Trump Can’t Heal America

Listen to this episode

S1: The following program may contain explicit language.

S2: It’s June 1st, 2020, from slated to the gist. I’m Mike Pesca. There are 800000 sworn police officers in the United States.

S3: Sworn means they wear badges, carry guns and full arrest power. They usually call police sheriff constable or some variation. Add to that the two to 300 civilian employees of police departments and we have over a million law enforcement personnel in the United States, according to the latest figures.

Advertisement

S4: There are about 17 police officers per 10000 citizens in departments that are much bigger than small towns. This, by the way, in the world is about average. The United States has fewer police per person than low crime countries like Germany and France, but also fewer than high crime countries like Mexico. It has more police per person than low crime countries like Canada, but also more police per person than Papua New Guinea. Actually, the country with the second highest crime rate in the world after Venezuela. It seems like the number of cops does not correlate to the amount of police brutality or killings by police. It does seem that the overall crime of a city does somewhat correlate to allegations of mistreatment. And that has a kind of logic. Police believe they have to get tough. On crime or act roughly on the streets and then they get too rough or persecute the undeserving. The major factor to explain the United States odd place in the developed world as regards police brutality and incarceration and murder is guns. More guns. More murder. More perceived threat. More police overreaction. That this didn’t play out in the death of George Floyd. But a countenancing of bad policing is an outgrowth of the perceived threat.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: Derek Schavan stays on the force after being involved in two shootings in the past. I’ve looked at each of these shootings. They seemed justified. While there’s not a lot of information on one of them or let us say murky information about what happened when he claims a suspect went for his gun after he crashed through a door responding to a call of domestic abuse. But if anything, being involved in two past shootings emboldened Schavan and if Schavan were a bad cop. The aftermath of being involved in two shootings would do nothing to steer him from the path he was on. He was cleared. It probably raised his status in the department. And in fact, in 2008, he was awarded a medal for his reaction to a gun wielding suspect. The presence of guns, the ubiquity of guns, the threat of gun violence, the often rational fear of guns is the underpinning for so much of the police initiated violence. We see, for instance, police have almost total immunity when it comes to killing in the line of duty. Any fear or suspicion, they claim, almost always deemed a reasonable fear or suspicion because of guns in Louisville. Early this morning, a citizen was killed by police who said they thought they were fired upon. And who’s to say they weren’t? I mean, this isn’t the UK. This is in Japan. It’s plausible that in Louisville, Kentucky, the police were fired upon after coming on a gathering, maybe a demonstration, and now a restaurant owner is dead. When a police officer is brought before a jury or rarer still, a grand jury in the United States. That police officer is usually set free. Of course they are. They have a dangerous job, a frightening job. Most citizens sitting in judgment of the police would not want that job, mostly because they could be shot and without meaningful gun control or gun reform. I do not see how there can be meaningful police reform. There are efforts to train police to identify their own implicit biases. There are body cams and dashboard cams and citizens everywhere armed with cameras. There is a move to rein in the power of police unions, a move to reform the law. It’s called 50. A New York state is the law that makes an officers’ personnel file inaccessible to outsiders. They’re shielded, but I don’t see how we’re going to execute a full scale reform of overpolicing. And excessive policing, if we’re still operating in a society with the kind of gun crime that our society has. We bemoan the militarization of the police and cheer when the sheriff of Flint, Michigan, takes off his helmet and talks face to face with protesters. But why all the armor? Why all the aggressive tactics we can assign character flaws to police is entitled bullies or having domineering personality types. But I think these are all ancillary explanations to the underlying issue. It’s guns. I don’t want to give short shrift to racism because we’re also a society filled with racism that has a history of racism, that has demonstrable racially disparate treatments of black people, white people and Latinos. And our police statistics are racially fueled, but still think about guns. Over a thousand people are killed by police every year in the United States. Canada, it’s 25. Sure, Canada’s one tenth the size. But did you notice that’s one fortieth the number of the killings. And yes, in Canada, black people are killed and indigenous people killed disproportionately to their percentage in the population. But you know what the numbers are? Three black Canadians are killed a year, not three hundred and five, as was the case in 2015, according to the Mapping Police Violence Web site. Have to cite that Web site, by the way, or The Guardian or The Washington Post, because shamefully, there are no official U.S. statistics on this. So media organizations and researchers fill in the blanks. But the vast majority of the thousand people killed by police are what’s called justifiable killings. And I think they’re not, quote unquote, justifiable. I don’t think they’re whitewash justifications. I think they’re really quite often a suspect who was armed and legitimately threatening an officer. The problem isn’t that those justified killings are lies. The problem is they’re not lies. They’re justified in the legal sense. But, of course, there are also tragedies.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S4: And then we get to the killings like George Floyds, where there was no justification. But there was, of course, a history and an explanation. And I also think there are some answers, but no real end, because racial attitudes are changing and improving.

S5: And maybe some laws about or norms about convicting cops are also changing. But gun violence is not changing. Not really. Not significantly. Not compared to everywhere else in the world.

S4: I think that’s the least likely to significantly change soon.

S2: And without that part of the equation, we’re always going to have the problem of police acting brutally towards the citizens on the show today. Is burning a police station reasonable? I will not leave you in suspense. It is not is dominating just dominating. Is that the answer? Also, no suspense. Why am I. Why I’m even saying this. It’s not reasonable. I think you’ll have to tune in for all the details. But first, as history unfolds around us, it’s also being chronicled every day in a new podcast by a skilled team. It’s not just any history we’re talking about. It’s a specific kind of history, a rarefied kind even. It’s this day in esoteric political history that is the name of the podcast and hosted Jodi Atragon, an historian called Hammer. Join me next.

Advertisement

S1: So if you know anything about me, you know that my favorite television show is The World’s Strongest Man competition because it really did define who was the world’s strongest man. Hard to argue with, premise laid out, premise delivered upon. Well, based on that criteria, I think I may have a new favorite podcast. It is called This Day in Esoteric Political History. And every day it tells you what happened in the political history of the United States, but not just any political history, the esoteric political history. The host of the show is Jodi ever again. And it is cohosted by Columbia historian Nicole Hemmer. They both join me now to talk esoterica. Hello. Hey there. Hey, Mike. Well, thanks for doing this. And I don’t know if this date, May 25th, will be before or after our conversation errors. But on May 25th, I happen to know you had a lot of things to choose from. And you talked about hands across America. Now, for me, that is barely history and it’s certainly not esoteric. But as I think about it and I think about the movie us. Yeah. It probably is so esoteric to anyone who wasn’t alive. And then I could tell you all my thoughts about hands across America and where it played in political history. But let’s just take that as a case study. Why among the things you could have chosen, like the Constitutional Convention beginning in 1787 or JFK announcing that we will put a man on the moon before the end of the decade or, as he said, the decade. Why choose hands across America instead of some of those other choices you had?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S6: It’s a good question. I mean, sometimes it’s just sort of what catches our eye and what we think would be fun to talk about. We do the show for about ten minutes, so we only, you know, can say a few things for each episode. And I think with hands across America, I mean, part of it is I think what you were getting out, which is a moment that a lot of people don’t think of, but when prompted, maybe have a flood of sort of notions or half notions. And I really like that about sort of doing anything related to history as you then get to go and uncover and correct misconceptions and sort of look at look at legacy. I also just at some basic level, love talking about a moment where a bunch of strangers would decide to hold hands with each other, which seems just about the opposite of what anyone would want to do right now.

Advertisement

S7: Yeah, it seems so distant from this moment, this idea that we would all just go outside and hold hands in order to raise awareness of homelessness and hunger.

S8: Yeah, I forgot that it was about homelessness and hunger, but this was roughly around the timeframe of Live Aid. And we are the world. And maybe before we or at least me as a 13 year old, 14 year old at the time realized this is no way to actually solve problems.

S6: Right. And we talk about this in the episode about it as well, which is the kind of changing nature of charity and especially celebrity driven charity. And that was a moment when the big glossy kind of telethon type thing had viability and, you know, was something that people took at face value. Whereas now, you know, you see these kind of like people see right through it. And I mean, something like this happening right now would just get eaten alive by Twitter for better or worse and would never get off the ground. It’s just so earnest in a way that I don’t think we can really stomach anymore.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: Yeah, I think earnestness is the key word there, because now I mean, you go back and you even mentioned the band aid concerts for different places in Africa. And you listen to the songs like do they know it’s Christmas? And, you know, if you look at them very, very differently and I think that they did back in 83, 84 when those things were coming out.

S5: Yes. But it’s no less true that there comes a time when. We hit a certain call when the world must come together as one. There are people dying. Well, you could have gone with I do like JFK announcing putting a man on the moon. I mean, but like a lot of things you could pick up. You could pick a lot of points in history and talk about the moon landing. There was the actual moon landing. There was, you know, a few days before when the rocket took off. There was the last moon landing. You got a lot of shots at a moon shot, I guess.

Advertisement

S6: Correct. Then we’ve given ourselves a pretty loose definition of this day. I mean, we’re always trying to find a hook. And part of what I like about the show is over the course of this show, it sort of tracks the rhythms of a year. Certainly when an election year, you know, a lot of our stuff is election related. You realize that a lot of elections have a similar cycle. There’s a story we really want to talk about. We will find a hook for it, whether it’s different parts of the story or, you know, even someone’s birthday or the day that someone died. Like, we will find a way so that you will do something about the moon landing at some point.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S8: The thing I like about doing that speech I recently looked into it, I think was at Rice University in Houston. It was a sweltering day. I read the local paper. I always love doing that with the ads. But the reason I was looking it up is because and the Cole, as a historian, you must have a weird relationship to this phenomenon, which is that people do like history, but they think that it says something that it doesn’t always say. And sometimes the things that says my complicate the narrative. And I’ll tell you exactly how this relates to the moonshot. When the Green New Deal was being proposed, the backers of the Green New Deal would always say things like, did Kennedy say it was impossible to put a man on the moon when we wanted to put men on the moon? Did we say we’re going to do it or did we say it can’t be done?

Advertisement

S1: And I delved into the history of that and it turned out that what we could do in space was very, very much defined by what the scientist advised was possible. It wasn’t possible. And LBJ, as vice president, he had a task force and he was asking, tell us what can be done in a moon shot was seen as possible, but other things weren’t. Anyway, that’s an example of. So today it’s like let’s look back at history will draw on the lesson of the moon shot. It tells us anything is possible. But my point is actually it doesn’t say that. But you did cite history to buttress your case anyway.

S7: Yes. That is probably the most common use of history as the first. Flatten it out and then use it to bolster your point. Yeah, I mean, the moon shot would have seemed impossible if and if not impossible, just like the idea that you were going to put a man on the moon in less than a decade. Given where the technology was at that point in time, seemed like politicians, you know, fantasy rather than something that was imminently achievable.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S6: Can I as the as the non historian here, offer a little defense of like using history as a sort of convenient place? I mean, you know, I will say that they’re a little bit of what I like about the show. And what we’re trying to offer with the show is just is just that that it’s hopefully just providing space to think and space to draw lessons. And and, you know, I hope that and I find this when we do the shows, like we have a 10 minute conversation and then I spend half an hour after it kind of musing and thinking and trying my own connections. And so, you know, that flattening like you want to go back and add texture to that flattening. But sometimes that flattening is the thing that prompts you to to just do some thinking about where you are now. And so I think there’s is usefulness in there while at the same time, yes, we should be rigorous about the past.

S7: Well, I think that sometimes that esoterica that we bring to the table is not necessarily finding moments that no one has heard of, but by pushing back against the the received wisdom of what that moment actually looked like. And that is sort of an anti flattening. It’s to breathe new life into that moment that makes it more useful and generative.

S8: So I think there are a couple as a listener, there are a couple of big major categories that make for a good episode of this day and esoteric political history. One is the thing we had no idea of. I mean, people differ. So someone’s going to have an idea of something or other. But that’s always good to bring that to light. The other one is the thing that is so important. And yet you can add a couple of details or ways to look at it that we hadn’t thought of before. But then there’s this other great category, which is a thing that maybe if you say the word, it will evoke in someone who’s relatively historically aware. Oh, yeah, I’ve heard of that.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: And the Johnstown flood, that’s a great example because it’s a lyric in a song. And you know that the night of the Johnstown flood, that was something. But things like, wait, what was the Johnstown flood and how bad was it and who died? So that that also made a great episode.

S7: Yeah. I mean, it’s one of those moments that I think a lot of people have heard of precisely because it’s made its way into the culture. But, you know, it was a catastrophic event. Twenty two hundred people died in the flood, which happened back in 1889. And that was at the time the biggest natural disaster in American history. Still ranks up there as one of the deadliest. And it came about I think this is the important part of it. It came about in part because there was this a dam that protected Johnstown from this river that had been dammed up and some wealthy speculators had come in and they wanted to turn it into a reservoir for rich people. And in order to make it more attractive, they lowered the height of the dam in order to widen it and put a road on it, which then endangered all of these people down below. And that becomes a big part of the story. In order for rich people to fish. Twenty two hundred people die in this flood.

S6: And then in the wake of the flood, I mean, it really causes this huge legal battle in which the residents lose. And it changes the kind of insurance law in this country for a long time. And I don’t think that that did make it into the song. No, no liability here.

S1: Just like an episode when you think about the song afterwards, that might occur to you. But no, it wasn’t literally in the lyrics.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S9: It’s just it’s just hard to rhyme.

S7: No fault insurance, strict scrutiny, doesn’t have a lot of really nice rhythms to it.

S1: I found this is this is I don’t know if this offends Unicol the as an historian, but here I am, Wikipedia ing the Johnstown flood. And this was a huge event in American history. And for years and years it will be a touchstone and would need no definition to the point where in 1946 the Johnstown Flood was an animated film where Mighty Mouse uses time reversal to undo the flood and prevent the dam from breaking. So this is not only an important event in flood history and animation history, but I’m sure that’s where the idea from Superman, the first Superman movie Flying Back to reverse the Spin of the Earth to save Lois Lane came from.

S7: I think you found an origin story.

S1: So on May 26, you have no show. But we were looking at some of the things that you could have done. Dred Scott and his family was freed by owner Henry Taylor Blow after U.S. courts ruled against them in Dred Scott v. Sanford. What’s interesting about this is the Dred Scott decision. Again, this is one of those where we might know the phrase and we might know something about it. But the exact details we don’t know. And that actually really informs the story, doesn’t it?

S7: Yeah. I mean, Dred Scott was a fascinating character. I feel like people should just go read a book about him. But he was he was so interesting. He worked so hard to get freedom for himself and his family who tried to buy his freedom. And he was rejected. He appealed to the law because he had lived in free territories and free states and basically what the Supreme Court said. He first went through the state courts, then went to the Supreme Court. And what they said is, you have no standing to sue because you’re not a citizen. And in fact, no black person can be a citizen of the United States. So freedom isn’t yours to appeal for.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S6: And I think people know the truth. Scott was this shameful decision. They know that it, you know, set the stage for the Civil War. I certainly didn’t know that over the course of the. I think there’s more than a decade in which this was winding its way through the courts. The children of the Scott family ended up supporting his legal case and funding it. And then this sort of coda that landed on May 26, which was just a few months after that decision. The individual at the heart of that did get his freedom in addition to his children and his wife. He died shortly thereafter, but then they lived the rest of their lives. You know, as free.

S8: Yeah, it’s weird. I found out I got interested in Dred Scott when I was in St. Louis. I visited the arch. And there’s a lot of history of Dred Scott there because that was heard in the old St. Louis courthouse, which could be seen from the arch and the actual details of the life, not just the case, but the life and who he was. Ah, fascinating. Fascinating. Separate from this famous Supreme Court decision. That is really one of the few, if you said, what are the ten most famous or impactful Supreme Court decisions? I would say Dred Scott and maybe Plessy v. Ferguson are the two really famous ones, and they’re famous for being bad.

S2: And that tells us something.

S1: If we have this institution that we revere or it’s at least a fundamental institution and one of the two or two of the ten most famous decisions show how bad it was. Says something about America.

S6: Yeah. Brown Board of Education would come up there as well. Well, that was a good decision. Very good one. Intemperate point. But Nikki and Mike, let me ask you a question. The Dred Scott thing, because it seems to me like Dred Scott was freed a few months later, is like the perfect hallmark feel good like coda to a story that maybe history would love and that we would sort of hear that and it would actually maybe like end up papering over some of the awful kind of elements of this story. So why isn’t that a little tidbit that that more people don’t know about?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: You know, I think it is in part because it all gets. Swamped by the civil war, which starts shortly thereafter. So if you in a history classroom, when you’re teaching, you’re going to talk about the Dred Scott decision and then, boom, you’re going to immediately go into the civil war. And, you know, he spends all but a year of his life enslaved. And it’s hard to be too uplifting at the end of that because there was so much that he went through. He was never granted the power to claim that freedom himself, which is a frustrating thing.

S1: Yeah, OK. History is always changing. Our understanding of history is changing. And it just smacks me in the face when I think about Andrew Johnson in his impeachment, because for most of my life, looking back, we were taught that this was a brave act by the Senate not to give in to the radical look at the name the radical Republicans. And John F. Kennedy won a Pulitzer for writing Profiles in Courage. And one of the profiles was of the brave Kansas senator who voted to acquit because that was the right thing. Well, fast forward a few decades and we find out that the radical Republicans were probably right. Andrew Johnson was among the worst presidents and he deserved to be impeached. The Kansas senator probably got bribed. And by the way, Kennedy didn’t even write his own book. So apart from just knowing that our understanding is can change and we should have a little you Melody. For me, it goes even further than that, because most of the history that I have been exposed to really comes with a lesson like this is the right way to do it. Fireside chats and here’s the wrong way to do it. Donald Trump, you know, having Twitter feuds and it seems unfathomable that we could be wrong about that. But maybe we are maybe all these lessons of history, apart from the facts. Maybe all of the interpretation or, you know, some gigantic percent of the interpretation is going to change someday.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S10: Yeah, I mean, it changes based on new facts on the ground. Sometimes sometimes we just know more things years later than we do in the moment. But it also changes based on changing sets of values. And that’s going to be what determines how historians 100 years from now interpret this moment. If, you know, historians 100 years from now are not particularly pro-democracy. They might decide that, like these attacks on what we see as democratic institutions are actually a good thing. That brought us to a different and better America. That’s certainly the case. By the way, when it came to those criticisms of the radical Republicans, the radical Republicans were pro-democracy and democracy that included black people. And the historians who are writing those histories largely were against that. They think that that focus on understanding versus judgment is actually a really important one, that it’s better for us to spend our time trying to make sense of and to understand the variety of moral universes of the politics, the political options and the choices people made and really try to figure out like why they made the choices that they made, why they said the things that they said. And just to get a better understanding of their humanity and the lived reality at the time. There’s certainly a place for moral judgment in history, but that can’t be the beginning and end of the conversation.

S6: So that’s why I find those conversations most useful is when they serve as you know, when history serves as a way to process what’s happening now, not just sort of this argument in a vacuum, but something happened a long time ago.

S2: Yeah, I think that’s true. I think that your show, though, in 10 minute chunks, actually advances that experiment. And I think it’s a very instructive except maybe on the accurate definition of esoteric word, esoteric.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S6: Someone should someone should tell me what that word means. I haven’t looked at it. But it just felt good in the title.

S5: Maybe like one out of every three commentators on your eye tunes profile.

S9: You’re saying should it’s a squishy definition that we’re using. Yes.

S1: Jodi Avidan is the host of Nicole Hemmer, brings the erudition to each episode of this day in esoteric political history. Wherever you get your podcast people, it’s from the Radio Topia Collective Studios Brain Trust. Thanks so much, guys. Thanks, Mike. Thanks.

S2: And now the spiel. No, torching a police station is not a good thing. It’s not it’s not good.

S5: It’s not some other words for good, either, like reasonable or proportionate. It seems strange. I have to make this point, but Slade had a very well read story over the weekend written by a Northwestern professor Steven Thrasher headline Proportionate Response When Destroying a police precinct is a reasonable reaction. Thrasher argues the destruction of a police precinct is not only a tactically reasonable response to the crisis of policing, it is a quintessentially American response and a predictable one, quintessentially American.

S11: An angry crowd stormed a key police station, breaking the fence surrounding it.

S12: As emotions ran high, an attack in John Moore, the police station that was attacked and got nowhere, is now on fire. French police officers have been killed following a knife attack at the Paris police headquarters.

S11: City of Columbia was targeted for a second time in less than 24 hours with a bomb attack on a police station.

S2: OK, so maybe not so quintessentially American and also maybe not so predictable because it was pretty shocking, wasn’t it? A pretty shocking failure of the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis to ensure some semblance of order. So a police precinct doesn’t get burned to the ground if you want to argue that it was a consequence of a rage. I say yes, if you want to argue that it was a consequence of justified rage. I also say yes, but productive, a positive development and social progress. Ridiculous. Elsewhere, Thrasher builds his case by imagining a citizen who asks, quote, Why did they burn that quick trip gas station, CBS or Target? Why are they destroying their own communities? The correct answer is, well, once the forces of chaos are unleashed, they can’t be easily channeled.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S4: And the argument for proper policing that doesn’t murder civilians is that you should have it. Otherwise, those harmful forces will be unleashed.

S5: If you as the state act in unconscionable ways, there will be terrible consequences. That’s all true. But please let us not celebrate those consequences as anything other than terrible. And let’s not think there is no means to progress without destruction, because most progress doesn’t come from destruction and most destruction doesn’t lead to progress. It’s not the case. A disgruntled office seeker, a disgruntled separatist and a disgruntled communist each killed a president. Over the years. Anarchists bombed J.P. Morgan headquarters on Wall Street in 1920, causing nearly 200 casualties. None of those things led to progress for their causes of the person, Thrasher imagines questioning.

S2: Why burn down the CBS or Target or the police station? Here’s what he writes. At their core, the questions assume the destruction of property is more worrisome than the destruction of life. Otherwise, a person wouldn’t wonder why the destruction of life by the police in recent years has triggered the destruction of property. Did you get that? Did you shake your head? While the target in Minneapolis was looted? Or think it was a shame that a Baltimore CBS was burned after the killing of Freddie Gray? I did. The author saying that’s because you don’t care about lives as much as you do property. So if you thought, wow, burning that police station, that’s that’s not a good thing. Or a few. Or if I am thinking, gee, I hope when New York City goes into curfew after 11:00, no more police cars get torched. I guess that must be because I care more about property than lives. Only conclusion must be. Well, that argument in general. I consider it a provocation. It is an argument. It ran in Slate dot. I don’t figure anyone at Slate that. Com therefore will object to the counter argument I’ve just presented. But let’s go beyond the world’s two thousand eight hundredth most widely read Web site. What if we ask about the world’s most powerful individual and wonder about his thoughts on what’s been going on? I’m not sure. The governors of America actually were wondering, but he gave them. Here is what Trump said in an audio recording played on CNN today.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S13: This is just the latest.

S5: Dominate talk of domination dominated.

S2: But also there was an admission of ignorance provoking a call to aggression.

S13: They got to be out of there. I don’t know what’s happening.

S11: But remember, this is the man who received his party’s nomination for the presidency with these words, an attack on law enforcement is an attack on all Americans.

S2: So that is why knowing that it was confounding to me to watch Meet the Press and see host Chuck Todd, ask Atlanta Mayor Keysha Lance, bottoms of President Trump, what would you like to hear from him?

S14: And do you think any of his words could be helpful here?

S2: He also asked Congresswoman Val Demings this question.

S14: Let me ask the question this way about President Trump. If he called you up tonight after watching you here and said, look, help me say something to fix this, what would you tell him to say?

S2: And then he put it to former North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory. How would you advise the White House or President Trump to talk right now? And NBC is own Joshua Johnson.

S14: If the president called you up and said what, what, what what should I say in an Oval Office address? What would you tell him to say? And is it can’t. Can his words still matter?

S2: Finally, the question gets what question was posed to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser?

S14: I know you believe he hasn’t been played a helpful role. You’ve made that very clear on Twitter yesterday. Can he play a helpful role still or is it too late?

S2: Okay, wait. Maybe I’m being unfair. Maybe that wasn’t actually referring to the president. I’m referring to the president. OK. What answer was Chuck Todd expecting me considering? Trump still thinks the exonerated Central Park five should be put to death. I don’t know what turn of phrase is going to heal America. From his lips. With that in mind, let us hearken to the words that Trump did say in a Rose Garden speech this evening.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S9: Then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

S2: Great. The promise of martial law. And then this declaration.

S9: One law and order. And that is what it is. One law. We have one beautiful law.

S2: Short, clear, declarative sentence. And yet I struggle to find the meaning, any meaning. I just know this. He is mad. Protesters take note. Don’t you feel healed yet?

S15: And that’s it for today’s show, Margaret Kelley is the gists associate producer. She notes that in 1866, in a fit of rage, Andrew Johnson jabbed at one adviser with his right index finger and another with his left. It’ll all be covered in this day in ambidextrous political history. Daniel Shrader produces the gist. On this day in 1881, a fern that first lady Lucretia Garfield was tending to started noticeably bending towards the south window. That’s on this day in Heliotrope. Political history. Just this day in 2004, a concept eluded George W. Bush. He commemorated the moment by rapidly gliding his hand over his head and loudly stating Rousch.

S5: That’s on this day in on’em on a poetic political history in Peru, desperate to Peru. And thanks for listening.