Annotations for Speakers: Zachary Suri

The ghost of JFK yielded its head today as I spoke with my teacher of memory. As I spoke with my teacher of memory, he told me of the fateful day when he was to see JFK on the aged steps of the Capitol. On the aged steps of the Capitol, I stood on an afternoon in May and watched all the children play as we marched past to the Capitol door. As we marched past to the Capitol door, I thought of the man that day when he bled to death in a limousine and all hope went away.

It was youth that was killed from the book depository on the square in Dallas by the grassy hill. It was youth that was killed in Dallas and we're waiting again for it still.

What makes JFK such an appealing presidential candidate, but also a congressman and a legislature? What can we learn from his rise about what kind of politician we should be nurturing today? Oh, it's such a good question. I think that what people saw right away, maybe even in that first congressional campaign in 1946, and I do think this holds something for us today, is they saw somebody who believed in politics, loved politics even.

I think that John F. Kennedy is still universally, universally powerful to young people because of his youth and because of what he represents as a someone who believes he can use government to help people. I always find it very interesting whenever I ask people who their favorite presidents are. John F. Kennedy is always near the top of the list, which, which is very interesting, seeing that he only served for a couple years. And so I think that his his short time the forefront of American politics continues to inspire young people and will continue to inspire young people.

“Herbst ich erinnere mich,” or “Fall I remember.” Let's hear it.

“Fall, I remember. You sneak up on us from behind the orchard fence. You seem cold and distant until the signs at the gas station begin to freeze. Herbst, ich erinnere mich an dich, der alte Mann in dem Supermarkt mit kaltem Haar, zwischen geöffnet und geschlossen Hoffnung. Fall, I remember you like a blessing, a prayer for the lost souls in tandem with the damp leaves trodden underfoot. The air is burning now. The earth is burning. The fires are so hot they feel as if they could be frozen. Und dann von hinter der Regalen hat ein Mann deinen Arm berührt. And then from behind the shelves, a man has touched your arm. He is memory. Er ist die Erinnerung. And there are the eyes of your underlings, and the eyes of the mistreated ones, and the eyes of your fathers, and your mothers and your great, great forgotten ones. Es gibt die Schuld deines Land. There is the guilt of your country. Es gibt die Schuld deiner Hand. There is the guilt of your hand. Wie kommt das Ende der Geschichte mit dem Ende der Erinnerung? Wie kommt das Ende der Erinnerung mit dem Ende der Zeit? Wie kommt das Ende der Schuld mit Erbst, mit Zärtlichkeit?”

Well, so I'll answer the latter question first. So my poem is really about how we think about historical memory and guilt. And it's particularly about this moment we find ourselves in in the fall of 2020, right before the presidential election, sort of thinking about our history and how it's going to affect our future.

And the last six lines of the poem in German translate roughly as how does the end of history come with the end of memory? How does the end of memory come with the end of time? How does the end of guilt come with fall, with tenderness?

I think I may have come across it, but I was definitely going more T.S. Eliot.

So what about a personal, confrontation? I remember reading recently a book called Germany and the Germans by John Arda in from the 1990s. And he describes going to, I think it was at the University of Stuttgart, where they had like the grandfathers and grandmothers who had lived through the war, [talk] one on one with students who grew up after the war. And there was very much a sort of generational tension.

How much of the sort of Vergangenheitsalphabetung was personal? And why haven't we had that in the United States?

Yeah. So we also see you talked about this in your book a lot as well. Later on, particularly in recent decades, an effort by Germans not only to talk about their past, but to take actions, to atone for it, to accept refugees and to send aid to Israel and other such activities.

How big of a part of Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung is this? And has it been applied in the United States? And how could it be?

Yeah, I think that it really resonated for me because it's a very sort of understanding of American history and world history from a perspective, that is, that is deeply intellectual. And I think, the most accurate depiction of history that we can see.

And I think it's actually a very hopeful thing for young Americans like myself, because I think sometimes it's a little easy to be put off by people who want to be all negative about American history or all positive about American history. And I think that this book in the message of this book offers a great framework for how we can understand our history from a realistic perspective.

Well, let's hear it.

“It is a kind of arrogance that we think ourselves so sacrosanct that we build for our posterity, a temple of democracy, and hand any old fool a key. It is a kind of arrogance that we think ourselves so chosen that we steal votes from cities, for a slew of empty prairies, to send their any old Tom, Harry, Dick, and Larrys. It is a kind of arrogance that we think ourselves so holy that they can stand among the rubble that they burned right to the ground; and with their fist hollowed oaken desk of storied Asia's pound, and cry out for the freedom of ten hours for their mouths to sound. It is a kind of arrogance that we think are stars so well foretold to turn away the crying of a child for the banknotes, pristinely rolled. To rest our eyes on empty promises, where they rest in rot and mold, and wake up in a stupor, still in the middle of our speech. And sing to the great portraits about the horror to impeach. But the old poets of the tattered haunts, they know it all too well, and can recall of every second to you in a cafe with a screech, as their voices swell. Old men cannot solve our problems with a single speech.”

My poem is really about the irony that we consider ourselves such an important and original democracy. And we think ourselves so great that we don't actually need to maintain our democracy and perform the basic maintenance of democratic institutions. And even while we have these very archaic institutions, like the filibuster, embedded in our very houses of government.

Well, that's just a fantastic opening for our conversation. Sean, is the filibuster an archaic element of Congress?

There's been a lot of talk lately about how the filibuster has affected our democratic institutions, not just the Senate, but Congress as a whole. How has the filibuster in the past promoted majoritarian democracy, and how has it undermined that at the same time?

And what role, then, does the filibuster play in such a close Senate? Almost fifty-fifty?

How does the filibuster's role change when we get increasingly very close margins in the Senate, every Congress?

I do think that's the case. I think a lot of people in my generation are very dissatisfied with the slow pace of everything in the United States Congress. And especially those who feel aligned with the Democratic Party in particular, I think are very frustrated that many of the reforms that young people have pushed the hardest for are being stalled because of these legislative rules. And so I think that you will see a lot more attention to these issues from young people and young voters who are quickly becoming a very important voting bloc in our elections.

For sure.

It is Hard to Build Utopias.

It is hard to build utopias when you burn their children in the jungle. It is hard to build utopias when you burn their children in the jungle, and your carpet bombings make whole nations synonymous with tragedy. It is hard to build utopias when you burn their children in the jungle, and your carpet bombings make whole nations synonymous with tragedy, and you shoot your own children smack dab in the middle of their righteousness. It is hard to build utopias when they are already covered in your own rusty tanks and pierced by your own bullets, when they have already realized they don't need to be saved by you, when your own children are blowing up buildings just so you'd turn around and care a little.

It is hard to build utopia, let alone democracy, let alone peace.

My poem is really about the very naive American attitude that we can go anywhere and build the greatest societies out of places that we've already destroyed, and we've already meddled in for long periods of time, and places where things are much more complex than peace and war and democracy and tyranny.

But there are a lot of people who, especially nowadays, who would argue that American intervention abroad was, if not purely self-interested, was motivated mainly by self-interest. Is that accurate?

Yeah. So you very clearly and convincingly laid out this idea of the end of ambition and the limits that it places on foreign policy decisions. But how do you square that with the rise in global connections and global awareness among young people and others during this period?

I certainly do. I think one of the lessons is that these issues are always complex and never just black and white, never easy or impossible. And I think part of the problem, and, I think particularly among young people is that foreign policy issues can seem so black and white and, and, and, and, and so easy, but they're so complex. And, and part of the problem is that. Our political conversations, aren't mature enough, uh, in this country to really be able to, to address those issues appropriately.

Never Again the Same.

Never Again the Same. Let's hear it. Sometimes there are words when whispered they are meaningless, but they mean the world when you shout them in the shadow of a wall or on a football field under a hot sun which obscures the moon. Sometimes there are places when you see them on a map they seem hollow, a couple of old municipal buildings and a square in the town.

But you can see in the video recorded hazy from across the lawn how this was once for a few moments the center of the world. Sometimes there are moments when described to you they are meaningless, they seem so abstract, so absurd, unexplainable, a bullet flying unimagined. But you would have had to be there, had to have seen the way she held him as he was dying.

What would we give not to remember how it really was, to stay in that imagined moment when we all cried at the same time, to stay forever remembering the promise that was never fulfilled, the hope that was never realized, words and places and moments that never really were and would never again be the same.

My poem is about the huge mark that John F. Kennedy, his presidency, his assassination left on the American psyche, but also the ways in which he and his family have sort of become mythologized. And we remember them in hindsight perhaps differently than we experience them as a country.

Why do you think Kennedy was able to become such a unifying figure? I mean, in the years following one of the closest elections in American history, probably nearly every American who was eligible to vote in 1960 remembers voting for John F. Kennedy. How is it possible that he could have become such a unifying figure? It seems almost unimaginable today.

I think one of the biggest concerns that a lot of young people like myself have is that maybe the skills today that are required to run for political office, to win the presidency, to campaign so effectively and win so many people over are not the same ones that are best adapted for governments. How did Kennedy's skills as a communicator translate or connect to his skills in government and as a legislator, not as a legislator, but as someone with a legislative agenda?

I think so. And I think what's powerful about his analysis is that. It's very much aware of Kennedy's flaws. And I think we have to remember when we look back on our history, that it is not the story of a few perfect moments we've never managed to achieve again, but of a number of flawed and yet, and yet very successful, hopeful moments in our history. And we have to be able to learn from both the enormous achievements of those moments, but also also the failings

And of course, we have our scene-setting poem from Mr. Zachary Suri. Uh, Zachary, what's the title of your poem today? "From the UAW Picket Lines." Wow, we're gonna get an on-the-scenes account from you, Zachary? Or at least an imagining of one, yes. Okay, well let's hear it.

So here we are, waiting on the picket line, for the world to change, for the times to rhyme. They sold us the lie that if we just worked hard the dough would fry and line our pockets with bread.

Pretty soon we were left the only ones not caught up in the net or dead on a cot. They told us when we asked that they had nothing to say. Forget tomorrow. Clock out today.

But we will not be told that our futures were sold in Washington or in Detroit where the rivers fold, and wash our cars out to sea.

We will not be told to keep standing still, when the steels arrive from the mill, and we have the parts to rebuild the heart of what made this country go. We will not be told to accept our fate, to wait and say nothing forever. If anything yet we're far too late, but better too late than never.

What's your poem about, Zachary? My poem is really about, how, the ravages of the global economy in the past few years have hit at the heart of manufacturing jobs in the United States and have led to a lot of dissatisfaction, with, not just with government but also with big corporations, in Detroit and across the country. And how labor action can hopefully move towards solving those problems or at least, finding a better solution for workers.

Zachary? And what has been the recent history of industrial unions in the United States? Where in the sort of long history of American labor do you see this particular strike fitting?

In recent weeks, we've seen both the current president of the United States, and his predecessor visit UAW picket lines or at least speak with UAW strikers. How should we understand the role that this strike, will play and is playing in our national politics so close to a presidential election?

I think so, and I think one thing about this moment that maybe is a little optimistic is that I think the attention from both parties to the issue of economic equality, albeit from two different perspectives and one often much more about cultural resentment than actual economic policy, I think that should be a positive sign that most Americans or a large number of Americans recognize that the future of our economy is not going to be in the same places and organizations that we've relied on in the last decade or so that we have to look back to the past but also look forward to find new ways of thinking about wealth distribution and economic prosperity in our country.

I think so, and I think quite simply it's one of the places in American politics that is most exciting but also most accessible. I think it's a engaging, exciting, political movement as much as it is a very serious, critique of our economy.

Isaac Singer once said you were an encounter with the supposedly dead, and I suppose he is right. You're a land of old men and infants held tight and sandy ancient ruined coasts. All of them were always supposed to be ghosts. Few wars can be fought with history, but you have fought them all, have saved a generation from fighting back the fall. Yet, though you have somehow survived on promises that you revived, it must be said you've built yourself a cage. No war should be fought with rage

The grandchildren of the widower, the children of the hollowed, held in their tunnels underground, are lost and must be found. Your neighbors remain, to say the least, uncharitable, Lips smacking for the feast, break through the garden fence. Can there be any recompense? No, I am convinced all moral questions will remain unanswered. You are alive, and soon you must have peace. If only so, it might be said, all had a chance to count their debt.

My poem? It's hard to explain. I'm not sure I perfectly understand what I was trying to get at either. But. I think it's sort of an attempt to understand the place of Israel today, but also in particular from the perspective of the 1970s, a period when Israel was still led in large part by a generation which was defined by the Holocaust, but it was also beginning to really develop its own sort of distinct Israeli identity that still shaped by that, the sort of last exile to Israel from Europe and other parts of the Middle East, and in some cases from within the territory of Israel.

And to understand that mindset, but also to apply that to today and how that history informs this moment of violence. between Israel and Hamas and maybe the lessons we can draw from these many decades of conflict.

Why was the 1973 war, which you mentioned, so transformative for Jews, Arabs, Muslims, and also for, for many Americans?

Right. Right. Zachary. In this context of bilateral agreements, and a sort of cooling of the conflict during this period, why do these efforts fail to produce a Palestinian state and achieve a two state solution? Was that the point of these efforts or why do the sort of claims to statehood of the Palestinian people during this period fail to be represented at these, in these major agreements?

How should we understand the legacy of these sort of failed, but also to a certain extent successful peace agreements in the 1970s, and then also, of course, the war in '73, the developments that we've been discussing, how should we understand the legacies of these events today? I'm thinking in particular, of their legacy, in regards to the creation of Hamas and the situation pre-October 7th, which precipitated the current conflict.

I think it's very helpful, certainly, in pointing to places, lost opportunities, and hopefully, lays out a series of of mistakes that that cannot be made again. I worry, though, about the, I think that maybe one of the things it points to as well is a sort of dilemma that sort of maybe contradictory forces that are shaping the problem today, which is that in order for there to be a sort of viable, moderate Palestinian force with which Israel can make peace, there has to be a moderate sort of political force in Israel willing to make peace.

But in order for that to occur, there has to be a sort of cessation of radical Palestinian violence that enables those on the far right in Israel. And so, and I think, one of the key lessons that at least I will take from Professor Yaqub's, very, Yaqub's very helpful analysis and history for us is the importance of the role of the United States in maybe catalyzing that process in, at the very least, putting our thumb on the scales to sort of break out of that cycle and of that, sort of constant, sort of lost opportunity, if you will.

Sometimes I am awakened in the middle of the night by the fear my imaginings won't turn out right. I toss and turn and think of nothing more than a coffee in the morning and the rain that starts to pour. Sometimes I am startled at the way the earth can turn, yet everything is standing still as ashes in an urn. I watch the time that passes by and wonder at its speed, knowing each who dies was but a planted seed.

Sometimes when the sun is setting, I wonder if a hope is nothing more than mud to scrub away with soap. I watch the darkness coming with its ominous smile, and the birds no longer humming are erased in single file. And yet each morning when it comes at last, I see a new world rising and it's rising fast. A world of peace that isn't stale, a world at sea, a world at sail. We are chasing Earth's still spinning tail, like birds who sing at every dawn. The hate has flown, the fear is gone, I spy your ports, you spot my shores, you sell my treasures in your stores. Each setting sun is now a kind of hoping that tomorrow will be in the harbours roping.

My poem is about the ways in which, even in the points in our lives, and in our politics when we are the most cynical. That trade, and sort of physical connection across the vast seas of the world, can offer a real opportunity for peace and real hope, even when things seem sort of impossible abysmal around us. Right.

Gotcha. Zachary? And how did this movement for free trade, the successful movement for free trade, in England, how did it change politics? Did it make political institutions more egalitarian in the direction that these groups hoped?

Zachary. You mentioned in your previous answer that there's a connection between this sort of divvying up of the world's resources, and the beginnings of World War One. Could you maybe explain that in more detail? And also, maybe talk a little bit about, you mentioned as well that many leftists have taken this interpretation in particular to make a point about free trade. Could you talk about how that's been interpreted as well?

I think it does. I think it's also the last question in particular, last answer, was a really important reminder that oftentimes the questions that need to be asked or are not necessarily, like, ones of ideology, but of whose interests certain policies are serving. I think the sort of description of how the, at least the ages of free trade, was overtaken by neoliberalism in the 70s and 80s is a really important lesson about the importance of keeping in mind whose interests our policies serve, because, looking at it on paper, it can seem that the neoliberal policies are of the same tradition, but, in reality they were serving very different interests. And I think also this vision of left wing free trade is something that we should all take very seriously, especially at a moment when our, when the sort of liberal international institutions, which this movement created or the descendants of this movement created after World War II seem most threatened. And certainly when our, when the sort of free trade world order that developed after the end of the Cold War seems most threatened as well.

Hungry in Caracas

We'll see, we'll see

Outside the voting booth in Caracas, they lined up at 6am counting the years of tyranny in stacks of bills and ribs exposed outside the voting booth in Caracas were guards armed with guns, frowning at the people and thinking also of their next meal. It is a truth seldom acknowledged that people don't just vote when they hate or when they love, that sometimes people vote because they are angry, that sometimes people vote because they are hungry. Outside the voting booth in Caracas, each of them recognized this fundamental truth, the voters lining up one by one, the guards holding their guns, and the mustachioed man staring down at them from the wall, who knew and still does, that his people are hungry for change.

My poem is about you. I think it's really about what motivates people to vote even when they know that the outcome of the election is not going to be respected. It's a sort of anger and hunger for something different that brings people to the polls. And there's something deeply inspiring in that, but there's also something very sad, I think, in the sort of desperation of people turning to the ballot box even though they know it's not going to be respected,

Why is the military support so critical. Why does that make or break Maduro's regime?

And one thing I've noticed, which I find fascinating but also deeply strange, is the way in which some on the far left in the United States idolize Venezuela and the Chávez tradition that Maduro carries on. And you also mentioned that there is still some popular support in Venezuela for Maduro and for Chávezism. Um, where does that come from? You think, and, and what role will that play in the potential resolution of of this fiasco.

I think it's a very sad story, certainly. I think, at the very least, this discussion should be a reminder not to look at the politics of our neighbors in Latin America as some sort of caricature, but to really engage with the conditions on the ground and to listen to what people are saying. I think it's very easy for Venezuela to become either a sort of punching bag of the right in the United States, a sort of like, this is what socialism looks like sort of lie, or a caricature on the left that it is obviously also opposed to the truth. I think it's a reminder of how important it is to engage with and reckon with the real conditions on the ground at the very least.

The Old Days.

Uh, no, definitely not.

Maybe the days when you left your house.

At times it's easy to miss the old days, when good men walked and spoke of true ideals, when all that they would ask for was a raise, perhaps a pair of presidential seals. At times it's easy to miss that sweet age, when only honest men were put in charge, when lies provoked a strong and public rage, and every single heart was twice as large. At times it can be easy to miss that place, where all was silent and all were at peace, where no one shouted or spit in our face, and we all drove fast cars on long-term lease. So it was never. Such a place t'was not. Each problem we face is an ancient rot.

My poem is about the temptation to become nostalgic for the politicians and the politics of the past, about maybe the kind of truth or at least representation of what we'd like to see in our politics that we can often find in looking back, but also the danger of believing that politics was ever easy, simple, honest, or good.

I want to ask, what drew you to Humphrey in the first place?

Certainly, I think the point of the poem was not that we’ve never had political heroes or that we’ve never had, um, a politics of joy that’s successful. The point was that, um, all of those political heroes and all of the politics of joy, um, required hard work and met with stiff opposition. I think the point of the poem was that, like, politics is always messy and always difficult. Um, it’s more about how we approached it.

"Trailblazer."

The one who breaks the ceiling, the one who's first to cross the line, they must make their own rhythm. They must beat to their own time. They find themselves quite often alone or in the dust. They find themselves quite often lest to wallow or to rust. And so they must know more than anyone else to take their own story right off of the shelf. The one who breaks the ceiling as glass shattered in their eyes, the one who makes the first move must break through all the lies. They find themselves quite often defeated or ignored. They find themselves quite often hated and abhorred. And so they must fight, more than anything still to make their way over the widening hill. And sometimes they fail, and sometimes they will, but always, they face it with a radical grin.

Thank you. Thank you.

My poem is about, as she just said, the contradictions and the nuances of having to be the first and not just the personal toll it takes on someone, but sort of almost impossible expectations that one has to (yes, yes) the level of resiliency and hope that one has to display.

What was her experience like in the state legislature in the 1960s, coming in on the heels of this historic civil rights moment? What was the Texas State Legislature like for a Black woman in the late 1960s?

How was Barbara Jordan viewed at the time? How is she perceived, in particular, by White political actors and and White politicians? You spoke about her oratory and the way in which she was able to articulate the Democratic Party position on Nixon, but how was she seen by White voters around the country. How was she perceived as a politician?

I think so. I think certainly the legacy of someone who used the political system to fight for change, who used real politics to fight for change, should be an inspiration for us. In particular, in a moment when it seems like a lot of us have lost hope in politics. I think it's important to remember that, sort of, the dirty business of legislative politics is where so much change can happen with real leadership.

Welcome to our latest episode of This is Democracy. I'm Zachary Suri. I'm hosting this week.

We're mixing things up a little bit. We often think about history in terms of pivotal years, 1776, 1848, 1989, and 1968 is often an entry in this list, identified by many historians as the key turning point in our democracy and democracies around the world in the 1960s. But our next guest, his new book makes the case for a different year, 1963.

Dr. Peniel Joseph is the Barbara Jordan Chair in Ethics and Political Values and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at UT Austin, and he joins us now. Thank you for joining us, Peniel.

Hello, and welcome to our latest episode of This Is Democracy. I’m Zachary Suri. Today we’re going to be discussing, uh, an issue that I think. Uh, many of us have thought about in vague terms in the last few years as we watch our, our politics, uh, in so many ways descend into what cannot be described as anything but chaos. Um, but one that we probably have not thought of in such detail and with such thoughtfulness as our next guest.

Our guest today is Professor Steven Skowronek. Uh, Professor Skowronek is the Pelota Parrot Professor of Political and Social Science at Yale University. In 2019, he was the wine hand visiting professor at the Rother Muir American Institute at Ballo College Oxford. He’s also been a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and he has held the chair in American Civilization at the [???] in Paris. His most recent book, uh, which will be discussing today, is the Adaptability Paradox, Political Inclusion and Constitutional Resilience.

Other publications of his include Phantoms of AED Republic, the Policy State. Uh, and many other books, his research concerns, first and foremost, American National Institutions and American Political Aid Development, which is what we’ll be discussing today, specifically the development of the American Constitution.

We’re also joined, of course, by Professor Jeremy Suri. Good morning to both of you.

Wonderful. Well, I’d like to start our episode off today with a passage from Hamilton’s Federalist Paper 85, um, on the topic of perfection in the Constitution. "The system, though it may not be perfect in every part, is upon the whole, a good one is the best that the present views and circumstances of the country will permit and is such. And one as promises every species of security which a reasonable people can desire. I answer in the next place that I should esteem it. The extreme of impotence to prolong the precarious state of our national affairs and to expose the union to the jeopardy of successive experiments in the chimerical pursuit of a perfect plan. (cntd)

"I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man. The result of the deliberations of all collective bodies must necessarily be a compound, as well as the errors and prejudices as of the good sense and wisdom of the individuals of whom they’re composed. The compacts, which are to embrace 13 distinct states in a common bond of Amity and union must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations. How can perfection spring from such materials?"

Well with that as food for thought. I wanted to start by asking Professor Skowronek, how did the framers think of constitutional amendment and adaptability? Do you think they expected we would still be operating off the same document?

That makes sense.

I wanted to ask the, the title of your book is The Adaptability Paradox, and we’ll obviously get to the, the paradox part of that conversation very soon. But what about the first part, adaptability. What does it mean for a constitution to be adaptable in this context?

That makes sense. Um, what about the, the second part of the title of your book? The, the paradox part? What, what, what do what in, in, in sort of simple terms, is the adaptability paradox that you see at the center of our constitutional development?

That makes sense. Um, you, you argue in the, in the preface to your book, that there are quote tensions inherent in the term constitutional democracy. Why is it that the sort of, uh, growth of the democracy end of that equation, uh, as you see it destabilize the system or led to this instability?

Hmm hmm. I’m wondering, when you, when you think of the places where it’s not working today, what are the sort of institutions in particular that you would point to as indicative of a sort of inability for the Constitution to stabilize?

Well, thank you so much Professor Skowronek for, for joining us today. We encourage all of our listeners to go and read. Uh, professor Sach’s new book that is the Adaptability Paradox, political Inclusion and Constitutional Resilience, uh, out, uh, just now from the University of Chicago Press. Um, so please go read that by the book. Um, and thank you, uh, to Professor Skowronek for joining us, uh, on this episode of This Is Democracy, and thank you as well to Professor Suri.

And thank you most of all to our wonderful listeners for joining us for this episode of This Is Democracy.

Sure.

Yeah, how closely did the United States and the Soviet Union watch public opinion in Latin America? Did they care at all what people in the region thought of, of the conflict?

Why, though, do you see the Cuban Missile Crisis in particular as that critical turning point? I think it this seems like maybe a larger factor in American policy in the region, or a larger trend that had already begun? Or is this, is this, in your mind, the moment when American policy in Latin America moves away from real efforts to promote democracy and turns instead to sort of more transactional relationships with undemocratic leaders?

Yeah, I want to ask, How do you think that? What lessons do you think Americans should be learning from the Cuban Missile Crisis for this moment? I know you said the danger of saber rattling, but, but as we, as sort of ordinary Americans, as opposed to maybe government leaders or people making decisions. How should we what sort of different attitudes or different perspectives on this conflict should we bring learning these lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Well, I'm not sure that we necessarily have a sense of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the same sort of visceral sense that a lot of an older generation does, just having lived through it, or having lived through the aftermath of it and having experienced the sort of tension of the Cold War, but I do think that now maybe is the right time to start reevaluating the lessons that we learned from the crisis, and to think again about what it might mean to both protect American interests in Latin America but also to promote American values in Latin America.

Hello and welcome to our latest episode of This is Democracy. I'm Zachary Suri, today we will return to a topic we've already discussed many times on the show, the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, but there are a lot of developments to discuss, to say the least, for the first time in more than three years of war in Ukraine, both sides seem to have expressed hope, whether genuine or not, that there might soon be a diplomatic solution to the war. Meanwhile, further fissures seem to be opening in the US European Alliance, and Ukrainian President Zelensky's administration faces a wide-ranging corruption scandal. Joining us to discuss is our good friend Michael Kimmage. Michael is a professor of history at the Catholic University of America and the director of the Kennan Institute from 2014 to 2017 he served on the Secretary's policy planning staff at the US Department of State, where he held the Russia, Ukraine portfolio. His latest book is collisions the war in Ukraine and the origins of the new global instability. Thank you for joining us today, Michael, great to be back with you both. We're also joined as always, by Jeremi Suri. Hello.

Wonderful. I'd like to begin today with a poem by a Ukrainian author. This is Knife by Lyuba Yakimchuk, translated from Ukrainian by Svetlana Lavochkina. Knife with relatives, we share table and graves with enemies only graves. One such candidate comes to share a grave with me, says to me, I'm bigger than you, I'm harder than you, I'm tougher than you. Sticks knife after knife into my stomach and below, knife after knife. His pressure spring like but he is smaller than us. He is softer than us because he's only got one knife. And there are plenty of us at the table, and each has their own butt and each has their own cut. Says to me, I'm a sharper blade. Cut you. I'm a thicker blade. Cut you. Chip, chop. Chip, chop. The last one is dead. Hold on. They say, hold on. And we hold onto our table from the gun muzzle, we all drink our bullets. We pour our enemy one too. Michael, do you have any reactions to that poem? I think the reason I chose this poem was, I think it sort of gets at the strange, sort of intertwined relationship, the kind of stagnant stalemate last three years, if that makes sense.

Well, Michael, I wanted to start by asking a question that I think we've touched on a lot in our many discussions on the war in Ukraine, but I think is probably critical to understanding the movement we're in now as you understand it, what do you think Putin needs to end the war, and what does Zelensky and the Ukrainian administration need to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict? Right?

Despite that, you did say at the beginning that you think you see the vague theoretical outlines of a potential diplomatic solution. Could you say a little bit more about what that might look like, or what that looks like in theory, how amenable both parties seem to be to that?

What about the politics from a Ukrainian domestic perspective? It seems that for the first time, there's been a sort of real questioning or real sort of undermining of Zelenskyy's popularity in Ukraine, potentially with this large corruption scandal. What do you make of that? And could you explain that scandal and its significance in this moment?

What about the other sort of line in the in the sort of triangular relationship on the Ukrainian side of the war, that between the United States and Europe, if anything, the sort of negotiations between the US and Russia at this moment seem to seem to hurt the US-European alliance the most is that you think an accurate reading and and what, might, what might these negotiations do to that sort of tenuous alliance between the United States and Europe in support of Ukraine?

Well, thank you so much, Michael. I think you've provided us with a very sombering, but important portrait of where things stand in Ukraine today. And, you know, we began this episode. Listing, many of the sort of recent developments in the war that seem to really be shifting the landscape, and I think you've maybe offered a compelling case for why they don't necessarily mark a major transformation. Right. In the, and really an entrenchment of the same dynamics that we've been dealing with for the last. Three and a half years.

Wonderful. Well, thank you so much, Michael, for this comprehensive portrait, uh, of where we are in this moment. Um, thank you Jeremi for your insights as well. Um, and thank you most of all to our listeners for joining us for this latest episode of This Is Democracy.

Yes.

Philadelphia From Above.

Yeah. maybe don’t think of cream cheese because it’s not about cream cheese.

Though now she glows by the river. Only a step from the dark sea. It was all darkness then. No streetlights on the boulevards. No neon at the corner store. Not a bulb, a flame. When they came, galloping in on horseback, waiting to sign the necessary page. How then can I feel so powerless above the valley? A glow. Impossible, I think to be anything but awake. Eyes drawn to so many illuminations of suffering. I float away, down past the Delaware, how hard it is in this world to sign your name.

I think my poem is about, how when we study history, we often. think of it as set in stone, as something momentous that happened, a long time ago, and that cannot be replicated. and we think of these moments like the constitutional, convention, as being rooted in, a sort of unique courage, a sort of superhuman courage that we can’t summon. and how. particularly in moments when the world seems to be spinning away from us, how hard it can be to feel like we actually have a voice or that we ha we have a sort of similar responsibility or similar role to play as the people that we study.

But what is the, purpose of civic educ civics education in the first place, do you think? At the very least, perhaps there is agreement on why we should teach physics, if not on, on how.

Sorry. Oh, lemme rephrase the question. did I say physics? Okay.

How do you think, this sort of vision of civics as political history, can be applied or implemented at a sort of secondary or primary school level? it seems like civics is, a subject that many Americans only, take once or, twice, and usually in middle school or elementary school or high school. So what does it mean to, and, what, and in your mind, what does the ideal sort of civics education at, that level look like?

Yeah. Where do you think these, criticisms of historians, but not just historians, this is criticism of curricula in particular. it’s striking that this is a moment when, high school and middle school history curricula is at the center of national political debates. Why this attention to these questions now? What is making them such, potent political issues?

What about maybe the critics from the other side who might say that, civics education that focuses on politics or political actors or on the sort of key, political or military moments in American history? Misses a large chunk of the American population who, who aren’t included in many of those, traditional narratives of American politics. I guess this is the question of diversity. Where does diversity or diversity, equity and inclusion fit into this teaching of civics?

I think it does. I think one thing that I’ve certainly learned is that a lot of it doesn’t necessarily come down to the standards or the curricula, but it comes down to the teacher in the classroom. And I think part of the problem is that so much of the money and attention and accolades have gone. To those teaching STEM, courses, math, economics, science, computer science, engineering, et cetera. And less attention has been paid to building, sustaining, and encouraging, really effective and passionate teachers of civics and history. And I think, so in the same way that, good teachers at universities and colleges, make all the difference. I think in the same way it’s true at, in, at a high school level and middle school and elementary school.

Yes. New year.

I did, yes.

Yes.

Yeah. So this is a section from, uh, can Socialists Be Happy, uh, by George Orwell. It was an essay published in 1943, I believe, in the left wing British newspaper. Um, the New Statesman. Um, and, uh, this to me is an essay that I’ve been coming back to a lot, uh, the last few months. I found myself reading a George Orwell essay pretty much every night before I go to bed. Um, I think,

I think his voice is, uh, particularly relevant in this moment. Uh, especially his unwillingness to tolerate nonsense from anyone, uh, and his sort of unflagging commitment to humanity. In, in world events. Uh, and this is a section that I think speaks to that, that maybe I hope also offers us some words of consolation, uh, and maybe also put some fire, uh, behind this as well. This is, uh, of section again from Can socialists be happy? The inability of mankind to imagine happiness except in the form of relief, either from effort or pain, presents socialists with a serious problem. Dickens can describe a poverty stricken family tucking into a roast goose and can make them appear happy. On the other hand, the inhabitants of perfect universes seem to have no spontaneous gaity and are usually somewhat repulsive into the bargain. But clearly we are not aiming at the kind of world Dickens described, nor probably at any world he was capable of imagining. The socialist objective is not a society where everything comes right in the end because kind old gentlemen give away turkeys. What are we aiming at, if not a society in which charity would be unnecessary? We want a world where Scrooge with his dividends and tiny Tim with his tuberculous leg would both be unthinkable. But does that mean we are aiming at some painless, effortless utopia? At the risk of saying something, which the editors of Tribune, sorry, Tribune was the paper it was published in May not endorse. I suggest that the real objective of socialism is not happiness. Happiness hither two has been a byproduct, and for all we know, it may always remain. So the real objective of socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though. What is not usually said or not said loudly enough. Mens up their lives in heartbreaking political struggles or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo. Not in order to establish some central heated, air conditioned, strip lighted paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another, and they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue. Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore things happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary. The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move. The grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.

Well, I think first of all, at a surface level, he’s answering his question, can socialists be happy? Really with the answer? No. Um, but I think it’s why, why? It’s more complicated than though, I think what he’s saying is that what happiness is is something temporary and fleeting. Uh, a feeling of community or a feeling of, uh, contentment or joy that only exists, uh, in contrast to the drudgery of everyday life or the injustices of everyday life. Um, and I think that’s very relevant for, for all of us who have celebrated holidays in the new year, in the last few weeks. Um, I think that’s probably something a lot of us have felt, not just this year, but in past years as well. Um, and I think he’s als what he’s also saying is that, uh, there’s danger. In seeing or seeking or defining your political program based on some perfect or idealized version of how the world should be, because human beings have limited imagination and the only way we can really imagine a perfect world. Is as one that is simply a continuation of all of the creature comforts and a universalization of all of the creature comforts of our world. Um, and so I think oral is really urging is for us to respond to inhumanity with humanity and to see injustice. Not as something that must be, um, completely eliminated to see, uh, to see pain and suffering, not as something that can ever be completely eliminated, but instead to see those as things that must be responded to. Not necessarily with a positive universal vision of what, of what the future must be, and we must all work to, but actually with a human feeling of brotherhood, as he calls it, with a commitment to fighting for justice, but not any sort of sense or promise that justice is ever going to come immediately in the present or in the future.

Right

Well, I think what he’s saying, um, particularly when he talks about. Brotherhood. He says, the real objective of the socialists is human brotherhood. Um, the real objective of socialism is human brotherhood. He says, I think what he really means is that the, the true usefulness of ideology or political programs of any stripe. And particularly from his perspective of left-wing ideology, um, is to push us towards, uh, humanity, to, to, to encourage and goad people to fight for their fellow human beings. I mean, the examples he gives are people tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo or getting themselves killed in civil wars. All of things he, he witnessed, uh, in his life. Those are. Those are examples of people who really aren’t dying for ideology, but dying for humanity. The ideology is secondary. It’s a tool. It’s something they’re using to push towards that. I think really what he’s saying is that the most important thing is not to lose sight. Of the fact that our politics and our societies have to aim at something higher than, as he puts it, replacing a toothache with the absence of Right.

Right. Or was at risk of become.

Yeah, I think that’s, that’s true. I think one of the things that’s been really moving to watch is to see those individuals who survived captivity in Gaza come out and, and, and either speak for peace or for an end to hostilities in the region or. Uh, to or, and or to go out into the world and speak about their experience and speak against that kind of violence. Um, often it has taken the form of very political statements or protests in Israel against the current government or, uh, in less political ways. You know, traveling around the world and just sharing their ordeal with, with audiences. And I think it’s something very powerful to think about someone who’s gone through. Uh, that kind of experience. And then it’s not only willing, but excited to, and committed to talking about it. And I, I think that that kind of human connection Yeah. Someone who’s experienced something horrible and is willing and wants to share it, that kind of human connection is part of what that humanity is.

Yeah. I think it also reminds me a lot of, some of the activism we’ve seen from students and parents after school shootings in the United States. Yes. The parents of Sandy Hook, in particular.

I’m thinking of people

Right, and Uvalde people who have become committed. Not, not to political or polemical statements, but to real policy change. Yeah. And to sort of not refusing to let their friends, family, children be forgotten. I think that has been really moving to watch. And I, I think that kind of space where ordinary people, um, who’ve suffered immensely, actually speak about their experiences instead of having it filtered through political or ideological. Um. Uh, frameworks, I think is, is, is really powerful in our world. And one of the few things that I think can break through a lot of the, uh, partisan noise that we live with.

Yes.

Right. But also just I think, uh, the complexity of what it, what it means to be a human being in the course of these, uh, world events. And I mean, one thing that that struck me speaking with former hostages is the, their description of how difficult it was to organize themselves or to speak and get along with others. Yes. And such other hostages and such.

Tight. Quarters. Um, that was not something I’d ever thought of, but that sort of human complexity of the situations

Uh, is, is so startling. Um, and I, I, I do think, um, in a very different context, that’s what Orwell does so well in his, and in all of his essays. It’s, I think what makes his writing powerful to me right now, or what speaks to me about it. I mean, his most famous essay probably Shooting an Elephant, he describes basically the entire network or reality of. Imperialism, British, uh, British imperialism in Southeast Asia simply by one personal experience he had as a police officer. And it’s, it’s,

The self-doubt, right? And also just sort of capturing the emo, the complex emotions that drive someone to make a decision that in hindsight, they regret. I think those are, that, that, that’s I think what a lot of political decisions, a lot of human mistakes, A lot of. Conflict in our world comes down to, and it’s the hardest thing to capture

Yeah. Right. I think that’s right. I, I think also, uh, as you said, the, the, the. As someone who’s also at a university campus, I think the hardest part about the way that universities are being talked about and the worst part about how they’re being talked about, uh, on, on both sides, uh, in international discourse, uh, is, is the sort of insistence on labels, as you’ve said, the insistence on, on making every academic question. One of are is this DEI or is this anti DI is this is this anti Right. Instead of focusing on, uh, complexity. And I think, I think if there’s one hopeful. Hopeful thing that I think we can take out of this moment for universities is that, uh, I think for, I think a lot of the sort of. Urges to grasp for labels. The urge for simplification is actually rooted in a genuine frustration with the lack of complexity, if that makes any sense. Yeah. I think we’re taking, people are taking, um, frustration at academic environments that don’t allow for complexity or don’t allow for certain perspectives to be heard and actually doing the exact same thing and turning them into oversimplified labels and, and, and talking about universities in oversimplified ways in response. But I think the urge or the frustration that’s there. Is is very genuine.

Yeah, I think so. I, I think one thing that is important to, to remember though, uh, that, that I think, or well worn stuff, is it’s not the, the, the danger is not replacing a toothache with another toothache. What he’s talking about is the danger of replacing or thinking that happiness, or that the answer is in replacing a toothache with the absence of a toothache. That I think part of the problem is that a lot of attacks on universities and in the last. 10 years, both from both sides. Um, were really aimed at replacing a problem that they saw that had some truth to it. Trying to just simply eliminate the problem. Whereas the real solution and the really important thing that I think is, is, is missing or needs to be strengthened on college campuses and in all aspects of our society, um, is something positive. It’s the kind of bonds of community, the bonds between people, the willingness to have open and frank conversations about hard topics. That’s what we should be focusing on. It’s not, it’s not about, you know, it’s not about trying to replace the toothache with the absence of a toothache, just end the toothache. It’s about trying to actually provide some sort of positive program in the opposite direction. It’s not. Utopia, but it’s like action. It’s actions that we need to be doing instead of, instead of, um, simple boxes we need to join.

Well, that’s not an easy question to answer, but I think that, um, you know, the kinds of conversations that. That people are able to, to have in this model, um, don’t happen by, you know, insisting or artificially, uh, looking for V viewpoint diversity. I think they happen with a sort of willingness to actually be frank and honest. Yes. And to, to be offended, but not, not see that as grounds for shutting down discussion. It’s a willingness to, it’s a willingness to be open. To other viewpoints that you might even find grossly offensive. It’s a willingness to listen to ’em at the very least.

And to engage with those people as human beings.

Yeah. And I think it happens, uh, at its best when you put students in an environment to be around people who are different from them. I think what we’re talking about really is not just forming community or strengthening community like in and of itself, but forming and strengthening heterogeneous community. How do you deal with, uh, being in a place, being together? Working towards some common goal, whether that’s education or you know, law enforcement in the case that you mentioned, or you know, teaching in a classroom. How do you work towards a common goal when everyone comes with a very different perspective?

And some of the people who are in that room don’t wanna be in the room with the other people.

And I think, I think part of it is, is a willingness and an, and an openness. To talking to other people, but also just a basic recognition that whether we like it or not, you know, we are in the same room. Yes. We have to get along.

Yeah, I think so. I, I think, um. You know, what you’re really talking about is, you know, tearing down the silos a little bit and, you know, letting, letting people who maybe wouldn’t interact before interact and, and listen to each other. And I think, you know, that’s the purpose of the podcast. That’s the purpose of, of so much of what we do. And I think, um, for a lot of people, it’s become the only option now.

or complaints

Yeah, I want to ask, I mean clearly with the historical backward of the Monroe Doctrine and the, was a corollary, there was a lot of precedent, within that framework and beyond it for American intervention in Latin America, but. Is there a precedent for the kind of a targeted intervention that we saw, in Venezuela this month? Is there precedent for this kind of, you know, targeted, arrest or kidnapping, however you wanna see it, of a leader of another country? or is this a sort of unique kind of operation that the United States engaged in?

What about the larger international reaction, not just the potential, for Russia and China to use this as a sort of prerogative to, be more aggressive in their own. neighborhoods, if that’s even possible. But, the American relationship with our allies, do, has this moment you think further strained America’s relationship with its allies, is there a possibility at all for cooperation with American allies in Venezuela? not just allies in Europe, but also allies in, in Latin America?

I think for some it’s clear and for many it, it, it’s clear that this is something. at least, you know, to celebrate in the extent, to the extent that Maduro is gone, that that is obviously a positive development, for those who have relatives or family or friends in Venezuela or who fled Venezuela, which is not, not insignificant. Number of people in the United States. but I think there’s also a lot of concern that this could, you know, draw the United States into a larger war. and I think for, for the moment, a lot of people, young and not young alike are sort of waiting to see what happens. I think, you know. Obviously most hope that this does not draw the United States into a larger war with Venezuela. but, or with, you know, in the region in general. But I think a lot of the big questions that we raised today remain unanswered. So I think there is a degree of uncertainty and certainly there’s much greater fear of war in the region than there was before.

Welcome to This Is Democracy. I’m Zachary Suri. Today we are joined by a scholar living at the center of perhaps one of the most consequential confrontations of our moment. That is, of course, the weeks long standoff between anti-ice protests in Minneapolis and the various immigration enforcement wings of the Department of Homeland Security standoff. That unfortunately, as we all know, has left at least two protestors, Renee Goode and Alex pretty dead. joining us is Professor David Iona Chang. Professor Chang is a historian at the University of Minnesota. He studies indigenous people, colonialism, borders, and migration in Hawaii and North America, focusing especially on the histories of Native American and Native Hawaiian people, as well as the history of social movements in the United States. Professor Chang, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you. We are of course also joined, as always by Professor Jeremi Suri. Jeremi, thank you for joining us today. for the first time in a while. we will start not with a speech or an essay, but with an original poem that I wrote. this is called, Nicolette Avenue, which is the street where Alex Pretty was killed. At night when the street is sleeping, it tosses and turns ice cracking sounds of agony, softly rising from the salt. I think the street has nightmares, and I think it remembers the dead, the bullets that bounced off its skin and buried themselves in another. At night when the street is sleeping, it feels the boots that stomped across to the tune of swinging rifles, beating time on its surface like a song. I think the street is singing in its sleep. A Durge for the Dead and departed for the Cold Press of cold flesh. It remembers too well waking up last Sunday with Bloodstains. Yeah. So Professor Chang, would you be able to tell us just from your experience, you know, what it’s been like to live, in the Twin Cities at this moment? To live through, what all of us around the country and around the world are seeing on the news every day.

That makes sense. Could you explain plain to us, especially from the perspective of a historian, where you think this solidarity movement, as you described it, this movement against ICE in Minneapolis, came from, you know, it seems to me as an outside observer, like Minneapolis has been at the center of, some of the most consequential social movements of our time. Why is that and why this moment too?

That makes sense. where do you see the protests, and the sort of clashes between, the HS officials and others going from here? Are they still ongoing? do you think that Trump administration has effectively backed down on this issue? Or, how are people perceiving that on the ground?

Yeah. As a historian, looking at this, moment, Something you’re personally experiencing, but also something that obviously falls within your area of study. How do you think that this, I mean, obviously we’re, not in the business of prediction, but how do you think this moment will be remembered? Is there a, is it possible that this will have a larger, or outsized impact on, immigration discourse in our country, or, you know, even thinking only a few months in advance on the election this fall.

My, the first half of my question is how do you think this moment we will be remembered by historians for its impact on

I, did wanna ask, What do you make of the sort of, I know we talked a little bit about why the public outcry. after the, two shoot, the two killings. I’m curious what you make of the Trump administrations and the Presidents, sort of backing down on, this front. It seems like there was, you know, there’s been a lot of public outcry about the immigration raids, at least locally. In, every city that they have surged in. And I’m curious what you make of the way that the Trump administration has responded or seemingly had to, you know, take back its own responses so quickly. what do you make of that and what do you think that says about the sort of lasting power of this as a political issue.

Well, I think a lot of young people, and I think people across the board are, sort of reacting in shock to this. I think there are a lot of, I, I mean, I think the public opinion polls, and, Conversations with any young person or any person, period. show the kind of anger or frustration with, this moment? I think there are varying degrees of, you know, outrage. Like some people I think are outraged, at, you know, the particular killings of Alex Pretti or Renee Good, or they, see. They see, those as the, thing to be out, outraged about. I think there are those who find who are most horrified or most focused on, the impact of the deportations on immigrant communities. so I think there are a range of political responses. I mean, here in New Haven. There is a big sort of walkout today for in solidarity with Minneapolis. so there, there, are a range of different responses that I think people are engaging in, but I would say, I think it’s, almost universal, universal shock at the shootings of, protesters in particular.

Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Professor Chang, and thank you, Jeremi, and thank you most of all to our wonderful listeners for joining us for this latest episode of This Is Democracy.

Doing well. Hello.

I’m curious, obviously the looming figure in all of this is Donald Trump. I’m curious what role he and the his associates, in New York might have played? he’s not known for having been silent on racial politics in New York City.

I’m curious what happened in New York as you understand it. I, I think people who, besides myself who do remember the 1980s and seventies and the nineties, remember New York as you described. but I don’t think that’s how most people my age think of. New York or have experienced New York. So I’m curious, what changed in New York and why did that same change not happen, across the country?

right, or that the same kind of, I guess what I would say is, the high profile crime tabloid, stories, Become less the sort of dominant narrative of New York City.

Well, I don’t know if I’m qualified as a New York City compensator, but I do think that, I do think that, one of the great ironies of our, political moment that we don’t talk about enough is that, for decades, the Republican Party in particular, Americans across the board complained that our politics was dominated by coastal elites or by New York City in particular. And yet the great, the sort of most successful populist of our generation came out of New York City. And I think this story might, take one step towards explaining that very strange phenomenon.

Hello and welcome to our latest episode of This is Democracy. Today we're going to talk about the conflict in Iran, which has obviously been ongoing for the last few days and has received extensive media coverage that I'm sure all of us have been following to varying degrees of closeness. But I don't think there's really been a chance for most of us, at least, and this conflict in historical perspective. Here joining us today to offer that perspective certainly probably not for policymakers who are in the room making decisions, to think about is Professor Michael Dennis. Professor Dennis is an Associate Professor of Practice at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at UT Austin. He also served as Chief of Intelligence Operations and Chief of Strategic Futures at Army Futures Command and was a member of the intelligence community serving at the National Ground Intelligence Center as a Senior Intelligence Analyst. He was also appointed an Exceptional Analyst Research Fellow at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and taught at the National Intelligence University Center for Strategic Intelligence and Research. Professor Dennis, thank you so much for joining us today.

Wonderful. And joining us, of course, as always, is also Professor Jeremy Suri. Hello. Good morning.

I am as well. So Professor Dennis, just to make sure we all have sort of a sense of what's really happened and what is happening now, given the sort of constant turnover and ongoing nature of the conflict, could you give us a sense, from your perspective at least, of what the sort of most important developments in this, what has really been a larger, longer protracted conflict in the last few days?

That makes sense. Thank you for that very helpful summation. I'm wondering from your perspective, what you think the Trump administration's logic for going to war was. There's of course been talk in American policy circles for decades about the potential conflict with Iran, but this seems to be something else. There's talk of an effort to stir a popular uprising, or that this might be the result of Israeli pressure. How do you understand that decision to go to war, at least from what we know now, so soon after?

That makes sense. And I think there's a really interesting question that I hope we'll dive into a little bit more about the potential for a post-conflict or post-regime chaos in Iran. But I did want to ask first what you think, how plausible you think it is that the Iranian people, as President Trump has suggested in recent days, might actually rise up against the Iranian regime in a way that could effectively topple the regime? Is the regime really that weak in this moment?

That makes sense. I do think, though, that there's maybe an even more basic question that hasn't been answered yet, which is, is there even will among the Iranian people for this kind of comprehensive regime change? And is there will on the American side for that? I mean, just today, President Trump said he doesn't care whether Iran becomes democratic or not. Do you think that's, at this point, a goal or even a desire of either side?

That makes sense. What, if you were an American policymaker, what are the tools that you would have at your disposal to try and encourage the lasting regime change that President Trump has stated as his goal? Is there work that special forces can do, covert operations, et cetera? What would that look like?

I think this has been super helpful at, especially illuminating the population dynamics in Iran, the political complexities. But I'm curious just sort of, as we wrap up here, if you might speak to the wider influence this conflict has already had on the region as a whole, thinking particularly of the Gulf countries that I think perhaps unexpectedly have become sites of conflict. I mean, dramatic images of missiles exploding over Dubai, et cetera, that, that I don't think a lot of us expected out of a conflict exploding over Dubai, et cetera, that, that I don't think a lot of us expected out of a conflict like this. You know, what is that, what does that dimension add to the, to the dynamics here?

Well, thank you. This has been such a comprehensive conversation. I think we've captured so many of the dynamics here, and really the sort of complexities and questions that remain completely unanswered. And I really appreciate you taking the time to point thing out for us, because we're often what gets lost in the heat of the moment. So thank you so much, Professor Dennis, for joining us.

And thank you, Jeremi, for joining us as well.

And thank you, of course, most of all to our listeners for joining us for this episode of This Is democracy.