some anti-government or small government people who who say, Let's we don't want to pay the civil service, let's not pay them. At the end of the day, let's not pay retroactively at the end of the shutdown.

Nick Capodice:
So who gets to make the call in terms of what actually is an emergency service or not?

Charles Tiefer:
Well, that has gotten more organized. Few decades ago, it was pretty random. A supervisor that low levels would make the decisions. But now there's supervision on high from the White House. They keep a pretty elaborate tab to make sure there's some uniformity in what's shut down and what's not shut down so that the different cabinet departments have some kind of similar read.

Hannah McCarthy:
No matter how well a shut down is organized, it is still a shutdown. There is a civic impact. A shutdown affects how we think of our government. The public does not like it.

Charles Tiefer:
Well they all think it shows gridlock in Washington and that Washington is dysfunctional. That's something pretty common that you you see during shutdowns. And they consider it the extreme example that the government can't get its act together. The public doesn't like disorderly things like shutdown, essentially.

Nick Capodice:
Even if it is commonplace, it's the kind of thing we roll our eyes at. But expect shutdowns do endanger faith in our government, which I feel is bad for all of us in the long run.

Hannah McCarthy:
And Nick, just to bring this walk and talk full circle. This is exactly the point that that West Wing episode is trying to make that shut down is trying to make the government shuts down because there was a compromise to keep everything going and then that compromise is retracted. And Jeb Bartlett is like, do your job.

West Wing, Season 5, Episode 8: Shutdown:
We had a deal. I don't care if my approval ratings drop into single digits. I am the president of the United States, and I will leave this government shutdown until we reach an equitable agreement.

Hannah McCarthy:
This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. If you want more civics, headphones free, you can check out our book on it. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works, and it's a quick, fun guide to these United States. You can find that wherever books are sold. Music in this episode by Xylo-Zico, Wildlight Metre, Daniel Burch and Cycle Hiccups. There is always more to be found, including our many other episodes a submission form to ask us for an episode you want and loads more at civics101podcast.org. And while you're there a reminder that while civics is free to you, it is not free to make. We exist because of your generous contributions to our show. If you're so inclined, you can click the donate button on your way to your favorite civics episode. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including collaboration tools, automated subtitles, automated transcription, automated translation, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

State Attorneys General

We often hear them referred to as the “top cop” of a state. The attorneys general are the chief legal advisors and law enforcement officers, the ones in charge of statewide investigations and asserting state sovereignty. They sue presidential administrations and big businesses, give press conferences and advise the legislature. But what is the daily business of a state attorney general? How does the “People’s Lawyer” actually work for the people?

Our guests are former New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and New Hampshire policy experts Jackie Benson and Anna Brown.

Click here for a Graphic Organizer for students to fill out while listening to the episode


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

After 9/11: The FBI

This is the story of where the FBI was on September 11th, 2001. This is what they did — and did not — have when it came to counterterrorism and how the tragedy of that Tuesday morning transformed the Bureau. Our guide is Sasha O’Connell, the director of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Program at American University who spent the bulk of her career working for the FBI.

 

Episode Segments


AFTER 9/11: FBI

This mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix. This transcript may contain errors.

Hannah McCarthy:
Hey, there a quick favor. We are conducting an audience survey, and we would be really grateful if you could take just a few minutes to answer it. Please visit Survey.PRX.Org/Civics101 to take the survey today. That survey.prx.org/Civics101. Thanks.

Hannah McCarthy:
September 11 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of a tragedy that forever and profoundly changed the United States of America. Some of you who live in the United States and are listening right now witnessed and experienced those changes. Some of you have never lived in a world without them. Over the course of this year, Civics 101 is going to be exploring and interrogating those changes. How did our government, our civil liberties, our security and society pivot following the attacks of that Tuesday morning?

Nick Capodice:
This will be an ongoing series that you'll hear intermittently throughout the year. After all, the government and societal effects of 9/11 are not isolated to one date or one anniversary. They've been happening for 20 years and will continue to do so. So every once in a while, you'll encounter an episode from this series in your feed. And we also want to hear from you as we work through it. How has your relationship to the U.S. government and its leaders changed, if at all, in the 20 years since 9/11? Send a voice memo to Civics101@Nhpr.org. We hope to use it in these episodes.

Sasha O'Connell:
And I remember very clearly by the end of that day, there was photographs of all the hijackers around the room, so the airlines were sending us manifests of their of their passengers, whether we had asked for it or not, which is kind of crazy. And it was just pouring off the fax machine and the banks were sending us lists that they were worried about and it was pouring off the fax machine. So I have this really strong memory of this paper pile behind me just piling up. And with sort of unsolicited information pouring in to one field office, you can imagine what was happening across the country.

Hannah McCarthy:
I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice:
I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy:
And that is the voice of Sasha O'Connell, a woman who spent most of her career in various roles at the FBI because we're starting this Civics 101 series with a look inside the world of the people on the inside. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an organization so synonymous with government its agents have long been referred to as quote G-men.

Nick Capodice:
I never knew that the G in G-men stands for government men?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, government men.

Nick Capodice:
Totally new to me.

Hannah McCarthy:
For those who don't know, the FBI is also now synonymous with counter terrorism. That is the bureau's explicitly stated number one priority, one of its best resourced missions. But it wasn't always that way at the FBI. So this is the story of how it happened, how four planes hijacked by the terrorist group Al Qaeda, three United States targets and nearly 3000 deaths -- the tragedy of September 11th, 2001 -- changed the FBI.

Sasha O'Connell:
I actually joined right into the counterterrorism program what was then the International Terrorism Operations section? I joined in '98.

Hannah McCarthy:
Right now, Sasha is the director of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Policy Program at American University. But in September of 2001, she was working for the FBI.

Nick Capodice:
Before we go any further, Hannah, can you tell me what is the FBI? What do they do?

Hannah McCarthy:
The FBI investigates federal crimes. Now, the bureau itself lists those crimes in order of priority. We talked about priorities, right? And domestic and international terrorism is number one. There's also international counterintelligence.

Nick Capodice:
Is that meaning like spies?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, meaning spies. The FBI is supposed to prevent international spies from doing their job in international cyber attacks from happening. And cybercrime, by the way, is on that list of priorities, as is combating public corruption, white collar and violent crime and protecting civil liberties. They also handle stuff like organized and drug related crime and health care fraud. And then the FBI works with the attorney general of the United States to get those crimes prosecuted.

Nick Capodice:
You said that the FBI's job is in part, protecting civil liberties.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, they're supposed to be upholding the Constitution in their daily dealings.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, so the elephant in the room, if we're talking about the FBI and September 11th, it's the degree to which those civil liberties were or were not upheld after the attacks.

Hannah McCarthy:
This is a very important point. I'm glad you brought this up. We will absolutely be addressing the rise of surveillance and how the U.S. government impinged on privacy, among other rights, following September 11th, 2001. That will come in other Civics 101 episodes, for example, about acts of Congress that resulted in some fairly carte blanche interpretations of surveillance powers. But today, for the purposes of this episode, we are looking at where the FBI was on counterterrorism pre-9/11 and how those attacks changed it.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, fair enough. Got it. So back to the place of the FBI in the federal government. It's part of the DOJ, the Department of Justice, right?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, that's the close work with the attorney general, right? That's who they work with to prosecute these crimes.

Nick Capodice:
Ok, so that makes it an executive branch department, which is run in the end by the president.

Hannah McCarthy:
And it is through the Presidential Management Fellows program, which is designed to place grad students in federal jobs. That Sasha O'Connell, our guest today, ended up at the FBI in the International Terrorism Operations section

Sasha O'Connell:
In the years before September 11th, there was a real strong initiative underway at the FBI. Not only was the FBI working terrorism cases with partners, but also there was a restructuring in order to focus on terrorism and a whole strategic planning process called Max Cap 05. That was ongoing, and I had the extraordinary opportunity, as one does as a young person in government to get to staff the working group that was sorting through, leading, building, assessing the program and building that strategic plan. So I was knee deep in that kind of strategic view of the terrorism program at the FBI on the lead up to 9/11.

Nick Capodice:
So if the FBI was working on this strategic plan to deal with international terrorism, how does something as big as all the attacks on September 11th get through?

Hannah McCarthy:
That is the sort of perennial question of 9-11, not just when it comes to the FBI, but when it comes to all levels of government. There was a lot of scrutiny of the FBI following. This tragedy, because the question was, how could this have happened? And can the FBI really have been paying close attention to international terrorism if this did happen?

Sasha O'Connell:
It couldn't be possible that the bureau was both focused and this happened, right? That couldn't be possible in people's minds. And in fact, it's much more nuanced than that. And that is possible, right? There was a contingent of the government that was extraordinarily focused on al Qaeda, including this program at the FBI before 9/11. But that's not enough, right? And one of the big lessons in my mind of 9/11 is, you know, having a small group looking around the corner, having a small group, you know, focused on a threat is is not enough.

Nick Capodice:
While we're on the subject of how this all happened. I actually remember reading the 9/11 Commission Report, which is something that Congress and President George Bush requested after 9/11 to figure out what went wrong. It is tremendously well written. I remember that one of the major findings of the report was the FBI and other government agencies were not sharing information, and that likely contributed to the success of these attacks on September 11th.

Sasha O'Connell:
We obviously had the 9/11 commission, which is an amazing if people haven't read it and you're really interested in what happened and where the gaps were. I mean, they do an incredible job. They did an incredible investigation, and the report is an incredible resource to understand what was happening.

Hannah McCarthy:
This report takes a look at a 1998 FBI plan to combat terrorism and says, and this is the actual wording here, "The plan did not succeed." The report determines that the FBI was under-resourced. There were twice as many agents at the time, working drug enforcement as there were working counterterrorism. The training was insufficient. The information systems were lacking. They didn't have enough translators in key languages. The unit that Sasha was working on in 2001, Max Cap 05, was designed to increase FBI counterterrorism capability to maximum capacity feasible by 2005. In September of 2001, almost every FBI field office was considered to be operating below maximum capacity.

Sasha O'Connell:
It was a Tuesday morning and it was bright and sunny, and yes, it was September 11th and I got married on November 17th in Boston, so we were knee-deep in wedding planning and I had a dress fitting on the South Shore that afternoon, so I was supposed to leave work early. I remember what I was wearing and so I was pretty much focused on that that day, right? And not on work. I was in the Boston office, as I mentioned, and I didn't know a lot of people in the Boston office because I was up from headquarters and sort of placed in a pod, you know, a cubicle in the corner doing my work. And I just said hello to a few people over the summer, but I didn't really have relationships. So what happened actually in that morning was an agent who was sitting couple sort of rows away from me in the cubicles, had a little tiny TV in his cubicle at the time. We didn't have what we now have everywhere, right, which is big screen TVs and every every floor of the FBI. And he stood up. I remember and said, something's happening.

News archival:
And I looked up and all of a sudden a plane smashed right there into the center of the World Trade Center.

Nick Capodice:
And Boston was a particularly significant place to be on this day because both planes that hit the Twin Towers came from Logan Airport in Boston.

Sasha O'Connell:
I remember looking out the window once we started to put some of the pieces together because at the time it since changed. The Boston office of the FBI was actually in a private commercial building, but the federal building was right across the street. And I have a very distinct memory of thinking a plane is going to hit the building across the street, right? That's what's going to happen.

Hannah McCarthy:
There's some chaos and uncertainty. But eventually, Sasha remembers hearing from headquarters in Washington, D.C., and basically being told to get to work on this. After all, she is on the counterterrorism team,

Sasha O'Connell:
And I walked up to the executive floor and there was the leadership team was standing in the hallway talking and I said, My name is Sasha. I'm here from the counterterrorism division at headquarters. And they said, Go to the basement, get a car and go to the airport. And I said, I'm not an agent. And they said, Great, get in the command post,

Nick Capodice:
Get in the car, go to the airport. What exactly is supposed to be going on on the FBI agent side of things in a case like this and folks

Sasha O'Connell:
Say, I want to work for the FBI or I want to be an FBI agent, like, what do you think they do right? And the truth is, most of what FBI agents do is talk to people. They interview people. Right. So a lot of what was happening on that day, and this is when they said to me, go to the airport. They thought it was an agent. It's go start talking to people, right? That's how you collect human intelligence is you talk to people, right? So you talk to people at the airport. What happened, how they got on the plane? You talk to the baggage handlers, right? And you come back. And then there's a process that the FBI called setting a lead.

Nick Capodice:
Sasha is talking about gathering intelligence. I always thought intelligence gathering was the purview of the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hannah McCarthy:
It absolutely is. Yes, both the CIA and the FBI are part of the intelligence community, although the CIA is prohibited from collecting information regarding quote U.S. persons. Did you know that?

Nick Capodice:
No, I did not.

Hannah McCarthy:
The CIA is also not empowered as a law enforcement agency the same way that the FBI is. But to that point, prior to 9/11, the CIA was the lead against Al Qaeda. And when this attack happens on American soil, the FBI has to prioritize its focus on that terrorist group as well. And these agents cannot leave any stone unturned in these cases, even in the chaos following the attacks. These agents had to figure out where physically to go, what specifically to ask in order to clarify what happened that day.

Sasha O'Connell:
What happened? Where did this bag come from? Who handled it right? They found the car in the parking lot. You've got to talk to the parking lot attendant, right? You're going to find litter in the car, then you're going to go to the hotel where the receipt was in that car. All these things happen on 9/11, right?

Nick Capodice:
When Sasha says they found a car in a parking lot. What are they talking about? Was it a suspect's car? Was it like one of the hijackers car at the airport?

Hannah McCarthy:
Yes. Agents found both the car and the luggage of the individual, later considered to be the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks. And they found these at Logan Airport when they went to the airport. Again, Boston is a central element in the investigation on day one.

Nick Capodice:
What was the luggage they found?

Hannah McCarthy:
Mohamed Atta's luggage. That's the ringleader. Just as an aside, his suitcase was only discovered because it never made it onto the plane in Boston after his connecting flight. Totally incidental. I feel like details like this really illustrate the significance of minutia in an FBI investigation. The suitcase and the car were full of evidence. And, you know, once the agents find this evidence, they have to pass it on. They coordinate. They follow leads and they put the story together. And this is happening not just in Boston or around the country, but around the world.

Sasha O'Connell:
You can literally picture just the world lighting up with people talking to people and. Trying to figure out what's going on. Similarly, using other intelligence methods right to do that, whether that's sort of a digital collection, opportunities, right, but it's information gathering is a huge piece of kind of what's going on. And then there's a lot of capacity back, whether it's in a field office or at headquarters trying to put those pieces together because this whole world is getting laid up and all this information is coming in and a you have to coordinate all those people and be you then have to coordinate all that intelligence, right? Which is just a fancy word for facts and information that are coming in.

Hannah McCarthy:
And the coordination part, that is Sasha on September 11th. She's in the command post and evidence is pouring in.

Sasha O'Connell:
We started getting markers and whiteboards and made sure the fax machine was turned on and someone brought in an extra phone.

Hannah McCarthy:
Sasha mentioned that today FBI field offices have these big, beautiful conference rooms with loads of screens and resources. But on 9/11, she is in a windowless room with just a phone and a fax machine. This is before this anti-terrorism effort was majorly resourced.

Sasha O'Connell:
And I remember very clearly by the end of that day, there was photographs of all the hijackers around the room that were printed out and we could see and there was paper all the way around the room. And by the end of the day, my two biggest memories were one that the fax machine was right behind me. So I was sitting at a conference table and the fax machine was right behind my back. And paper was just pouring off the fax machine because airlines and banks. So the airlines were sending us manifests of their of their passengers, whether we had asked for it or not, which is kind of crazy. And it was just pouring off the fax machine and the banks were sending us lists that they were worried about and it was pouring off the fax machine. So I have this really strong memory of this paper pile behind me just piling up. And with sort of unsolicited information pouring in to one field office, you can imagine what was happening across the country.

Nick Capodice:
What's up at the banks? The airlines thing makes perfect sense, but how are the banks connected

Hannah McCarthy:
At this stage in counterterrorism in this country, U.S. banks were already expected to block any Al Qaeda transactions and seize their funds. But the hijackers of 9/11 made extensive use of U.S. banks. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that nothing these attackers did would have tipped off the banks, but still after those attacks, anything is potential evidence anyway. Sasha is processing all of this incoming information.

Sasha O'Connell:
My job is to man that phone and talk to headquarters, figure out, you know, understand what they needed from the Boston office. And that's how we work 12 hour shifts for the next oh, about eight weeks. And I did leave sort of duty in the command post shortly before my wedding.

Nick Capodice:
The pressure at this moment must have been incredible, especially for someone who, as you said earlier, was quite young and quite new to the bureau. Did Sasha say what it was like for her during those two months?

Sasha O'Connell:
Day one, it was just it's a blessing and a curse, right? You're so busy you don't have any time to think, and it's wonderful because you're busy and you feel like you're contributing. But I wasn't thinking I was trying to survive and solve problems, right? And find the paper or clean up the fax machine or find George and run down a lead. There was no time to think. We didn't even have a TV in the command post at the time, so it's something I didn't realize. I think I mentioned to you that the first anniversary 9/11, I saw the pictures really for the first time in the video, right? I hadn't seen them. We were too busy just trying to get things sorted out or get agents to the airport, get the evidence back, you know? And again, I'm just trying to keep lists and keep organized.

Nick Capodice:
It's just you would think that someone who is so closely involved with the investigation would be inundated with images and footage and news the way that we in the U.S. were every waking moment.

Hannah McCarthy:
You know, I think it would have been different had Sacha been in a modern command post surrounded by televisions and news analysis. Instead, it was her and a phone and a fax machine. And this constant drive to figure out the who, what, when, where and why of September 11th.

Nick Capodice:
All right. Speaking of the modern command post versus the FBI that Sasha worked for in 2001, can we get into the changes that happened after the September 11th attacks? You had people in the FBI who were pretty clear on the fact that they needed to beef up counterterrorism efforts. So did they?

Hannah McCarthy:
Sasha left the FBI in 2002 to work for the private sector. She came back in 2007, and when she did, the Bureau had reassessed its whole approach to counterterrorism. And the lack of resources that was no longer a problem for the counterterrorism effort.

Sasha O'Connell:
The counterterrorism program is resourced, so all the things we were asking for before 9/11 training translation analysis, right when we did that assessment, there were gaps. We knew there were gaps. We were asking for it in the budget and we weren't getting it from Congress, right? It just wasn't coming. And by the time I got back, like amazing, like we have all those things right that had happened. And then the other interesting thing that had happened and I never worked in the counterterrorism division after, but it was the head of strategy. So I got to work a little bit with all the divisions for a time is that before 9-11, the counterterrorism division operated much like the criminal division in that cases were more decentralized. So a special agent in charge of a field office like in New York, I'm one of the largest field offices. We're really responsible as they are on the criminal side for their cases. And there was sort of programmatic oversight at headquarters. And, you know, obviously the most sensitive cases got briefed to the director or whoever needed for legal review. But fundamentally, there was kind of this decentralized approach to case management during the time that I was white and really since the counterterrorism program swung the other direction. One hundred and eighty degrees cases are really centrally managed out of FBI headquarters.

Hannah McCarthy:
Prior to this, FBI field offices were fairly autonomous operations. And that autonomy ended with 9/11 and this new approach to counterterrorism. A lot of people actually blamed this decentralized element of the FBI for some of the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen. And when Sasha returned to the FBI, de-centralized was a thing of the past.

Nick Capodice:
I heard a lot about Joint Terrorism Task Forces, were these part of the restructuring.

Hannah McCarthy:
Yeah, but Joint Terrorism Task Forces had been around since nineteen eighty. They started in New York City on nine eleven. We had thirty five of them in the U.S. These were locally based investigators and analysts who are in various states and supposed to watch out for terrorist activity in the U.S.. Now, after 9/11, the FBI almost overnight nearly doubled these forces. They had 56 forces in the days after 9/11. We now have 104. The FBI also established a national joint terrorism task force at headquarters in D.C., which coordinates all of these local task forces. Again, this is all part of this big centralization movement. And the bureau also reassessed how it gathered and reported information. Part of the problem leading up to nine eleven was communication and coordination across the bureau itself and with other agencies.

Sasha O'Connell:
There had been a major initiative called SET, which looked at and then realigned the way the FBI did intelligence intake collection and reporting. So it was really about the business process and the prioritization of intelligence collection and shoring up a lot of those gaps, frankly, that existed before 9/11. So that was a huge kind of it's almost like a strategic change management initiative that Director Mueller ran to shore up that intelligence function of the FBI and further professionalize the intelligence workforce to be able to drive that to the next level. So that was huge.

Hannah McCarthy:
And as the FBI is reassessing and reorganizing itself, there is a larger governmental push to think about separating the intelligence gathering and national security mission of the FBI from the criminal investigation and domestic law enforcement mission. But the FBI itself did not want this, and Sasha believes the reason the bureau remained unified is because they had been attempting to do counterterrorism work before 9/11. The will was in place, even if the resourcing was not.

Sasha O'Connell:
Yes, there was a lot again, as you mentioned, kind of push right at the beginning of holding folks accountable. And part of that led to let's split up the FBI. Some of the work that I had been involved in in terms of Max Cap 05 and explaining that there was a vision for kind of pulling this all together and building maximum capacity. I think and I got this was my sort of opinion sort of helped turn those tides, and a lot of work was done by a lot of people who are involved in our partner organizations to say that's not the way to go in the United States, right? You don't want a domestic intelligence agency, right? Focus on U.S. citizens, right? NSA is focused externally. CIA is focused externally. We don't want a domestic intelligence function split off from the FBI. We want our domestic intelligence to the extent it happens to be tied closely to our enforcement, which is all governed by the same set of domestic constitution, laws and everything else, and ultimately the bureau through a lot of work, a lot of people and a lot of folks, for example, on the Hill who got educated and understood this, and the 9-11 commission findings kept the bureau together, and still today the FBI has again that kind of national security, intelligence function and all the traditional criminal responsibilities that we think of with federal law enforcement.

Nick Capodice:
So should we be thinking of the FBI post-9/11 as the ones in charge, the front line of defense?

Sasha O'Connell:
So sort of, yes and no, I would say so. Just to clarify that the FBI is the lead federal agency right for counterterrorism. There's no question about that domestically, right? There's a lot of work going on overseas because a lot of the threats don't start here, right? And so other U.S. government and foreign government partners are doing that work globally. And then in the United States, you know, there's only I think today around 14000 FBI agents right to cover the world. And they they are global. You know, there's 18000 state local law enforcement organizations, right? I think there's like thirty six thousand police officers in New York City. So actually, in any instance, it's going to be state and local law enforcement. That's truly the front line, right? There just aren't the number of FBI agents right to to be out doing the interviewing. We're talking about the kind of human intelligence collection that's required to kind of understand what's happening with these threats.

Hannah McCarthy:
Now, as we know, the change that happened after 9/11 is this laser focus on a priority that was just not being sufficiently resourced before the attacks in two thousand one. But even with that necessary funding and staffing and focus that came out of 9/11, there still aren't enough agents to handle everything like Sasha says. So if you keep thinking of the FBI as this agency that worked to centralize it is the coordinating force among all of these disparate law enforcement agencies working counterterrorism in the U.S..

Sasha O'Connell:
And for the United States, the FBI is kind of the quarterback, maybe, right? You know, at the end of the day, the policy is set by the White House to right when it comes to strategy. When it comes to investigations, though, that's the FBI's calls today. Like in a lot of programs, the counterterrorism program is run in a task force model where you know you can have private sector organizations, you can have foreign partners, you can have all the different USG federal partners, you can have state and local law enforcement. And the FBI coordinates that task force.

Nick Capodice:
And you explicitly said to me earlier that we are not focusing on a shift in surveillance or the intense scrutiny the FBI came under in the wake of these changes after 9/11. But I do have to ask, like, did Sasha talk about that at all? Like that the attacks are not going to just change the structure of the FBI, but the whole idea of security in the United States and not just security like civil liberties, surveillance, nationalism, xenophobia, Islamophobia. Were there any signs to the people on the inside of what was going to come next?

Sasha O'Connell:
I do remember I don't know how long it was after, but after things were more in routine, it was probably at least a month out. I remember sitting in the command post one day, and one of the things that happened in the command post is that we answered the phone when the public called, and I did some of that too, when the headquarters line was quiet. And I remember taking a call where the caller said, You know, I want to report to the FBI because these people are taking pictures of a bridge. And I don't know what language they're speaking, but it's not English. And I was like, Oh boy, we got a problem, right? And things are going to change like this is. And so that was when I started to think, Oh boy, what is happening out there, right? And I was starting to think about backlash and hate crimes. I started to think about security and privacy changing.

Hannah McCarthy:
So many people have only ever known the United States as this place of super heightened security, with a hyper focus on terrorist groups both domestic and international. A place ostensibly under constant threat and an understanding that the government is hyper focused on that threat. And that leaves everyone more vulnerable to government suspicion to surveillance. This is just the way things are in the United States today. But I do think it's important to ask why. I think it's important to scrutinize that the FBI is the executive intelligence and law enforcement agency in the U.S., and its primary, an overwhelming focus is terrorism. And that focus trickles down to the everyday experience of people in this country and around the world. That is what 9/11 did to the FBI.

This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie sees all. If you want a nearly as portable and twice as quiet civics lesson in your back pocket, Nick and I wrote a book on it. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works. If you liked this episode of Civics 101, or if you want us to go deeper and do more, consider making a donation to the show at civics101podcast.org. We are supported by You. You are the reason we're able to keep going and do better all the time. And while you're there, you can find our entire backlog of episodes -- we have many -- and submit your own questions about American government. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

PRX sting:
From PRX.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including secure transcription and file storage, automated subtitles, automated translation, share transcripts, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:00] Hey, there a quick favor. We are conducting an audience survey, and we would be really grateful if you could take just a few minutes to answer it. Please visit Survey.PRX.Org/Civics101 to take the survey today. That survey.prx.org/Civics101. Thanks.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:19] September 11 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of a tragedy that forever and profoundly changed the United States of America. Some of [00:00:30] you who live in the United States and are listening right now witnessed and experienced those changes. Some of you have never lived in a world without them. Over the course of this year, Civics 101 is going to be exploring and interrogating those changes. How did our government, our civil liberties, our security and society pivot following the attacks of that Tuesday morning?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:56] This will be an ongoing series that you'll hear intermittently throughout [00:01:00] the year. After all, the government and societal effects of 9/11 are not isolated to one date or one anniversary. They've been happening for 20 years and will continue to do so. So every once in a while, you'll encounter an episode from this series in your feed. And we also want to hear from you as we work through it. How has your relationship to the U.S. government and its leaders changed, if at all, in the 20 years since 9/11? Send a voice memo to Civics101@Nhpr.org. We hope [00:01:30] to use it in these episodes.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:01:47] And I remember very clearly by the end of that day, there was photographs of all the hijackers around the room, so the airlines were sending us manifests of their of their passengers, whether we had asked for it or not, which is kind [00:02:00] of crazy. And it was just pouring off the fax machine and the banks were sending us lists that they were worried about and it was pouring off the fax machine. So I have this really strong memory of this paper pile behind me just piling up. And with sort of unsolicited information pouring in to one field office, you can imagine what was happening across the country.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:20] I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:21] I'm Nick Capodice,

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:22] And that is the voice of Sasha O'Connell, a woman who spent most of her career in various roles at the FBI because [00:02:30] we're starting this Civics 101 series with a look inside the world of the people on the inside. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an organization so synonymous with government its agents have long been referred to as quote G-men.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:47] I never knew that the G in G-men stands for government men?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:50] Yeah, government men.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:51] Totally new to me.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:52] For those who don't know, the FBI is also now synonymous with counter terrorism. That is the bureau's [00:03:00] explicitly stated number one priority, one of its best resourced missions. But it wasn't always that way at the FBI. So this is the story of how it happened, how four planes hijacked by the terrorist group Al Qaeda, three United States targets and nearly 3000 deaths -- the tragedy of September 11th, 2001 -- changed the FBI.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:03:27] I actually joined right into the counterterrorism program what [00:03:30] was then the International Terrorism Operations section? I joined in '98.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:34] Right now, Sasha is the director of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Policy Program at American University. But in September of 2001, she was working for the FBI.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:45] Before we go any further, Hannah, can you tell me what is the FBI? What do they do?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:49] The FBI investigates federal crimes. Now, the bureau itself lists those crimes in order of priority. We talked about priorities, right? And domestic and international [00:04:00] terrorism is number one. There's also international counterintelligence.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:05] Is that meaning like spies?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:07] Yeah, meaning spies. The FBI is supposed to prevent international spies from doing their job in international cyber attacks from happening. And cybercrime, by the way, is on that list of priorities, as is combating public corruption, white collar and violent crime and protecting civil liberties. They also handle stuff like organized [00:04:30] and drug related crime and health care fraud. And then the FBI works with the attorney general of the United States to get those crimes prosecuted.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:38] You said that the FBI's job is in part, protecting civil liberties.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:42] Yeah, they're supposed to be upholding the Constitution in their daily dealings.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:48] Ok, so the elephant in the room, if we're talking about the FBI and September 11th, it's the degree to which those civil liberties were or were not upheld after the attacks.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:59] This is [00:05:00] a very important point. I'm glad you brought this up. We will absolutely be addressing the rise of surveillance and how the U.S. government impinged on privacy, among other rights, following September 11th, 2001. That will come in other Civics 101 episodes, for example, about acts of Congress that resulted in some fairly carte blanche interpretations of surveillance powers. But today, for the purposes of this episode, we are looking at where the FBI [00:05:30] was on counterterrorism pre-9/11 and how those attacks changed it.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:38] Ok, fair enough. Got it. So back to the place of the FBI in the federal government. It's part of the DOJ, the Department of Justice, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:48] Yeah, that's the close work with the attorney general, right? That's who they work with to prosecute these crimes.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:53] Ok, so that makes it an executive branch department, which is run in the end by the president.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:59] And it [00:06:00] is through the Presidential Management Fellows program, which is designed to place grad students in federal jobs. That Sasha O'Connell, our guest today, ended up at the FBI in the International Terrorism Operations section

Sasha O'Connell: [00:06:16] In the years before September 11th, there was a real strong initiative underway at the FBI. Not only was the FBI working terrorism cases with partners, but also there was a restructuring in order to focus on terrorism [00:06:30] and a whole strategic planning process called Max Cap 05. That was ongoing, and I had the extraordinary opportunity, as one does as a young person in government to get to staff the working group that was sorting through, leading, building, assessing the program and building that strategic plan. So I was knee deep in that kind of strategic view of the terrorism program at the FBI on the lead up to 9/11.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:56] So if the FBI was working on this strategic plan to deal with [00:07:00] international terrorism, how does something as big as all the attacks on September 11th get through?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:07] That is the sort of perennial question of 9-11, not just when it comes to the FBI, but when it comes to all levels of government. There was a lot of scrutiny of the FBI following. This tragedy, because the question was, how could this have happened? And can the FBI really have been paying close attention to international [00:07:30] terrorism if this did happen?

Sasha O'Connell: [00:07:33] It couldn't be possible that the bureau was both focused and this happened, right? That couldn't be possible in people's minds. And in fact, it's much more nuanced than that. And that is possible, right? There was a contingent of the government that was extraordinarily focused on al Qaeda, including this program at the FBI before 9/11. But that's not enough, right? And one of the big lessons in my mind of 9/11 is, you know, having a small group looking around [00:08:00] the corner, having a small group, you know, focused on a threat is is not enough.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:05] While we're on the subject of how this all happened. I actually remember reading the 9/11 Commission Report, which is something that Congress and President George Bush requested after 9/11 to figure out what went wrong. It is tremendously well written. I remember that one of the major findings of the report was the FBI and other government agencies were not sharing information, and that likely [00:08:30] contributed to the success of these attacks on September 11th.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:08:33] We obviously had the 9/11 commission, which is an amazing if people haven't read it and you're really interested in what happened and where the gaps were. I mean, they do an incredible job. They did an incredible investigation, and the report is an incredible resource to understand what was happening.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:46] This report takes a look at a 1998 FBI plan to combat terrorism and says, and this is the actual wording here, "The plan did not succeed." The report determines that the FBI [00:09:00] was under-resourced. There were twice as many agents at the time, working drug enforcement as there were working counterterrorism. The training was insufficient. The information systems were lacking. They didn't have enough translators in key languages. The unit that Sasha was working on in 2001, Max Cap 05, was designed to increase FBI counterterrorism capability to maximum capacity feasible [00:09:30] by 2005. In September of 2001, almost every FBI field office was considered to be operating below maximum capacity.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:09:45] It was a Tuesday morning and it was bright and sunny, and yes, it was September 11th and I got married on November 17th in Boston, so we were knee-deep in wedding planning and I had a dress fitting on the South Shore that afternoon, so I was supposed to leave work early. I remember [00:10:00] what I was wearing and so I was pretty much focused on that that day, right? And not on work. I was in the Boston office, as I mentioned, and I didn't know a lot of people in the Boston office because I was up from headquarters and sort of placed in a pod, you know, a cubicle in the corner doing my work. And I just said hello to a few people over the summer, but I didn't really have relationships. So what happened actually in that morning was an agent who was sitting couple sort of rows away from me in the cubicles, had a little tiny TV in his cubicle at the time. [00:10:30] We didn't have what we now have everywhere, right, which is big screen TVs and every every floor of the FBI. And he stood up. I remember and said, something's happening.

News archival: [00:10:40] And I looked up and all of a sudden a plane smashed right there into the center of the World Trade Center.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:46] And Boston was a particularly significant place to be on this day because both planes that hit the Twin Towers came from Logan Airport in Boston.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:10:55] I remember looking out the window once we started to put some of the pieces together because [00:11:00] at the time it since changed. The Boston office of the FBI was actually in a private commercial building, but the federal building was right across the street. And I have a very distinct memory of thinking a plane is going to hit the building across the street, right? That's what's going to happen.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:12] There's some chaos and uncertainty. But eventually, Sasha remembers hearing from headquarters in Washington, D.C., and basically being told to get to work on this. After all, she is on the counterterrorism team,

Sasha O'Connell: [00:11:26] And I walked up to the executive floor and there was the leadership [00:11:30] team was standing in the hallway talking and I said, My name is Sasha. I'm here from the counterterrorism division at headquarters. And they said, Go to the basement, get a car and go to the airport. And I said, I'm not an agent. And they said, Great, get in the command post,

Nick Capodice: [00:11:43] Get in the car, go to the airport. What exactly is supposed to be going on on the FBI agent side of things in a case like this and folks

Sasha O'Connell: [00:11:52] Say, I want to work for the FBI or I want to be an FBI agent, like, what do you think they do right? And the truth is, most of what FBI agents do is talk to people. They interview people. Right. [00:12:00] So a lot of what was happening on that day, and this is when they said to me, go to the airport. They thought it was an agent. It's go start talking to people, right? That's how you collect human intelligence is you talk to people, right? So you talk to people at the airport. What happened, how they got on the plane? You talk to the baggage handlers, right? And you come back. And then there's a process that the FBI called setting a lead.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:19] Sasha is talking about gathering intelligence. I always thought intelligence gathering was the purview of the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:27] It absolutely is. Yes, both the CIA [00:12:30] and the FBI are part of the intelligence community, although the CIA is prohibited from collecting information regarding quote U.S. persons. Did you know that?

Nick Capodice: [00:12:40] No, I did not.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:41] The CIA is also not empowered as a law enforcement agency the same way that the FBI is. But to that point, prior to 9/11, the CIA was the lead against Al Qaeda. And when this attack happens on American soil, the FBI has to prioritize its focus on that terrorist [00:13:00] group as well. And these agents cannot leave any stone unturned in these cases, even in the chaos following the attacks. These agents had to figure out where physically to go, what specifically to ask in order to clarify what happened that day.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:13:18] What happened? Where did this bag come from? Who handled it right? They found the car in the parking lot. You've got to talk to the parking lot attendant, right? You're going to find litter in the car, then you're going to go to the hotel [00:13:30] where the receipt was in that car. All these things happen on 9/11, right?

Nick Capodice: [00:13:33] When Sasha says they found a car in a parking lot. What are they talking about? Was it a suspect's car? Was it like one of the hijackers car at the airport?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:42] Yes. Agents found both the car and the luggage of the individual, later considered to be the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks. And they found these at Logan Airport when they went to the airport. Again, Boston is a central element in the investigation on day one. [00:14:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:14:00] What was the luggage they found?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:02] Mohamed Atta's luggage. That's the ringleader. Just as an aside, his suitcase was only discovered because it never made it onto the plane in Boston after his connecting flight. Totally incidental. I feel like details like this really illustrate the significance of minutia in an FBI investigation. The suitcase and the car were full of evidence. And, you know, once the agents find this [00:14:30] evidence, they have to pass it on. They coordinate. They follow leads and they put the story together. And this is happening not just in Boston or around the country, but around the world.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:14:41] You can literally picture just the world lighting up with people talking to people and. Trying to figure out what's going on. Similarly, using other intelligence methods right to do that, whether that's sort of a digital collection, opportunities, right, but it's information gathering is a huge piece of kind of what's going on. And [00:15:00] then there's a lot of capacity back, whether it's in a field office or at headquarters trying to put those pieces together because this whole world is getting laid up and all this information is coming in and a you have to coordinate all those people and be you then have to coordinate all that intelligence, right? Which is just a fancy word for facts and information that are coming in.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:19] And the coordination part, that is Sasha on September 11th. She's in the command post and evidence is pouring in.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:15:27] We started getting markers and whiteboards [00:15:30] and made sure the fax machine was turned on and someone brought in an extra phone.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:34] Sasha mentioned that today FBI field offices have these big, beautiful conference rooms with loads of screens and resources. But on 9/11, she is in a windowless room with just a phone and a fax machine. This is before this anti-terrorism effort was majorly resourced.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:15:52] And I remember very clearly by the end of that day, there was photographs of all the hijackers around the room that [00:16:00] were printed out and we could see and there was paper all the way around the room. And by the end of the day, my two biggest memories were one that the fax machine was right behind me. So I was sitting at a conference table and the fax machine was right behind my back. And paper was just pouring off the fax machine because airlines and banks. So the airlines were sending us manifests of their of their passengers, whether we had asked for it or not, which is kind of crazy. And it was just pouring off the fax machine and the banks were sending [00:16:30] us lists that they were worried about and it was pouring off the fax machine. So I have this really strong memory of this paper pile behind me just piling up. And with sort of unsolicited information pouring in to one field office, you can imagine what was happening across the country.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:45] What's up at the banks? The airlines thing makes perfect sense, but how are the banks connected

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:51] At this stage in counterterrorism in this country, U.S. banks were already expected to block any Al Qaeda transactions [00:17:00] and seize their funds. But the hijackers of 9/11 made extensive use of U.S. banks. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that nothing these attackers did would have tipped off the banks, but still after those attacks, anything is potential evidence anyway. Sasha is processing all of this incoming information.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:17:22] My job is to man that phone and talk to headquarters, figure out, you know, understand what they needed from the Boston office. And that's how we work 12 [00:17:30] hour shifts for the next oh, about eight weeks. And I did leave sort of duty in the command post shortly before my wedding.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:38] The pressure at this moment must have been incredible, especially for someone who, as you said earlier, was quite young and quite new to the bureau. Did Sasha say what it was like for her during those two months?

Sasha O'Connell: [00:17:51] Day one, it was just it's a blessing and a curse, right? You're so busy you don't have any time to think, and it's wonderful because you're busy and you feel like you're contributing. [00:18:00] But I wasn't thinking I was trying to survive and solve problems, right? And find the paper or clean up the fax machine or find George and run down a lead. There was no time to think. We didn't even have a TV in the command post at the time, so it's something I didn't realize. I think I mentioned to you that the first anniversary 9/11, I saw the pictures really for the first time in the video, right? I hadn't seen them. We were too busy just trying to get things sorted out or get agents to the airport, get the evidence back, you know? And again, I'm just trying to keep lists and keep organized. [00:18:30]

Nick Capodice: [00:18:30] It's just you would think that someone who is so closely involved with the investigation would be inundated with images and footage and news the way that we in the U.S. were every waking moment.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:40] You know, I think it would have been different had Sacha been in a modern command post surrounded by televisions and news analysis. Instead, it was her and a phone and a fax machine. And this constant drive to figure out the who, what, when, where [00:19:00] and why of September 11th.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:03] All right. Speaking of the modern command post versus the FBI that Sasha worked for in 2001, can we get into the changes that happened after the September 11th attacks? You had people in the FBI who were pretty clear on the fact that they needed to beef up counterterrorism efforts. So did they?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:22] Sasha left the FBI in 2002 to work for the private sector. She came back in 2007, and when [00:19:30] she did, the Bureau had reassessed its whole approach to counterterrorism. And the lack of resources that was no longer a problem for the counterterrorism effort.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:19:42] The counterterrorism program is resourced, so all the things we were asking for before 9/11 training translation analysis, right when we did that assessment, there were gaps. We knew there were gaps. We were asking for it in the budget and we weren't getting it from Congress, right? It just wasn't coming. And by the time I got back, like amazing, like we have all those [00:20:00] things right that had happened. And then the other interesting thing that had happened and I never worked in the counterterrorism division after, but it was the head of strategy. So I got to work a little bit with all the divisions for a time is that before 9-11, the counterterrorism division operated much like the criminal division in that cases were more decentralized. So a special agent in charge of a field office like in New York, I'm one of the largest field offices. We're really responsible as they are on the criminal side for their cases. And there was sort of programmatic oversight at headquarters. [00:20:30] And, you know, obviously the most sensitive cases got briefed to the director or whoever needed for legal review. But fundamentally, there was kind of this decentralized approach to case management during the time that I was white and really since the counterterrorism program swung the other direction. One hundred and eighty degrees cases are really centrally managed out of FBI headquarters.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:53] Prior to this, FBI field offices were fairly autonomous operations. And that autonomy ended with [00:21:00] 9/11 and this new approach to counterterrorism. A lot of people actually blamed this decentralized element of the FBI for some of the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen. And when Sasha returned to the FBI, de-centralized was a thing of the past.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:19] I heard a lot about Joint Terrorism Task Forces, were these part of the restructuring.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:26] Yeah, but Joint Terrorism Task Forces had been around [00:21:30] since nineteen eighty. They started in New York City on nine eleven. We had thirty five of them in the U.S. These were locally based investigators and analysts who are in various states and supposed to watch out for terrorist activity in the U.S.. Now, after 9/11, the FBI almost overnight nearly doubled these forces. They had 56 forces in the days after 9/11. We now have 104. The FBI also [00:22:00] established a national joint terrorism task force at headquarters in D.C., which coordinates all of these local task forces. Again, this is all part of this big centralization movement. And the bureau also reassessed how it gathered and reported information. Part of the problem leading up to nine eleven was communication and coordination across the bureau itself and with other agencies. [00:22:30]

Sasha O'Connell: [00:22:30] There had been a major initiative called SET, which looked at and then realigned the way the FBI did intelligence intake collection and reporting. So it was really about the business process and the prioritization of intelligence collection and shoring up a lot of those gaps, frankly, that existed before 9/11. So that was a huge kind of it's almost like a strategic change management initiative that Director Mueller ran to shore up that intelligence function of the FBI and [00:23:00] further professionalize the intelligence workforce to be able to drive that to the next level. So that was huge.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:06] And as the FBI is reassessing and reorganizing itself, there is a larger governmental push to think about separating the intelligence gathering and national security mission of the FBI from the criminal investigation and domestic law enforcement mission. But the FBI itself did not want this, and Sasha believes the reason the bureau remained unified is because they [00:23:30] had been attempting to do counterterrorism work before 9/11. The will was in place, even if the resourcing was not.

Sasha O'Connell: [00:23:40] Yes, there was a lot again, as you mentioned, kind of push right at the beginning of holding folks accountable. And part of that led to let's split up the FBI. Some of the work that I had been involved in in terms of Max Cap 05 and explaining that there was a vision for kind of pulling this all together and building maximum capacity. I think and I got this was my sort [00:24:00] of opinion sort of helped turn those tides, and a lot of work was done by a lot of people who are involved in our partner organizations to say that's not the way to go in the United States, right? You don't want a domestic intelligence agency, right? Focus on U.S. citizens, right? NSA is focused externally. CIA is focused externally. We don't want a domestic intelligence function split off from the FBI. We want our domestic intelligence to the extent it happens to be tied closely to our enforcement, which is all governed by the same set of domestic constitution, [00:24:30] laws and everything else, and ultimately the bureau through a lot of work, a lot of people and a lot of folks, for example, on the Hill who got educated and understood this, and the 9-11 commission findings kept the bureau together, and still today the FBI has again that kind of national security, intelligence function and all the traditional criminal responsibilities that we think of with federal law enforcement.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:50] So should we be thinking of the FBI post-9/11 as the ones in charge, the front line of defense?

Sasha O'Connell: [00:24:56] So sort of, yes and no, I would say so. Just to clarify that the [00:25:00] FBI is the lead federal agency right for counterterrorism. There's no question about that domestically, right? There's a lot of work going on overseas because a lot of the threats don't start here, right? And so other U.S. government and foreign government partners are doing that work globally. And then in the United States, you know, there's only I think today around 14000 FBI agents right to cover the world. And they they are global. You know, there's 18000 state local law enforcement organizations, [00:25:30] right? I think there's like thirty six thousand police officers in New York City. So actually, in any instance, it's going to be state and local law enforcement. That's truly the front line, right? There just aren't the number of FBI agents right to to be out doing the interviewing. We're talking about the kind of human intelligence collection that's required to kind of understand what's happening with these threats.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:50] Now, as we know, the change that happened after 9/11 is this laser focus on a priority that was just not being sufficiently resourced before the attacks [00:26:00] in two thousand one. But even with that necessary funding and staffing and focus that came out of 9/11, there still aren't enough agents to handle everything like Sasha says. So if you keep thinking of the FBI as this agency that worked to centralize it is the coordinating force among all of these disparate law enforcement agencies working counterterrorism in the U.S..

Sasha O'Connell: [00:26:23] And for the United States, the FBI is kind of the quarterback, maybe, right? You know, at the end of the day, the policy is set by the White House to [00:26:30] right when it comes to strategy. When it comes to investigations, though, that's the FBI's calls today. Like in a lot of programs, the counterterrorism program is run in a task force model where you know you can have private sector organizations, you can have foreign partners, you can have all the different USG federal partners, you can have state and local law enforcement. And the FBI coordinates that task force.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:53] And you explicitly said to me earlier that we are not focusing on a shift in surveillance or [00:27:00] the intense scrutiny the FBI came under in the wake of these changes after 9/11. But I do have to ask, like, did Sasha talk about that at all? Like that the attacks are not going to just change the structure of the FBI, but the whole idea of security in the United States and not just security like civil liberties, surveillance, nationalism, xenophobia, Islamophobia. Were there any signs to the people on the inside of what was going to come next?

Sasha O'Connell: [00:27:29] I do remember [00:27:30] I don't know how long it was after, but after things were more in routine, it was probably at least a month out. I remember sitting in the command post one day, and one of the things that happened in the command post is that we answered the phone when the public called, and I did some of that too, when the headquarters line was quiet. And I remember taking a call where the caller said, You know, I want to report to the FBI because these people are taking pictures of a bridge. And I don't know what language they're speaking, but it's not English. And I was like, Oh boy, we got a problem, right? And things are going to change [00:28:00] like this is. And so that was when I started to think, Oh boy, what is happening out there, right? And I was starting to think about backlash and hate crimes. I started to think about security and privacy changing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:19] So many people have only ever known the United States as this place of super heightened security, with a hyper focus on terrorist [00:28:30] groups both domestic and international. A place ostensibly under constant threat and an understanding that the government is hyper focused on that threat. And that leaves everyone more vulnerable to government suspicion to surveillance. This is just the way things are in the United States today. But I do think it's important to ask why. I think it's important to scrutinize that [00:29:00] the FBI is the executive intelligence and law enforcement agency in the U.S., and its primary, an overwhelming focus is terrorism. And that focus trickles down to the everyday experience of people in this country and around the world. That is what 9/11 did to the FBI.

[00:29:37] This [00:29:30] episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, with Nick Capodice. Our staff includes Christina Phillips and Jacqui Fulton. Rebecca Lavoie sees all. If you want a nearly as portable and twice as quiet civics lesson in your back pocket, Nick and I wrote a book on it. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works. If you [00:30:00] liked this episode of Civics 101, or if you want us to go deeper and do more, consider making a donation to the show at civics101podcast.org. We are supported by You. You are the reason we're able to keep going and do better all the time. And while you're there, you can find our entire backlog of episodes -- we have many -- and submit your own questions about American government. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio. [00:30:30]


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

John Marshall and the Supreme Court

John Marshall was the longest-serving Chief Justice in Supreme Court history. In today’s episode, we learn all about the man as well as the decisions that shaped the highest court in the land; from Marbury v Madison to McCullough v Maryland.

This episode features the voices of Susan Siggelakis, Robert Strauss and Randolph Moss.


Transcript

Mitch Scacchi: Hey, Nick and Hannah, can I tell you both a story?

Nick Capodice: Of course! This is Mitch Scacchi by the way everyone, our summer intern and we hate to see him go.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah Mitch, let's have it.

Mitch Scacchi: The year is 1801. John Adams is in the final days of his presidency. Thomas Jefferson is poised to take over on March 4th. Down and out about losing a second term, Adams decides he must act.

Susan Siggelakis: Adams decided that he was very worried about the future of the country now that Jefferson and his administration were poised to take over, and he appointed what was called the "midnight judges." [00:00:30]

Mitch Scacchi: This is Susan Siggelakis, professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire.

Susan Siggelakis: There had been a bunch of new judgeships created under the Federalists and he was filling them before he left. In fact, it was the night before the new inauguration. And he filled out a bunch of what they were called "commissions." And Marshall was the outgoing Secretary of State, and so his job was to essentially finalize the paperwork. But he actually didn't really fully [00:01:00] complete the job because he didn't, he was very lax about certain things. And so some of them actually didn't get delivered.

Mitch Scacchi: Secretary of State John Marshall got some of the appointments out, but he missed some others. And one of these undelivered commissions was for William Marbury, who had been appointed by Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury asks the new administration for his job, but he doesn't receive a response. So he and three others petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court under Section [00:01:30] 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver their commissions and give them their jobs. And the Chief Justice who decides to take the case two years later? Oh, yeah, it's John Marshall.

Hannah McCarthy: I can already see a conflict for Marshall with this case. I mean, he was the guy who gave Marbury and these three other appointees their commissions in the first place when he was Secretary of State.

Mitch Scacchi: But nobody thought it was wrong for Marshall to rule on the case. And [00:02:00] it didn't make the headlines. But it's not necessarily the facts of the case that make it well-known, it's what Marshall decides to do with it.

Robert Strauss: And he decides to take on a case that's going to establish what he wants to establish, and that is the right for the Supreme Court to review laws.

Mitch Scacchi: This is Robert Strauss, author of "John Marshall: The Final Founder."

Susan Siggelakis: He essentially holds that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was actually an unconstitutional action of Congress because Congress gave [00:02:30] it gave the Court jurisdiction that it wasn't allowed to have under Article Three of the U.S. Constitution.

Mitch Scacchi: Marshall says that this law giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case is unconstitutional. So he can't rule on the case. And just like that, in 1803, in what became the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall established the principle of judicial review.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice. [00:03:00]

Hannah McCarthy: And I'm Hannah McCarthy. And today we're talking about John Marshall, the longest-serving Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and his influence in shaping the Court we know today.

Nick Capodice: Our guide for this episode is Mitch Scacchi. We at Civics 101 have been honored to have him as our intern this summer. Let's have it Mitch!

Mitch Scacchi: Thanks, guys. Like many of the founders, John Marshall is an impressive but also complicated figure in our nation's history. But to really understand the Constitution, the judicial branch, [00:03:30] the Supreme Court, and the scope of federal power that we see today, you have to know who John Marshall was. It was one thing for the Framers to write the Constitution, and it was one thing for it to be ratified, but it was another thing entirely for the Constitution to be applied. Nobody really knew just what the words on paper would look like in practice, and John Marshall was one of the first to give effect to those words. In doing so, he shaped the practical meaning of the young Constitution, established the judiciary as an equal branch of [00:04:00] government, and made the Supreme Court into an institution of great power and influence.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, Mitch, let's start from the beginning.

Mitch Scacchi: Marshall was born in 1755 in Virginia, a colony with a huge enslaved population, the most of any colony at the time. Marshall would later own hundreds of enslaved people himself. This is an important thing about Marshall, particularly in the way it shaped some of his judgments from the bench. But for this episode, [00:04:30] we're going to focus on how Marshall shaped the role of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the federal government. When the Revolutionary War broke out, Marshall volunteered with his father.

Robert Strauss: But he started out as a young soldier in Valley Forge. His father was a friend of George Washington's, they were fellow surveyors. So when the war started, of course, his father wanted to go off with his friend and fight the British, and he brought his son along with him, his oldest son.

Mitch Scacchi: This is Robert Strauss again. So [00:05:00] after the Revolutionary War, John Marshall studied law at the College of William and Mary, and he became a successful lawyer in Richmond, Virginia. But the law wasn't Marshall's only ambition. Here's Professor Susan Siggelakis.

Susan Siggelakis: He was a legislator, state legislator in the Virginia General Assembly. He actually was a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, which ratified the United States Constitution. And later he actually worked with Madison in crafting the First Amendment. [00:05:30]

Nick Capodice: He served in the Revolutionary War, he helped ratify the Constitution, and he drafted the First Amendment with James Madison. This guy's everywhere!

Hannah McCarthy: And this is all before he gets his first high-profile job?

Mitch Scacchi: Exactly. In 1799, he's elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia, but he didn't serve long because President John Adams nominated Marshall to be Secretary of State in June of 1800.

Nick Capodice: All right, so as if what he's already done isn't enough, he [00:06:00] joins Congress and then moves into the executive branch as the Secretary of State?

Mitch Scacchi: Yeah, and there were some foreign relations involved with the position, but he's basically Adams's chief of staff. But he's only Secretary of State for less than a year. The third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Ellsworth, was sent on a diplomatic mission to France, which was actually common at the time. But he gets stuck overseas and the Court needs a Chief Justice.

Robert Strauss: So now he's stuck there. He gets sick and [00:06:30] he sends a note back, "I'm not coming back. You're going to have to find somebody else." So the Secretary of State, Marshall, goes to Adams and he suggests people, including bringing John Jay back, and Adams says, "No, I think it's you. I like you." So now he is both Supreme Court Chief Justice and Secretary of State.

Hannah McCarthy: It is wild to think that Marshall was nominated with less than two months left in Adams's presidency. He was so close to never becoming [00:07:00] Chief Justice.

Mitch Scacchi: And he wasn't even Adams's first choice. Adams nominated former Chief Justice John Jay to serve again, but Jay turned him down. So Adams went with Marshall instead. Once Marshall was nominated, the Senate actually delayed his confirmation because they hoped that Adams would pick someone else. But he didn't. And eventually the Senate voted to confirm Marshall to the Court.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, Adams later said that, quote, "My gift of John Marshall to the people of the United States was the [00:07:30] proudest act of my life." But why did Adams eventually settle for Marshall?

Susan Siggelakis: You know, I think Adams saw in him a real, he was a real Federalist. I mean, he was somebody who could be trusted. He, he believed in a lot of the things that Adams believed in.

Mitch Scacchi: At this time, there were two major political parties: the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. [00:08:00] In short, Federalists believed in strong central government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution, while Democratic-Republicans believed in greater respect for states' rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. John Marshall was a loyal Federalist.

Nick Capodice: And now he's also Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Secretary of State.

Mitch Scacchi: Yeah, I was surprised by this. But then again, Marshall became Chief Justice on February 4th, 1801, exactly one month before the [00:08:30] end of the Adams presidency. So Marshall served as Secretary of State and Chief Justice at the same time for only one month. And it's important to also mention that the Supreme Court was not the esteemed institution it is today. In fact, the first Chief Justice, John Jay, really didn't take the job seriously. He took on very few cases. No one was really sure what role the Court should play, so nobody really cared about Marshall serving in both roles.

Robert Strauss: The Supreme Court is relatively undefined in the Constitution. It's the highest [00:09:00] court, there's no question. But Jay doesn't take it upon himself to do much about it. He eventually quits to become Governor of New York, which he figures is a better deal than being the Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Susan Siggelakis: Unlike today, the Supreme Court really wasn't a very important institution in American government.

Nick Capodice: And so the Supreme Court was largely insignificant compared to the other two branches.

Mitch Scacchi: You could say that. The Supreme Court met in the basement of the Capitol Building, if that's any indication of what the other branches thought of it. But John Marshall...he [00:09:30] changed that. As Chief Justice, Marshall was determined not to sink into the annals of history as an insignificant justice on an insignificant court. No, he was going to do something with this job.

Susan Siggelakis: If you look at Marshall's career, I would say between 1801 when he got on the Court and 1835, the Court actually rendered about a thousand opinions, a thousand [00:10:00] cases were decided. He wrote about 500 of those individually. So you can see the guy was a workhorse. You know, he sort of was a captain of a ship that, a captain of an institution that gradually grew in importance during his time on the Court.

Robert Strauss: And their decisions were all, I hesitate to call them unanimous, but they spoke as one voice. In other words, they might have been 4 to 2 [00:10:30] in this case, but when the when the case is written it sounds like all of them are in agreement. And Marshall thought this would give the Supreme Court a little bit more sway.

Mitch Scacchi: This idea that the Court would speak as one voice when it issues a majority opinion seems so obvious to us now. But this wasn't always the case.

Randolph Moss: Before he was Chief Justice, each justice would state their own views. And he was the one who instituted the notion of actually having an opinion for the Court, which, by and large, during the early days of the Marshall Court, he was the one who announced.

Mitch Scacchi: This is Judge [00:11:00] Randolph Moss. He serves as a judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Hannah McCarthy: So Marshall steps in and says that instead of issuing separate opinions, the Court will issue one majority opinion that will serve as the voice of the Court.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and I see this as being a way for Marshall to give the Court more legitimacy, to establish the Court as one entity, one force, with one opinion to be followed.

Mitch Scacchi: Right. But more than the single voice Marshall gave the Court, his tenure [00:11:30] was also characterized by that idea of unanimity. All the justices agreeing with the decision of the Court. Marshall believed that, if every justice agreed with the Court's ruling, the Court's decisions would have more weight and authority.

Susan Siggelakis: I think it's a tribute to his organizational skills. I think it's a tribute to the fact that he had a court most of the time, actually, who were part of that same founding generation, and they had similar views. [00:12:00] So it wasn't that difficult, I think, to get unanimity.

Hannah McCarthy: I mean, this is remarkable. Marshall redefined the role of Chief Justice and of the Supreme Court itself.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and the judiciary as a whole.

Susan Siggelakis: You know, he was important for building up judicial power, but also for recognizing the limits of judicial power. And I think that's the key thing about Marshall.

Mitch Scacchi: Going back to that 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, Marshall built up judicial power by establishing [00:12:30] the principle of judicial review.

Hannah McCarthy: Ok, yes, judicial review. Let's define this. What is judicial review?

Susan Siggelakis: Judicial review is the authority of a court to render void and inoperable any act of a legislature or any other act of any other part of the government based on the fact that it's conflicting with some, something in the United States Constitution.

Mitch Scacchi: Marshall wrote in his opinion that "It [00:13:00] is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

Nick Capodice: And that's pretty much what we think of as the whole point of the Supreme Court these days, isn't it? To rule something unconstitutional or uphold its constitutionality. But the Court did not actually have that power until John Marshall said that it did.

Susan Siggelakis: He was saying, you know, somebody has to be the last word on what the Constitution says, what it allows government to do and what it doesn't allow [00:13:30] government to do. And the Court is the best equipped to do that, particularly since it's not vested in the political struggles of the time. It's supposed to be a more neutral, a more detached body from the the opinions of the day, shall we say.

Robert Strauss: What we had when Marshall decided on judicial review was we finally had three coequal branches of government. So I think that's why I'd say Marbury v. Madison sort of [00:14:00]ends the founding of the country. From there on, it's an elaboration on what we already have.

Mitch Scacchi: Marshall gave the judicial branch some real power to hold the other two branches and the states accountable to the Constitution. But Marbury v. Madison is also a case in which Marshall recognizes the limits on judicial power. Here's Judge Moss again.

Randolph Moss: That's another tradition set by John Marshall, is that in every case we say to ourselves, do I actually have the power to decide this case? That's a question [00:14:30] of whether there's a statute that gives you the power to decide the case and whether the Constitution gives you the power to decide the case. And if it doesn't, then we're done at that point, and there's nothing left for the Court to say.

Mitch Scacchi: Now, this wasn't Marshall's only significant case. He was also instrumental in establishing the idea that federal power should overrule state power when they come into conflict,

Hannah McCarthy: Wait, are we talking about McCulloch v. Maryland here, 1819?

Mitch Scacchi: Absolutely. McCulloch v. Maryland is a case where a state government challenged the existence [00:15:00] of the National Bank. Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, wanted to establish a national bank to help stabilize and improve the nation's credit. And this dream of his came true. But many states hated the National Bank, including Maryland, which imposed a tax on the Bank. James McCulloch was the cashier of the Bank's Baltimore branch, and he refused to pay this tax. This case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, and the big question facing Marshall was, [00:15:30] Is the National Bank constitutional?

Susan Siggelakis: The state of Maryland and other states would say, there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says Congress can charter a bank, nowhere does it say that. And if you look in Article One, section eight, which is where the enumerated powers of Congress are, you don't see it. You know, you don't see a place where it says Congress shall have the power to charter a bank. But when argument was taken before the U.S. Supreme Court, Marshall, again thinking [00:16:00] about his idea of being a Federalist, the idea of a strong nation as opposed to partiality of various states all pursuing different policies, he sided with the National Bank and the nation.

Mitch Scacchi: Marshall look to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" for carrying out its other stated powers. So was the establishment of the National Bank a necessary [00:16:30] and proper action taken by Congress?

Susan Siggelakis: The states were saying, well, it's not absolutely necessary for the nation to have a bank. You know, it might be helpful, but the language of the Constitution says "necessary and proper." And they read the Necessary and Proper Clause as essentially allows for things that are absolutely necessary rather than simply helpful or convenient. Marshall, on the other hand, reads it essentially as convenient. So [00:17:00] essentially, he allows Congress to be the judge of its own powers.

Hannah McCarthy: So Marshall interprets, quote, "necessary and proper," to really mean "appropriate and legitimate." As long as Congress is acting toward a constitutional end, then the means to get there are constitutional, too, like creating the National Bank.

Mitch Scacchi: Right, as long as those means aren't explicitly outlawed in the Constitution.

Randolph Moss: So that's the first question, he said, yes, Congress has this power, and that was [00:17:30] a question of enormous importance. But the second question was also enormously important, and he said, and Maryland can't tax the Bank because if Maryland can tax the bank Maryland can destroy the bank. And in doing that, Marshall, early on in the Court's history, established the supremacy of federal law and supremacy of the federal government over the state governments, at least within the realm in which there is federal power. So those were both enormously important propositions.

Nick Capodice: Marshall's decision here must've had a major impact [00:18:00] on the scope of federal power.

Randolph Moss: Well, I mean, with respect to the country as it ultimately developed, it could not be more important. It's what allows us to actually have a strong national government. I agree that McCulloch, in terms of defining the nation, may be a more important decision than Marbury v. Madison.

Mitch Scacchi: In fact, this decision opened the door to what are called implied powers.

Hannah McCarthy: Right, those are the powers the federal government has even though they are not explicitly [00:18:30] stated in the Constitution.

Susan Siggelakis: Smarter people than I have traced the explosion of national power and the diminishment of state power to two decisions by the Marshall Court. One, obviously, McCulloch, the other one was called Gibbons v. Ogden.

Mitch Scacchi: It's enough to know that Gibbons v. Ogden was a case about navigation rights on the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. The question facing Marshall was whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gave Congress power to regulate interstate [00:19:00] navigation. And in 1824, he ruled that Congress has that power over the states, that interstate commerce included all types of commercial intercourse between the states, including navigation.

Randolph Moss: It is, I think, still the seminal case on the commerce power. The power to regulate commerce between states, so for example between New York and New Jersey, is a federal power, and not a state power. And if each state can regulate commerce in a way that [00:19:30] limits the flow of commerce between states, it's very hard to have a national economy. That's something that Hamilton saw, it's something that's in the Constitution itself, in the Commerce Clause, and it's something that Marshall again gave life to in Gibbons v. Ogden.

Hannah McCarthy: So in both McCulloch and Gibbons, Marshall interprets the Constitution in such a way that results in the expansion of federal power over time, right?

Susan Siggelakis: Those two cases are often twinned together. [00:20:00] There's very few limits on what Congress can do to the economy because the Court is just not going to step in to second-guess what Congress wants to do, right? In other words, Marshall would say, we're not experts on the economy, we're not the experts on taxation, those kinds of things. So we'll just let the people and their elected representatives figure out whether they think this is good or not good.

Randolph Moss: To the extent that Gibbons stands for the proposition that it's up to the federal [00:20:30] government to regulate commerce between the states and that states cannot limit commerce between the states, that is a proposition that is not, today, subject to any reasonable doubt.

Nick Capodice: From all this, you can easily see just how much of an impact Marshall had not just on the Court and the judiciary but on all aspects of federal power in the centuries that followed. Congress's power over the economy, FDR's New Deal programs, the Affordable Care Act, the [00:21:00] stimulus bills passed because of COVID-19 - all of these examples of federal power can be traced back to Marshall's interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Randolph Moss: I think that's exactly right. He gave meaning to those words. I think that one of the things that is essential about John Marshall is that he had vision in the same way that I think Alexander Hamilton had vision for the country and a country that would eventually grow into what it is today. And obviously, neither of them understood exactly [00:21:30] what the country was going to look like today, but they did have a vision of providing the tools to a national government that would allow it to become what it's become today.

Mitch Scacchi: And that's why Jean Edward Smith calls him the "Definer of a Nation" in his biography of Marshall. Marshall gave real practical meaning to those words in the Constitution and set this country down a path that leads us to where we are today. But despite his tremendous [00:22:00] influence on the Supreme Court, his legacy is complicated. For one, Marshall bought and sold hundreds of enslaved people throughout his life, and he never wrote an opinion supporting freedom for Black Americans.

Susan Siggelakis: He actually sponsored a bill in the Virginia legislature, he was a member of the legislature at one point, to encourage what was called manumission. In other words, for people to individually free their slaves. He actually founded a society for colonization of freed slaves, [00:22:30] which obviously today people are against, and many people were against it at that time, too, but it was the idea of sending them back to Liberia or colonization. And that was seen as actually a rather progressive view at the time compared to keeping them enslaved, you know, for the rest of their lives in the United States.

Mitch Scacchi: Supporters of colonization efforts did so for many reasons. Some were opposed to slavery and hoped that helping people move to Africa would encourage enslavers to voluntarily free their enslaved populations. [00:23:00] Others saw Liberia as a way to rid the new nation of Black people. Opponents of colonization saw the efforts as racist and pro-slavery. Although Marshall supported the colonization of free Black people throughout his life, he never considered freeing his own enslaved people and resettling them in Liberia.

Hannah McCarthy: And I know that the rights of Native Americans are another complicated area for Marshall. In the case of Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, he upheld the rights of the Cherokee [00:23:30] Nation and declared all Georgia laws about their land unconstitutional.

Susan Siggelakis: The important thing about that case is what Marshall wrote about the Cherokee Nation, and if I could just read it, he says, "The Cherokee Nation then is a distinct community occupying its own territory with boundaries accurately described in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the ascent of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties and [00:24:00] with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this Nation by our Constitution and laws is vested in the government of the United States."

Nick Capodice: In other words, tribal sovereignty.

Mitch Scacchi: Yup. The United States and its citizens must respect Native American tribes, their lands, and their sovereignty. This is one of several cases Marshall's Court decided on the rights of Native peoples, decisions that have been seen by some as the foundation of federal Native American law and others as laying the groundwork [00:24:30] for the control and decimation of Native Americans. This is all part of Marshall's complex legacy.

Hannah McCarthy: Now, I know that Robert wrote a book called "John Marshall: The Final Founder." And what do we make of this idea that John Marshall even was a founding father, perhaps the final founder?

Robert Strauss: He definitely was. I mean, in a certain sense, he kept the nation together because it really was splitting up in 1800. I mean, if there were not this "definer" as the other book calls him, we [00:25:00] could've split up as a country very easily.

Randolph Moss: And I think that, I think he is, I think he did play as significant a role as the founders in defining what sort of country we have today.

Nick Capodice: And is it fair to say that he is one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in history?

Mitch Scacchi: Well, the Supreme Court gets the last word on the meaning of the Constitution. You could argue that's all thanks to John Marshall. It's no exaggeration to say that the Supreme Court would be far less supreme today if not for him.

Susan Siggelakis: I [00:25:30] mean, obviously, I guess, that goes without saying. I mean, obviously, Marbury v. Madison is the most quoted decision. The phrase that you said, that it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, that line is the most commonly cited in every case, almost in every Supreme Court case or lower court case that there is. So I think he was, you know, enormously influential in raising the prestige of the Court, in tackling the [00:26:00] key issues of the day.

Randolph Moss: Well, you start with cases as great as Marbury v. Madison, which casts the judiciary as the deciding voice in what the Constitution means and what the law is. We don't step back to think about it, but the judiciary today is what it is in large part because of John Marshall.

C-SPAN: "Off the main justice's dining room [00:26:30] is a smaller dining room for smaller functions known as the John Marshall Dining Room, and that's due to a sculpture that was placed there in the mid-1970s of John Marshall. Chief Justice Warren Burger decided that he wanted to make that the theme of the room, and so...."

Mitch Scacchi: If you're walking through the lower level of the Supreme Court Building, you'll see a huge statue of John Marshall. He's sitting in a massive chair right in the center of the downstairs of the Supreme Court. And there's a reason he's there, in the middle of the building. It's because, in a way, John [00:27:00] Marshall made the Supreme Court.

Randolph Moss: And so I think, and the point I'm trying to make is, in part by just the way Marshall carried himself through his career as a justice and otherwise in his career, I think he did help further establish both the independence and the integrity of the judiciary.

Nick Capodice: Today's episode was written and produced by Mitch Scacchi, with help from Jacqui Fulton, Christina Phillips, Hannah McCarthy and me, Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: Erika Janik is our Executive Producer. Music in this episode by cymbalBird, Sir Cubworth, [00:27:30] Blue Dot Sessions, and Chris Zabriskie.

Nick Capodice: Special thanks to Rebecca Fanning from the U.S. Courts, and a fun quick fact about Professor Susan Siggelakis: She was Mitch's thesis advisor at UNH, and he wishes to thank her for her contributions to the episode.

Hannah McCarthy: You can hear all of our episodes of Civics 101 at Civics101podcast.org. You can also listen to us on Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you're so inclined, leave us a review, we want to know what you think. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio. [00:28:00]


 
 

Made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Follow Civics 101 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.