History As It Happens

In the first 24 hours of the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944, about as many French civilians were killed as Allied soldiers. From June 6 to August 25, in the areas of Northern France that saw the most fighting, "about twenty-thousand French civilians paid for liberation with their lives," says University of Virginia historian William Hitchcock, the author of The Bitter Road to Freedom. In this episode, we compare history and memory of the invasion of Normandy and the power of liberation in our political vocabulary. By acknowledging the morally complicated nature of the liberation of France, U.S. leaders and citizens today might be more careful about invoking the Second World War to justify military missions of dubious necessity.

In the words of Richard Hofstadter, "Third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die." What Hofstadter, a towering public intellectual who died in 1970, meant was that in American politics, third parties succeeded not by winning elections, but by pushing the major parties to reform, to adopt ideas circulating on the margins and bring them into the mainstream. Whether third parties are a help or a hindrance, there is an immovable reason why they have struggled to maintain relevance in U.S. history. Two political scientists, Lee Drutman of New America and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, discuss why third parties fail, and whether we could use some new parties today.

In the past week Americans marked the anniversaries of two major events that hold different places in the common memory. One evoked feelings of honor and pride, the other shame and revulsion. June 6 was the 77th anniversary of the D-Day invasion; May 31 was the centenary of the Tulsa race massacre, one of the most violent acts of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. But unlike D-Day, the Tulsa massacre had been largely forgotten until recent efforts succeeded in drawing attention to its relevance in a nation still grappling with a legacy of racial injustice. Northwestern University historian Leslie Harris explains why it is so difficult for Americans to reckon with the darkest chapters of our past.

Host Martin Di Caro and The Washington Times national security team leader Guy Taylor discuss President Biden's foreign policy. During the Democratic primary debates in 2020, foreign policy was largely ignored. Reality has imposed itself in the early days of the Biden presidency, as the new administration juggles geopolitical dilemmas all over the globe. But as often as American presidents try to shape events to their advantage, unforeseen events shape presidencies. And how a chief executive manages crises not of his own making can determine whether a presidency succeeds or fails.

Is Bitcoin a revolutionary currency or a speculative bubble about to pop? Depends on whom you ask! From cryptocurrencies to total return swaps to hedge fund short-sellers, the financial markets can appear a minefield loaded with dangerous bets and outright scams. In this episode, Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman discusses whether we should be worried about Bitcoin's wild gyrations, and whether it is possible to see the next crash before it hits.

The fourth war between Israel and Hamas since the latter took power in Gaza 14 years ago killed hundreds of people, mostly Palestinians, and left unresolved the historical grievances between two peoples whose national aspirations compete for the same piece of earth. What will it take to end this conflict? Two people who work for the cause of peace, Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen and former Ambassador Hesham Youssef, explain why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems so intractable.

In the quarter century after the Second World War, New Deal liberalism was riding high. But after LBJ's Great Society was sacrificed on the altar of Vietnam, and after Carter's failed presidency gave way to the Reagan Revolution, Democrats were in disarray and liberal became a dirty word. A generation later, is Joe Biden leading a liberal comeback? Princeton historian Sean Wilentz returns to the podcast to talk about the possibilities and perils facing the Democratic Party after four years of Trump.

An effort by Republican lawmakers in several states to prohibit the teaching of the New York Times' 1619 Project in public schools has reignited the debate over who controls our understanding of the past. It has also refocused attention on the project's numerous factual errors about a matter of such surpassing importance as the American Revolution. University of Virginia historian Alan Taylor shares both criticism and praise of the 1619 Project's specific claims as well as its overall aim, which is to emphasize the importance of slavery and systemic racism in American history instead of the founding principles of liberty and freedom that were, as the project's opening essay argued, betrayed by the crime of human bondage.

Is the liberal democratic order in real trouble? From Donald Trump's ongoing campaign to discredit the results of the 2020 election, to the emergence of authoritarian rulers across the globe, it can appear that democracy is on the retreat. The rise of China, a coup in Myanmar, Putin's staying power, and strongmen in Hungary, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere -- all point to democracy's demise. But maybe things are not as grim as they seem. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft analyst Kelley Beaucar Vlahos joins the podcast to tackle the subject of our time.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube -- the digital behemoths have more unchecked power and technological capability to silence speech than any government. But because they are all private firms, they have the right to censor or stifle whoever they wish, from former President Donald Trump to ordinary citizens. Free expression is supposed to be a cherished value in liberal societies, yet it seems more people on both sides of the political aisle are calling for more online censorship. The ACLU's Vera Eidelman and Yale's Jack Balkin join the podcast to untangle the complexities of free expression in a social media world.