Ezra Klein

Thank you for having me. It has done so in the context of our system, our institutions, our myths, our idea of our national character. That it has gotten so bad in the past should free us of any illusion, that it cannot get much worse now. But that it has been successfully defeated in the past, at least beaten back, should free us from the fatalism that it cannot be beaten back now.

Thank you for having me. It has done so in the context of our system, our institutions, our myths, our idea of our national character. That it has gotten so bad in the past should free us of any illusion, that it cannot get much worse now. But that it has been successfully defeated in the past, at least beaten back, should free us from the fatalism that it cannot be beaten back now.

My guest today is Stephen Hahn, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian at NYU. His book, Illiberal America, tracks this thread of American politics back to our founding and even before. The interplay between liberalism and illiberalism has always been with us. It will always be with us. Accepting that helps bring both its power and its vulnerability into clearer focus.

My guest today is Stephen Hahn, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian at NYU. His book, Illiberal America, tracks this thread of American politics back to our founding and even before. The interplay between liberalism and illiberalism has always been with us. It will always be with us. Accepting that helps bring both its power and its vulnerability into clearer focus.

Stephen Hahn, welcome to the show. Thank you for having me on the show. I appreciate it. So in Trump's first term, we often heard the advice, don't normalize him. This is not normal. This is abnormal. We would hear, this is not who we are. And your view is this is sort of normal. This is part of who we are and always has been.

Stephen Hahn, welcome to the show. Thank you for having me on the show. I appreciate it. So in Trump's first term, we often heard the advice, don't normalize him. This is not normal. This is abnormal. We would hear, this is not who we are. And your view is this is sort of normal. This is part of who we are and always has been.

No.

No.

So you write that illiberalism is, quote, deeply embedded in our history, not at the margins, but very much at the center. When you say that, what is the illiberalism you're talking about?

So you write that illiberalism is, quote, deeply embedded in our history, not at the margins, but very much at the center. When you say that, what is the illiberalism you're talking about?

Let's go into a bit of that historical depth. One of the parts of your book I found interesting was your analysis of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. That's normally seen as a document laying out the early structure of America's inevitable ascent into liberal democracy. And you read it quite differently.

Let's go into a bit of that historical depth. One of the parts of your book I found interesting was your analysis of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. That's normally seen as a document laying out the early structure of America's inevitable ascent into liberal democracy. And you read it quite differently.

So in the 1830s, you also have an example of the tradition you're talking about at really full strength under Andrew Jackson. And you have a chapter on this, and particularly around Jackson's use of deportations and expulsions, which you see as central to the illiberal tradition and I think is central to the sort of story we're tracking here.

So in the 1830s, you also have an example of the tradition you're talking about at really full strength under Andrew Jackson. And you have a chapter on this, and particularly around Jackson's use of deportations and expulsions, which you see as central to the illiberal tradition and I think is central to the sort of story we're tracking here.

So tell me a bit about that decade from your perspective.

So tell me a bit about that decade from your perspective.

Tell me a bit about the rhetoric Jackson uses to justify the expulsions. If somebody's reading it today, how much of it would read horrifying and archaic to our ears? We don't think like that anymore. And how much would not? How much would we hear resonance in?

Tell me a bit about the rhetoric Jackson uses to justify the expulsions. If somebody's reading it today, how much of it would read horrifying and archaic to our ears? We don't think like that anymore. And how much would not? How much would we hear resonance in?

How connected is it to Jackson's politics of the common man? How much does the support of the common man, the channeling of the common man, braid itself into this project of who you have to push out so they're not part of the common man?

How connected is it to Jackson's politics of the common man? How much does the support of the common man, the channeling of the common man, braid itself into this project of who you have to push out so they're not part of the common man?