Transcript: Is it Time to Stop Idolizing the Founders?

Debate Details

Arguing Yes: Osita Nwanevu

Arguing No: Helena Rosenblatt

Osita Nwanevu (00:00:00):

I think that the culture of believing that the Founders got everything right prevents us from seeing those flaws. We make excuses for them. Here, 250 years into our history, in a country the Founders wouldn’t recognize, bearing aspirations and ideals that I don’t think the Founders shared, I don’t believe that the intentions of the Founders should continue to bind us.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:00:18):

What’s going on today is not helpful, it’s not healthy. We need to rekindle some kind of civic values. As flawed as these individuals were, I think we need something that binds us, that unites us, and these are great models in that way, for us to emulate.

John Donvan (00:00:41):

This is Open To Debate. I’m John Donvan. Hi, everybody. Uh, go back two and a half centuries and the men who drove the American Revolution, men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and John Adams and all the rest, the men we call the Founding Fathers, sometimes just the Founders, they never heard the term culture war. But now, just as we’re celebrating the nation’s 250th birthday, these men stand most prominently at the heart of a new culture war battle. They have been named in a report just released by the Trump administration that is accusing the National Museum of American History of being too woke. The administration is arguing that the museum, which is part of the Smithsonian Institution, does not do enough to honor the Founders, and by m- omission is actually dishonoring them. The museum leadership disputes that. Other critics say the report itself is methodologically flawed and biased. The White House pushes back, “No, it’s not.”

So yes, we’re in the middle of a classic culture war face-off. But while the Smithsonian waits to see if the White House is gonna take some action against the museum, we are not going to debate what’s happening there, in this episode. Instead, because there does appear to be some legitimate disagreement in general around how to honor the men who gave us the Declaration of Independence and victory over Britain and the Constitution, we’re gonna look directly at that question, about the men and their work. Here’s what we’re asking in this debate, and we’re bringing in two debaters to take opposite sides. Is it time to stop idolizing the Founders?

So let’s meet our debaters. A- answering yes to that question, it’s time to stop idolizing, I wanna welcome Osita Nwanevu, who is a contributing editor at the New Republic, a columnist at The Guardian, author of The Right of the People: Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding.

Osita, welcome to the program. It’s great to have you on Open To Debate.

Osita Nwanevu (00:02:29):

Thank you so much.

John Donvan (00:02:31):

Uh, could you tell us in one sentence, and I just want it to be one sentence so we don’t launch the debate, because I’m sure it’s gonna be germane to your arguments. Your book calls for a new American founding. In that one sentence, what do you mean by that?

Osita Nwanevu (00:02:43):

So what I mean by that is that taking after, among others, the historian, uh, Eric Foner, who argues that the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution after Reconstruction matter to a second founding, I do believe we have had, in this country’s history, moments where we fundamentally rework our institutions, and I’m arguing in the book that, given the political and economic challenges we face, we’re due for another one.

John Donvan (00:03:04):

Thank you very much for that. And I’m sure we’re gonna hear more about your point of view on that as we have the discussion. But that discussion also includes Helena Rosenblatt, a historian, a professor of history, French, and political science at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, author of The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the 21st Century. Helena, welcome to the program. It’s great to have you.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:03:25):

Thank you. Thank you so much for inviting me.

John Donvan (00:03:26):

Oh, it’s our pleasure. And you were born in Sweden.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:03:28):

Yes.

John Donvan (00:03:29):

Now you’re an American, I’m just interested, having come from Sweden, growing up in Sweden, when did the Founding Fathers of the United States, uh, kind of begin to dazzle you?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:03:39):

Well, I went... My father was a diplomat, he was, uh, stationed in Beirut, Lebanon, and there I went to the American Community School. And as a young girl, I learned about the Founding Fathers. I probably heard little stories, um, about George Washington, uh, chopping down the- the cherry tree and not lying about it, and Benjamin Franklin, we had these little books. I know those were mythologized, but they really, uh, kindled my love for- for history and my love for this country and made me very curious about the Founding Fathers.

John Donvan (00:04:11):

All right. E- excellent background to know as we go into this co- conversation and this debate. And let’s start the debate with our opening statements. We want each of you to take four minutes, or up to four minutes, to explain why you’re taking the position you are. Osita, y- you’re up first. You’re arguing, yes, it’s time to stop idolizing the Founding Fathers. Please tell us why.

Osita Nwanevu (00:04:30):

Sure thing. So as I think is generally good practice in debates like this, I should talk a little bit about how I’m interpreting the resolution. In arguing that we should stop idolizing the Founders, I’m not here to argue that we should no longer consider them important figures, or for a wholesale rejection of everything they did and said. Uh, what I am arguing is that we should leave behind our culture of Founder veneration and worship. Here, 250 years into our history, in a country the Founders wouldn’t recognize, facing problems the Founders could not have imagined and bearing aspirations and ideals that I don’t think the Founders shared, uh, I don’t believe that the intentions of the Founders should continue to bind us. We should be less interested in what the Founders had as expectations for us, than whether th- our institutions and our country measures up to our expectations here and now.

And there are basically three things I’d like to say, uh, in support of this point. Uh, first is that I don’t think the Founders actually wanted us to revere them in the ways that we’ve come to revere them. Uh, Jefferson, I think is most famous for having this attitude, writes famously to Madison in 1789 that he doesn’t believe that constitutions can justly last more than 19 years or so. After that it would be the dead hand of one generation extending itself over the generations unjustly. Um, and he’s obsessed with this question over the course of his life, actually.

So in 1816, for instance, he writes to Samuel Kercheval, a lawyer and historian in Virginia, on Virginia’s Constitution, uh, the following. “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. We might as well require,” he goes on to write, “a man to still wear the coat which fitted him as a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regiment of their barbarous ancestors.”

Now, Jas- Jefferson’s a little bit of a radical in this respect, but the other Founders said very similar things. Madison in Federalist 14, “Is it not the glory of the people of America that, while they’ve s- paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience?”

And finally, you have George Washington writing to his nephew, Bushrod, in 1787, just a couple of months after the Convention in Philadelphia. “I think the people, for it is with them to judge, can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are as necessary as ourselves. I do not think that we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue than those who will come after us.”

And the irony of our c- that culture of Founder worship, to my mind, is it implies that Washington didn’t know what he was talking about. Uh, we do talk about the Founders as though they were more inspired, more wise, and more virtuous than the Americans who came after them, and certainly more than the American people today. Uh, by contrast, what I’m here to argue today, fundamentally, is that Washington and Madison and Jefferson, in their humility, in a critical distance from themselves, and their optimism about what Americans will learn from experience, were right.

Two other points I want to make briefly. We have other heroes. Uh, certainly we’ve had our pick of transformative presidents, uh, from Lincoln on, I think both Roosevelts, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan, for better or for worse. Uh, people like Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, people like Samuel Gompers, Mother Jones. Uh, all kinds of characters in our pantheon of- of potential heroes that we don’t talk about enough, because I think we’ve lionized the Founders so much.

And the last point I wanna make is that I don’t think we should believe in the Founders more than we believe in ourselves. Over the course of writing the book I just published, I was very, very struck by the vision of America laid out by Walt Whitman, where he lays out this vision of the country, as a place where human agency would really be honored and human beings would flourish more than any other country that existed before. Um, Whitman believed that the people to m- lionize in America were the American people themselves, um, that there was beauty and virtue and wisdom in ordinary folks. Um, I think that’s the kind of vision of America that we can all subscribe to, and I don’t think we need the Founders in order to have that kind of inspiration guide us.

John Donvan (00:08:36):

Thank you very much, Osita. Helena, you’re, uh, taking the opposite side, you believe that it is not time to stop idolizing the Founders. Your four minutes begin now.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:08:43):

Thank you. Thank you very much for... I, I really appreciate this kind of, uh, debate, especially, uh, given the culture wars, it’s, uh, r- really nice to have this sort of civil debate. And I agree with- with at least some of what Osita just said. Um, but I think, and I also don’t think that I worship the Founding Fathers or we should worship the f- s- Founding Fathers. We don’t make a religion out of, out of the Constitution or out of the, um, the Founding Fathers. But I do admire them, I do respect them, I am very grateful for them. I am grateful for them having produced this amazing document, uh, documents, um, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that have lasted over 200 years. Um, and, uh, when you look at... I’m a, a, f- European historian and I’ve w- written a lot about and thought a lot about France. And France had, uh, some say 17 constitutions, um, and, and a lot of revolutions, uh, and a lot of disorder and chaos and, uh, yeah, uh, bad stuff. And we have not, here in this country.

I admire the Founding Fathers for their courage, for believing that a republic is, uh, possible in a large state. This was not, um, believed at the time. People thought that, uh, uh, America would fail, uh, that republics were not possible. They were incredibly courageous. They were brave. They gave us language that still resonates, natural rights and equality. They gave us the beautiful words, “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” We, not a king, not a, not a G- not God, but we. Uh, and, and a perfect union, a union. Uh, and that’s beautiful as well. And I think that can continue to inspire us.

Um, now there’s something I also want to say that is kind of a li- a, a little bit personal, but also psychologists, I think, agree that we need stories, we need people whom we can admire. And I find that what’s going on today is not helpful. It’s not healthy. I, I disagree with this phrase that we should stop idolizing the, the Founding Fathers, because I think that they’ve been, they’re being criticized unfairly over and over again. I see it with my own students. People need stories, they need... uh, as flawed as these individuals were, um, I think we need something that binds us, that unites us, and these are great models in that way for us to emulate.

John Donvan (00:11:37):

Thank you very much, uh, H- Helena. So I- I just want to read back my notes on what I think I’ve heard each of you saying in the, in, in your opening statements. I, I think we recognize that there’s a baseline traditional view that has been dominant for decades of the Founding Fathers as b- being, uh, a unique set of individuals. They’re, they’re the ones in the statues, they’re the ones we put in marble looking off into the distance, and they have been accorded a special status. Not to the level o- of idolizing, I don’t think, uh, you’ve already made it clear, Helena, you’re not arguing to idolize, and we don’t mean that word to mean, to, to indicate that there’s a re- (laughs) religious worship in any sense. We mean it to say that they do have this special status, have en- enjoyed it for some time. Uh, and as you indicate, uh, that’s being somewhat challenged in certain circ- uh, circles now.

So with that as the baseline, uh, Osita is parting with that. Um, he says, um, their unique status, uh, has been somewhat oversold, that they have been over-lionized, absolutely acknowledges that they made an important contribution, but not to such a degree that they still merit the kind of civic veneration that we’re talking about as these dazzling and noble figures. Um, he wants to keep some distance, he wants to acknowledge that their thinking, uh, important at the time, has not kept pace with the evolution of the U.S. as a nation and as an experiment. Uh, in that regard, um, he’s written, uh, about wanting to, uh, to revisit the Constitution, not just through the amendment process, but in a much more profound way for a major overhaul.

Uh, and, and finally, in general, he doesn’t think that we need to look to, um, a class of heroes to, um, validate who we are. We don’t need saints to kickstart the, uh, the story of our democracy, uh, especially as he doesn’t think that this group actually put an enormous amount of faith in democracy as we understand it and aspire to it today.

Um, Helena, I hear you taking a reverse position. You do say that these men do merit a unique form of reverence, again, not worship and not idolization, but that they, they do stand out. Um, so we’re not holding you to that term. That, uh, they deserve a dis- a distinct and unique s- respect. You are concerned that you think that there’s a trend going in an opposite direction, that, um, there is a move to take them down a peg. Um, you think they are relevant today because their ideas continue to be relevant when it comes to grappling with the big questions that they were, uh, th- th- they were capable of unique wisdom and courage, uh, and you consider them sort of incredible. So, uh, and you also make the point at the end of your closing, i- in, in disagreement with Osita, that there is value to having heroes, to, uh, to, um, recognizing and admiring greatness, and you feel that that was embodied in these individuals, and to- to demote them leads to some, you know, kind of outcome that you’re very m- much not happy with.

So I think that there’s a lot of disagreement there, but nobody is, n- nei- you- you’re neither saying that they were gods, uh, on one side, nor are you saying that they were depraved on the other. Uh, we’re talking about where to place them on the spectrum, uh, while acknowledging that they made contributions, but how do we rate those contributions now?

So Ati- Osita, I wanna take this to you first, where Helena, um, is arguing that, yes, they were flawed. And of course, very often this conversation res- revolves around the fact that they were, uh, many of them were slave owners, uh, which, uh, in the light of history, looks like, uh, a very, very serious flaw. She also says they were one of a kind, um, and that their wisdom and insight set us on a course that still is responsible for very, very successful s- outcomes of various sorts today, that they do, that they are different, they are special. And can you take that on?

Osita Nwanevu (00:15:18):

Sure thing. So look, I mean, I think that the founding of the United States was an extraordinary thing in world history. Um, I think that there was a tremendous achievement. Um, I’m not somebody... I’m, I’m on the left, but I, I part ways with some people on the left who don’t think that there was anything, especially promising in the American example, and what happened in the American Revolution, I think that there was. Um, but I also think, uh, that really taking the Revolution seriously, um, really taking the Founders seriously, uh, means taking them seriously as political theorists, political actors, um, and not as a kind of, uh, canon of saints, which I, I do think that we have a culture of kind of trying to make them.

Um, you know, there, I mean, there’s one way this debate could play out, which is, as you described, you know, we talk about the Founders as slave owners, we talk about the Founders as people who participated in the genocide of Native Americans, we can talk about the Founders as people who didn’t believe in the equality of women. I think that these things are true. Um, but they’ve never really been a focus of my writing and thinking about the Founders for a couple of reasons. One is that I don’t think that argument persuades very many more people. If you’ve not been persuaded here in 2026 that Thomas Jefferson was not a moral exemplar because he owned slaves, there’s nothing else you can say on that subject that’s gonna (laughs) persuade and, and convert somebody at, at this point. That argument’s been heard, uh, they’re part of our culture, they, you know, they’re, they’re not, they’re trivial at this point, or, or at least kind of common.

Um, but again, you know, I, I’m somebody who likes to extract what I can from history and I’m somebody who likes to think about, uh, because nobody has attitudes progressives have today across history, um, what nonetheless we can learn. Um, and I think, again, as I say in the opening, um, ironically, one of the things that we can learn from the Founders, um, is that future generations and successor generations of Americans can build upon the experience, uh, of their forefathers, um, and utilize their experience with the c- institution they create, to create new ones. And that, actually, the American people have the right to fundamentally rework their institutions if they deem that necessary. That’s what the Founders did (laughs) in the act of the Revolution. They broke from a set of institutions that they though were no longer working, established in the Declaration that it is the right of all people across all time to evaluate their systems on the basis of their principles and break from them.

And ironically, we talk about the Founders in a way that we, that, I think, refuses to take that action seriously. Um, we tell ourselves that there was one justified revolution in our history, one justified critical attitude towards preexisting institutions, and everything that’s followed in America, um, exists only to, to reify that initial founding. I don’t think that’s the right attitude to have. I think that we’re in a moment where, I, I’m much more skeptical about the, the durability and the the s- uh, stability of the constitution they founded than, than the f-, uh, than Helena seems to be.

John Donvan (00:18:00):

Well-

Osita Nwanevu (00:18:00):

Um-

John Donvan (00:18:01):

... let me, let me break... I just want to break in because you made a n- number of good points now, and I just wanna give, uh, Helena a chance to respond to some of it. Helena, what, what would be your first response to what you’re hearing from Osita?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:18:11):

I think there’s a little bit of contradiction in, in what Osita just said, because on the one hand, we should move beyond them. On the other hand, they themselves said that the Constitution, you know, might need amending. I mean, not might, but, but definitely needs and that we shouldn’t worship the Constitution as it was. I have studied the Enlightenment in America and the Enlightenment in France very carefully. And thinkers like them believed in progress, believed that society was gonna change over time. They were quite idealistic. Um, they believed that things were gonna get, get better, more people were going to, um, become educated, and over time, uh, uh, most likely the Constitution would have to be amended to, um, account for that.

Now, um, uh, heroes, on the question of heroes, I don’t s- we can have many heroes. There’s no reason that we can’t have many heroes. But let’s not forget those, the Founding, uh, Fathers and, um, a- a- and demote them in this way. I don’t think it serves a purpose. Yes, maybe we need to change-

John Donvan (00:19:20):

Do, do, do you, do you feel it’s a demotion that we’re talking about, is happening?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:19:24):

Yeah. I, I do. I do. It’s a, a demotion that, that worries me also. I think in this day, this day, um, it’s not healthy. Uh, it’s not healthy. Our Constitution is under attack, and I think, uh, it’s, it’s maybe our, our, uh, our, our only tool to, to save our liberal democracy. Uh, and so to start talking about changing it right now, um, I, I just don’t agree with.

And one more thing I want to say. Um, uh, demoting them and the Constitution right now, I think is, is actually dangerous given that our liberal democracy is under attack, and i- this may be the only thing that can, that can save us in this, in this terrible moment that we’re living through.

Um, and the other, the other thing I want to say is, uh, there is no reason to think that, um, you know, that, that w- I, I think that in saying, let’s stop idolize, i- idolizing the Founding Fathers, we can say that by, by looking at them this way, from our perspective today, um, there’s a fear that we’re idolizing ourselves, you know? Uh, h- we’re standing in judgment from our perspective, with our values today, and, uh, uh, what are people gonna say about us? Uh, how, and how is it, how is it, uh, how are you sure that, uh, g- writing a, a, a new constitution, uh, a new founding, how it’s gonna be any better than what has survived for two hun- over 200 years?

Osita Nwanevu (00:20:59):

Well, look, I mean, I, I certainly hope that 200 years from now, uh, given that I fully expect Americans in the future, if we’re still lucky enough to be around, will know more than we do, have studied political issues more than we have, uh, have had debates about what their values ought to be. I, I fully expect that they’ll come to different conclusions about the nature of government and what government should look like than we might have now. And I think that they should have the right, 200 years from now, or whenever it happens to be, to work their institutions on, on that basis. Um, that’s, I think, the, the Founders’ perspective. They really believed in the possibility of learning from experience, as you say, Helena, to, to iterate, to take what’s, uh, you’ve been given, to work with it for some time, have debates, have arguments, and then maybe come to a different set of conclusions.

I think the problem now is that we have a constitution, uh, that is one of the hardest in the world to amend. It hasn’t kicked around so long purely because it’s, it was perfect and they got everything right, but it’s actually very, very structurally difficult to make the kinds of amendments that the Founders imagined. Um, there’d be t- people will talk about us never, never ha- having the ability to amend the Constitution again. Um, and that’s despite the fact that I think we do have very, very deep structural flaws that are worth addressing that are frustrating our ability to make policies and that are deranging our politics. Um, and I think that the culture of believing that the Founders got everything right, or got most things right in 1787, prevents us from seeing those flaws. We make excuses for them.

John Donvan (00:22:23):

So that is what you say is fundamentally the problem with the kind of, again, uh, I’m gonna use the term hero worship, knowing that that’s not a term that, uh, Helena’s embracing, but we all know what I mean by that, that that stature is... You say that the, the harm in that is that it av- it causes us to avoid seriously questioning some of the tenets of the Founding, uh, of, of our system?

Osita Nwanevu (00:22:44):

I think that’s right. You know, I- I’ve gone on tour for this book for a better part of a year now, and, you know, every so often I’ll ask people who criticize the argument, “Okay, well, what do you think is wrong with the Constitution?” Is there anything that you can point to as part of the basic design of this document that they think might be amended, might be changed, might be fundamentally altered, given that we now have more than two centuries of experience with it? We’ve seen constitutions around the world develop, Republican governments around the world. We have political science as a discipline that did not exist in 1787. We a- approach political questions with more rigor and empiricism than the Founders did. Is there anything that you think, given all that, we should fundamentally alter this document, uh, with, on the basis of, now that we’ve had it for more than two centuries?

John Donvan (00:23:23):

So let me, let-

Osita Nwanevu (00:23:24):

And many people say, no.

John Donvan (00:23:25):

... let me bring then to Helena the, the, the objection you have to the, uh, to, to the elevation of this group of Founders from 250 years ago, is that that is preventing the United States as a culture, as a body politic, from taking a long, hard look at how it’s operating now, that that gets in the way of serious, profound amendment of the Constitution.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:23:47):

I don’t, uh, u- u- understand why, um, given the fact that it’s so hard to, to, uh, make amendments, that it’s going to be any easier to, uh, totally rehaul the, um, the Constitution. Um, and I, and I admire your optimism, um, that w- we’re getting better, um, political science is getting better, um, that we know more, and so we would write a better constitution today, but I don’t really see any evidence of that at all. I see polarization, I see anger, I see despondence. I see students, I think that their, um, I think that their, you know, c- civic, um, investment is going down, they’re cynical. Uh, and that’s why I think we n-, you know, w- we need to, uh, we, we need to rekindle some kind of co- uh, some kind of civic values.

And, uh, and we can start with these, I agree, flawed individuals, but who wrote something beautiful. We can discuss it. I teach intellectual history. We read the great thinkers. I’m a believer in reading these great thinkers, um, the, who en- (laughs) tend to be, uh, dead white men, and, uh, and that’s, uh, a shame. Um, but-

John Donvan (00:25:08):

Are, are you saying, Helena, that they, they bequeathed a kind of s- a system that has a kind of inherent stability? The, the slowness of change that Osita has an issue with, that that inherent stability that they bequeathed us in their thinking and in the c- in the document that they constructed is actually a good thing?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:25:26):

Yes, I do think so. Uh, I, I think, again, that, um, uh, they have created stability and order for many, many years.

Osita Nwanevu (00:25:35):

Well, I mean, I think, uh, you know, it’s up to the viewer. Do you, do people watching and, and, and listening to this think that we live in a stable country today? Does it seem like the Constitution is doing its job of pulling Americans together and, uh, creating a system by which we might govern ourselves and, and solve our policy problems, uh, efficiently and sensibly? I think it’s not. I think the po- uh, the provisions of the Constitution are doing a whole lot to exacerbate polarization, the kinds of inequities it creates within the public, the po- the power it gives some Americans over others. These are things that I think cleave us apart.

Um, but, you know, going back to, to something that you said at th- at the outset, John, in framing this conversation, you know, this, again, that we’ve had these references to the dead white men kind of discourse. Um, look, if the Founders, as, as much as they were wrong and wicked in my perspective in, in owning slaves and doing things to massacre Native Americans and, and not believing women equal, if they, despite all that, had created a system of governance I think was still working for us here in 2026, I would not be arguing that we should overturn it. I’m sure that the people who invented the pencil and the wheel had very un-woke opinions (laughs).

Helena Rosenblatt (00:26:39):

Mm-hmm.

Osita Nwanevu (00:26:40):

... by today’s standards. I’m not, I wouldn’t say that’s a reason to, to get rid of the pencil and wheel. The argument I’m making is that the institutions that we’ve been given are not in fact working to our ends and our interests. Um, and we have a culture, I do believe, that holds them to such high regard that we think that the products of their wisdom, back more than two centuries ago, uh, should still bind us in ways that I think are kind of crazy. Um, and, and what I’m hacking away at is that, again, not this idea that the Founders were not intelligent people and that they did not maybe do the best they could. Maybe it was the best constitution we could have had in 1787. Um, but we are a different country now, with different concerns and different values, um, and different aspirations. And I think we have, should have institutions to match.

I don’t think it’ll happen tomorrow. Helena is very, very correct, that what I’m talking about is a very, very ambitious vision for where this country ought to go. But I do think we should have a movement to take us in the direction, yes, eventually, of having a new constitution. It might take 100 years, might last beyond my lifetime. But unless we have a more critical distance from the Founders, we’re never gonna set ourselves on that path. And I think we’re gonna s- continue to see our politics and our policymaking apparatuses decay.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:27:48):

I just wanna say that I- this cynicism that I encounter among young people, uh, I don’t agree that they are idolizing the Founding Fathers or that they think that the Constitution i- is perfect, uh, contrary. And I think that, uh, uh, uh, uh, you know, uh, demoting it, as we’re saying, and finding just fault and, and not recognizing the good, um, but only focusing on the bad, and unfortunately, I see a lot of that in my students, i- is not helpful. Why don’t we start with some civic education? Why do you think that necessarily, more... And th- this is controversial, I’m saying this also so that we can debate it. Why do you think that more democracy necessarily is so much better?

John Donvan (00:28:42):

What a great question, because it was a question I was holding in reserve f- for later on.

Osita Nwanevu (00:28:46):

Right.

John Donvan (00:28:46):

So let’s go to that.

Osita Nwanevu (00:28:48):

Well, yeah. I mean, I have 300 pages worth on that question. You can buy it for $19.99 on Amazon, or I can [inaudible 00:28:54].

Helena Rosenblatt (00:28:53):

(laughs) I’ve read it. I’ve read it. It’s great.

Osita Nwanevu (00:28:54):

You’ve read it. Yeah.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:28:54):

(laughs)

Osita Nwanevu (00:28:55):

Well, I mean, look. I mean, I think, uh, some of these questions are kind of existential and fundamental questions about what we believe about human life. Um, I believe in democracy because I believe we’re entitled to a measure of agency over the conditions that shape our lives, uh, that it’s wrong for us to live under the thrall of people who just happen to be more wealthy, happen to be more powerful than us, uh, and that society degrades, uh, when we don’t have the ability to... Yes, maybe we’ll make mistakes, maybe we’ll make the wrong decisions time after time. Uh, but w- there’s something wrong with not having the opportunity to make our own decisions for ourselves and to learn from our mistakes and to pull ourselves forward, um, through the process of democratic politics.

Um, you know, I think that there are balances that have to be struck. If you’re somebody who believes in liberalism and you believe that there are certain things we ought to protect as a matter of individual rights, yeah, and you talk about creating a court system that protects those rights and, and so on. Um, but my, my, my point is, uh, you know, i- it’s a good question because I think, uh, Helena, that we are accustomed in this country to not asking that question. It’s a question we owe ourselves, uh, the, the opportunity to ask. Um, instead, I think we have a culture where we ask ourselves not what human beings are entitled to, but what the Founders wanted. And as long as we ask that question, uh, instead of the more fundamental question of what is good in society, what the good is, what we’re entitled to, um, we’re going to [inaudible 00:30:14] very ill-equipped-

John Donvan (00:30:15):

You, you, and you, you don’t feel that-

Osita Nwanevu (00:30:16):

... to-

John Donvan (00:30:16):

... you don’t feel that the Founders had that insight?

Osita Nwanevu (00:30:18):

Oh, I think they did. And I think that’s one of the things that we’ve lost in trying to, to, to elevate them to this kind of sainthood. Uh, again, the, the Declaration of Independence is an extraordinary document, a revolutionary document that proceeds from a principle or a set of principle about what human life is for, to a course of action it tries to justify. Um, that impulse that the Founders had has been lost in a culture that says that, whenever we have a fundamental political question in this country, we don’t ask ourselves philosophically, what is, what is, what would a good society look like, or what might our institutions, uh, need to do for us as human beings? We ask ourselves, well, what did the Founders think about this? What would the Founders have wanted? Let’s go back at the Supreme Court and, and, and sort of do this exegesis of letters to figure out what the policy should be.

Um, that’s the kind of attitude that I’m arguing that we should, we should challenge, partially because I think the Founders demonstrated what is possible when you ask yourselves more fundamental questions of political philosophy, of ethics. Um, and I think we have a culture of idolizing Founders that actually takes us away from that, ironically.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:31:24):

Well, again, I, I agree with a lot of y- what you’re saying, uh, it’s ridi- um, I sh- um, respectfully say that it’s ridiculous to (laughs) to try to, um, get, uh, immediate, uh, answers from the fed- from the Founding Fathers to problems of today. What would the Founding Fathers say about artificial intelligence? Should we give them rights? This is actually being discussed right now. (laughs)

Osita Nwanevu (00:31:48):

Yeah.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:31:49):

Um, should, should bots have, have rights? And they would be incapable, I don’t think they could ever have imagined such a thing. But pr- you mentioned, but the, uh, uh, uh, but you mentioned, I’m- I’m not trying to b- d- worship them again, but I’m saying that studying them... I think you mentioned something about intentions, uh, and looking at what they intended. And sometimes it sounds like you really think that there was something beautiful about what they intended, um, but that now we’ve moved beyond it. And I think that studying them with- exercising our critical judgment, not dismissing them, not idolizing them, but studying them with respect and admiration for what they did, we can see what’s good and what’s bad. Where, where can we learn from them? Where can we not learn from them? So again-

John Donvan (00:32:39):

Do you, do you feel, Helena, that, that they, that they embodied democra- uh, d- democratic impulses and convictions in the way that Osita is talking about?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:32:50):

Okay. So that gives me a chance to, to talk about, uh, O- Osita talks about democracy, I would talk about liberal democracy. I’ve written a book on, on the history of liberalism, and I think in this country, we often confound the two. Now, democracy, if, you, you know, go back to ancient Greece, it s- means direct democracy, right? Every citizen votes for legislation. And, uh, uh, and obviously they, they didn’t have representative gov- uh, democracy, uh, yet. And today we have something we call liberal democracy. Li- democracy, the Founding Fathers thought, needs to be contained. We need protections for individuals, for groups. Uh, we need, uh, w- direct democracy is not a good thing. Do we believe that crowds from the street should decide, uh, uh, make, legislate? No. Uh, we need people, uh, with some experience, we need to, uh, elect experience who can then represent the people in a, in, in a liberal democracy.

Um, and, and democracy, uh, a- and so we have to be careful about what we mean by democracy. In Tocqueville, for example, he uses it, I think, six or seven times in different ways. Uh, so, so let’s be careful, le- let’s be clear about what we mean about democracy and understand that it needs to be contained in some way. I don’t know if you agree with that, but I certainly do. I- i- populism, we have, we have, uh, rulers in, in, all over the world right now who call themselves democrats, um, who are elected by the people directly and then dismantle all the protections that we hold so dear.

John Donvan (00:34:31):

Okay.

John Donvan (00:34:32):

I ju- I just wanna let, uh, Osita respond because you made a number of points there.

Osita Nwanevu (00:34:35):

I think I’d have a little bit more confidence in the wisdom of crowds than, than maybe she does. And I think there’s something to the idea of collective knowledge, collective intelligence. There’s a political theorist, Hélène Landemore, who I don’t fully agree with, but who’s written a couple of books on, on that question recently, that there’s something to putting a question to a large group of people, uh, that might give us more insight than giving it to a, a kind of expert. But I do, I do agree with the, the general principle of, if we believe in individual rights, and certainly democratic outcomes that can contravene them, and I think there, there should be institutions, uh, that, that deal with that.

Uh, the question is, do the institutions we actually have in the United States, uh, do that especially well, and do that in the ideal way? Uh, is there something, to the contrary, a little bit disturbing about having a Supreme Court that has that function, where people serve for life, and you have to turn on CNN whenever somebody takes a fall, to whether, to see whether or not we’re gonna have a fundamentally different policy on climate change or abortion rights or, or something like that? I think that’s kind of crazy. It’s not something you see in other liberal democracies around the world. Uh, so we should be permitted to ask these kinds of questions and to, again, have a kind of critical distance from the institutions that we’ve, uh, we’ve inherited. Um-

John Donvan (00:35:41):

You, you, w- we, we, um, it, it seems you are agreeing that the Founders were suspicious, were concerned about pure democracy, that there’s no disagreement about that.

Osita Nwanevu (00:35:50):

Yes. Yes.

John Donvan (00:35:50):

Do you think that that was a wise, uh, position on their part, Osita?

Osita Nwanevu (00:35:55):

Well, I mean, I think that the- first of all, it’s, it’s important to sort of disaggregate what they said on many of these questions. I mean, I, I, I have a lot of fun telling people when it comes to critiquing the Senate, for instance, that Madison thought that equal representation in the Senate was a terrible idea, and said so, the Convention, can barely bring himself to defend it, uh, in the Federalist papers, because he thought that it would create these distortions in policymaking that would lead to majority- minority rule, rather, in Congress. I think we’ve seen those predictions bear out.

So even as skeptical as the Founders were of democracy, they did come to some compromises within the construction of our present system, that even people like Madison and Hamilton disagreed with. And so that’s something to take seriously. But on the whole, yes, they were rather skeptical of the idea that we should have a popular rule. Um, I talk in the book about the particular things they were concerned about in the lead-up to the Convention and the economic policies they were concerned about and the wanting to, to, to want to thwart.

Um, but, you know, I, I, I think, you know, there’s this question that we always ask ourselves, is the United States a republic or a democracy? Um, I think it’s a, it’s a misleading and oversimplified question in many respects. And what I’m arguing for is a kind of democratic republic. Uh, republican governance is about, fundamentally, again, this is very, very condensed, uh, making sure that there is not accretions of power in one particular place. It might be an all-powerful king, it might be a kind of unruly mass public that doesn’t know what it’s doing. You need stable institutions, the rule of law, good rules for governance that, that are steady in order to make governance sensible. And I think that’s the perspective I have [inaudible 00:37:26] would like to see.

John Donvan (00:37:27):

And, and, and, and just to bring this back to the Founders, you’re saying the Founders did not get that part right?

Osita Nwanevu (00:37:31):

I think the Founders believed in a different kind of republican governance that was less democratic. Um, I think that they wanted to protect certainly property owners. I think they wanted to protect men like themselves. Uh, obviously you did not have free, uh, suffrage, uh, at the beginning of this country, even for white men, it was propertied white men who had the ability to, to express themselves politically. So they, they believed in a fundamentally more restrictive, um, and less open kind of republican governance than the kind I’m talking about.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:37:58):

Uh, you’re talking about th- how we need good rules. Another reason I really respect the Founders is that they realized that constitutions are not enough, that, uh, civic values are necessary, that morals are necessary, um, that the b- uh, the idea of what makes a citizen is important. And I know they didn’t always live up to these values, but they knew that they were important. And to a certain extent, with these culture wars and discussions about woke and so on and the anger that’s out there, um, we, uh, need that first, w- I think we need to build that first before we can even think about changing the Constitution. I don’t think that’s gonna work. I don’t think it’s practical.

I think it’s more impor- and I’m very glad, and I’m very happy with these, um, sort of civic centers that are popping up around the country in, in various... And, and, uh, and I’ve been to, uh, uh, quite a few of them. And, um, I think that’s, that’s very good. They are discussing, they are debating the Constitution, they are debating what it takes to be a citizen. And I think this is so important. If we keep, um, denigrating, uh, the Founders and the Constitution, it creates cynicism, I think. S- uh, people are, are less, uh, likely to participate in politics. And, um, and that’s very sad. You know, you mentioned Jefferson, and didn’t he say something, you’re m- more of an expert, I think, than I, didn’t he say something where, when somebody asked him, “What kind of government are we?” And he said, “We’re a republic if we can, if we can, keep it.”

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:39):

It’s Franklin.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:39:40):

Oh, Franklin.

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:41):

It was Elizabeth Willing Powel asking after the Convention, I think, breaks off in Philadelphia. Uh, and this is apoc- this almost certainly did not happen, but the story is-

Helena Rosenblatt (00:39:50):

(laughs) Okay.

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:50):

... this, this woman, Elizabeth Willing Powel-

Helena Rosenblatt (00:39:51):

Another beautiful story.

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:52):

Yes, exactly.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:39:53):

Another beautiful-

Osita Nwanevu (00:39:53):

Another beautiful story. But, yeah, she asked, she asked, uh, Franklin walking out of the, the conventional hall, what kind of repub- uh, government we have. And he says, “A republic, if we can keep it.”

John Donvan (00:40:01):

Uh, now we’re gonna bring in some other voices, people who have been following the debate so far, uh, and who, who know this topic, have been thinking and writing about this topic, and they’re gonna each be, uh, welcomed to ask a question to our debaters. So first, I wanna, uh, say hello to Manisha Sinha. Manisha is the Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut. Uh, most recent book is called The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860 to 1920. Manisha, w- welcome. Thanks for joining us very much. And what s- questions do you have for our debaters today?

Manisha Sinha (00:40:32):

Thank you so much, John, for having me, and I really have enjoyed listening to both Osita and Helena put forward their positions. And I have a quick question, a two-part question. Uh, the first, uh, is to both of you, and that is, uh, can we look at the Founders as an undifferentiated lot?

John Donvan (00:40:51):

Let me ta- let me take that to them first, so that we can remember the- have to remember your second question. Were they all the same person? Were they just a lump of the same people doing the same thing? Or w- do they deserve, uh, distinct reputations and respect and honor, uh, ne- at this point in history? Um, w- why don’t you take that first, Osita?

Osita Nwanevu (00:41:08):

Uh, the Founders had a lot of different ideas, a lot of clashes. Um, I think that the, uh, account Madison writes, his notes on the Convention, it is a great, great, uh, look at some of the debates around the Constitution, in particular, that they had to have in order to draft that document. Um, so no, the Founders were not an undifferentiated lot, they disagreed about certain fundamental things, and there are things we can learn from those disagreements, uh, to this day.

Um, at the same time, I think that as undifferentiated, or as differentiated rather, as, and, and, and diverse as they were, as a class of people, I, I do think it, it does make sense to have a kind of critical attitude towards them. Um, they’re Founders that are more and less sympathetic to progressive eyes. I think, ironically, for as, as much as people judge his personal conduct, uh, I think harshly f- and for, for good reasons, Jefferson, I think (laughs) is closest to the progressive mindset in a lot of different questions, especially the Constitution. Um, but no, you’re, you’re right, the, the Founders were not all one class people with the same cast of mind that we can look to, uh, with a kind of unified intention.

John Donvan (00:42:08):

Helena?

Helena Rosenblatt (00:42:09):

Right. Uh, uh, I agree. They’re not, um, they are, they are an undef- differen- they are very different.

John Donvan (00:42:15):

They’re different.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:42:15):

(laughs)

John Donvan (00:42:15):

Yeah.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:42:16):

They’re very different, um, quite different. Um, but I think that’s another reason we can admire them, because they debated. They debated and they made compromises. And that’s why maybe the Constitution, um, also has, uh, serious flaws, particularly how it accommodated slavery. Um, but they did debate and they got something done, uh, which is, uh, more than we can say about today’s politicians and legislators. (laughs)

John Donvan (00:42:49):

And Manisha, your second q- question?

Manisha Sinha (00:42:51):

Yes. And I, I would, I would just add to that that maybe we have a broader cast about this, especially enslaved people who sued and petitioned for their freedom and ended up enacting ab- abolition in many of the Northern states.

Um, my second part had to do with the Constitution, because you both talked a lot about the Constitution as the founding document and whether, uh, you know, we should keep it or amend it or change it. And my question to both of you is this. You know, the, the second founding that Osita referred to, what I call the Second American Republic, the First American Republic actually fell, that there was a long, drawn out Civil War, uh, which led to, uh, a new constitution, virtually. But if you look at the 14th Amendment that, you know, naturalized what we now call the Bill of Rights, it was called Bill of Rights by the person who actually wrote the 14th Amendment. Uh, my question to both of you then is, um, are we looking at a completely new constitutional order, or are we really thinking about re-founding the Republic at different periods to constitutional amendments and federal law, as has been done in the United States? This mythic thing that we’ve had one linear constitution is not actually accurate. So what- what’s, what would you recommend today, uh, in constitutional change?

John Donvan (00:44:11):

I, I’ll let you go first, Helena, because I’m not sure that you’re actually calling for a significant overhaul or a radical overhaul. But I’ll let you go first to tell us whether you are or not.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:44:19):

No, I’m, no, I’m not. Um, I think we can work within the Constitution, um, and, and make amendments where necessary. I know it’s difficult, but it’s surely even more difficult to overhaul it completely.

Osita Nwanevu (00:44:34):

So my brief answer is that, uh, I don’t really know. I mean, I, I’m arguing for opening the door to constitutional changes. I think that that might take the form of amendments, although I think the process is very hard. I think there are things we can do in ordinary legislation. But I do think ha- having this horizon that 100 years from now, 150, we might have a different document, it’s not something that, that scares me, I think that we should be closed to. It’s a matter of asking ourselves what, uh, institution would best serve our needs and moving in that direction.

John Donvan (00:45:01):

Thank you very much. Manisha, thank you so much for joining us and for your question.

Uh, I now wanna bring in Michael McConnell. Michael is a professor and faculty director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law. Uh, also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Michael, thanks so much for, uh, for listening in and for joining us now with your question for our debaters.

Michael McConnell (00:45:18):

Uh, thank you. Uh, what I always want to ask is, compared to what? So we’re supposed to stop idolizing the Founders, but compared to what? And particularly for Osita, you’re certainly right that we now have better science, better political science, lots more experience, uh, but I wonder whether we actually have better leaders, uh, than back then. Is there... In terms of people of courage and farsightedness and public-spiritedness, uh, would there be a single statesman, American statesman in the 21st century who you think stacks up to the likes of, uh, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton?

Osita Nwanevu (00:45:59):

Uh, no. I think the 21st century is kind of a fallow field for the [inaudible 00:46:04] leadership. Uh, fortunately, though, we’ve had 250 years of history we can look to. Um, I do think, as I said at the outset, that there have been leaders, uh, who followed the Founders, who did h- tremendous, extraordinary things for the country, uh, both as conventional politicians and, and also people outside of formal politics. I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t consider people like Martin Luther King, uh, part of this pantheon, if we must have one, of people who really pulled this country in a fundamentally different direction and, and improved it. So no, the 21st century is, is pretty bleak ground. Um, but that’s a call for us to stand up and expect more of our leaders, not to extol or over-idolize, uh, the people in the first founding generation.

John Donvan (00:46:43):

Helena, I s- I suspect the question resonates with you.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:46:45):

Yeah, the question reson-

John Donvan (00:46:45):

The premise of the question.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:46:48):

The premise of the question-

John Donvan (00:46:48):

Yeah.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:46:48):

... uh, does resonate with me, um, precisely because we don’t have, uh, the leaders that would, uh, a- anything comparing to these, to these men, who again, I don’t idolize, but I think are marvelous examples and did something really beautiful for the country. Um, I don’t wanna take too much time, but I can talk, a- again about France, where, uh, Madame De Stael, I’m writing a, a book about this fabulous woman, she lamented, um, during the revolution that they didn’t have f- im- good men like, um, we had in America. And sh- and, uh, be- and because of that, uh, because of the need for people also, as I said earlier, the need for people to have good leaders, to have good examples, they got Napoleon, they got demagogues. Uh, this was the result of more direct democracy.

John Donvan (00:47:42):

Thank you very much, uh, for that answer, Helena. And, um, thank you very much for your question, Michael. Um, I now want to bring in John Malcolm. John is vice president for the Meese Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom. John, thanks for joining us and for listening in. Um, and what question do you have for our debaters?

John Malcolm (00:47:57):

Sure. Uh, so I certainly agree that the Founders were not perfect. As James Madison said in Federalist number 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Uh, nonetheless, uh, the Founders drafted our constitution, which is the oldest written, uh, constitution that’s still active today. The Founders also established a government based on the consent of the government, founded on the concept that all men are created equal and had certain God-given inalienable rights, which was unthinkable in a world, uh, that was governed by military rulers and hereditary monarchs.

So my question, Osita, is- is the following. Would you concede that the principles underlying our government and the system of checks and balances that the Founders set up with the ability to amend the Constitution in a way that requires substantial support, but not unanimity, uh, of the entire country, that this was very admirable and worth studying and celebrating?

John Donvan (00:48:49):

And preserving, by the way?

John Malcolm (00:48:51):

Yes.

John Donvan (00:48:51):

Is that part of your question? Okay.

Osita Nwanevu (00:48:53):

Well, I think worth studying for sure. Uh, celebrating, you know, I, I think again, I, I, I go into this in more detail than I possibly could here in the book, uh, about what I think the flaws of the Constitution are. Um, but I will, what I will say here is that, you know, as admirable as it might have been in 1787 to create, as I said, this truly new form of government to, to empower people, I think, more than was the case under British rule, um, the age of the document since then is not something that intrinsically recommends it. I don’t think that somebody saying, “Well, I have the oldest car on this block still in operation,” is, is necessarily a, a good recommendation (laughs) of, of that mode of transport. We have to have a critical, uh, reading of the document and, and understand whether it serves our interests and our purposes today. That’s what I’m arguing for.

Um, so certainly Constitution is worth studying, and I, I wouldn’t even say that there’s nothing admirable about it as, as a document that, uh, is crafted at the end of the 18th century. Um, but we’ve had a lot of experience since then, we have new problems, we have new concerns, we have new interests, and I think we should be open to reconsidering our constitutional arrangements on that basis.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:49:57):

I, would just say that, uh, the, the language that I mentioned in my opening sentence, um, “We the people,” and n- the idea of natural rights and equality, uh, even though it refers to men, uh, and it was white men, uh, and no women, these people have used these principles. Women argued for their rights on the basis of the Constitution. Uh, slaves did as well. These words have resonance, uh, they’re beautiful. And I think it’s dangerous to, r- really, in this, in this situation, I think I’ve said, I, I mean, dangerous is a, i- is a serious word, but I, I really believe that a- at, at this moment particularly, we need to defend the Constitution. We need civic education. We need people to learn the Constitution and to understand what it says and admire and f- and show gratitude to the Founding Fathers.

John Donvan (00:50:59):

John, do you have a follow-up question based on the answers you heard?

John Malcolm (00:51:02):

Well, look, I certainly think that we should be amenable, uh, to amending the Constitution. We’ve done it 27 times before. But it is a founding charter, under the Articles of Confederation, it was unanimous. And here, you require a broad support across the country, which is what it should mean when you’re going to amend our founding charter. And I guess I would ask, uh, Osita whether he thinks that other countries, where they amend the Constitution in the same way that they might change, uh, a dinner order by looking at a menu, is a preferable system.

Osita Nwanevu (00:51:35):

Well, certainly I don’t agree with Jefferson that 19 years is appropriate. I think that the right amount of time for a Constitution’s lifespan is probably between 19 and 239. I think that something (laughs) something in that range seems a little bit more appropriate. I mean, I think the, uh, University of Chicago did a study, uh, maybe a decade ago, where they found that, in the developed world, the average lifespan of a constitution is something like 30 years. Um, and there, yes, there, there are revolutions and reasons why that might be the case in certain cases, but you also see examples like Sweden, for instance, where they just decided that enough time had passed in peace time to fundamentally think about their institutions, whether they were still working, and to come up with a different document. That does happen too.

Um, and again, you know, uh, all these problems that, uh, Helena mentions, which I think are real problems, the divisions in American society, demagoguery, um, you know, the absence of the rule of law, there are ways in which, again, ways that I explore more deeply in the book and my other writing, I think the Constitution has actually exacerbated these things, especially when it comes to the power that the President now wields. People warned, back when the Constitution was being ratified, that we created an executive that was going to be overly powerful and the Constitution did not provide special checks for this. I think we’re seeing examples of that every single day now. So there are things that I think are wrong with our politics that are not just, uh, matters of ignoring the Constitution. I think the Constitution exacerbated some of our political woes, and it’s time for us to take that seriously.

John Donvan (00:52:55):

John, thank you very much for your question and for joining us. And Helena, um, I- I, i- in fairness, I wanna give you a chance to respond to Osita if you would like to, but I have another question I’d like to bring to you if you don’t wanna respond to that.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:53:06):

No, that’s okay. I though it was kind of fun that he, that he, Osita, um, spoke about Sweden, because as you know, (laughs)-

John Donvan (00:53:13):

(laughs)

Helena Rosenblatt (00:53:13):

... I’m Swedish. And I don’t know if we can compare the United States to a small country of eight million people, I think they’re 10 million now. Uh, very, very similar in culture, although that’s changing now. Uh, but, uh, anyway, uh, i- it’s a very different kind of, uh, project to change the American Constitution and change the Swedish one.

John Donvan (00:53:34):

We’re gonna go to our closing round in just a moment, but before we do, a, a question that has occurred to me as we’ve been listening to this conversation, prompted by, um, Helena, your talking about the impact of the current discourse, um, on college students. I remember growing up, long time ago, (laughs) going to school, and we were very, very much given, what I think Osita would call a- almost the religion, civic religion of the Founders, um, pictures of George Washington... Oh, it was always George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, those were the two national birthdays that we celebrated. And we were very, very much told the story that these were, uh, men of extreme nobility, who were special, who did belong on a pedestal, um, who did deserve their own days, and that there was nobody like them. Do you feel that... A- a- and, and get- and getting that in childhood was very, uh, really, really is an, a very powerful imprint.

Um, I’d like to ask each of you whether you think there should be changes to the way smaller children are taught, where that imprint first happens in the culture, because it is so important? I’ll, I’ll have you go first with that, Osita.

Osita Nwanevu (00:54:47):

Well, I mean, I think it’s hard. I think it’s hard to talk to small children (laughs) about matters of politics and history in general. Um, you know, especially when it comes to things like, uh, the reality of slavery. Um, on the one hand, obviously, I, I wish that people knew more about our history there and, and the darkness and evil that was involved there. How do you talk to somebody who’s eight years old about that, you know? That, that, uh, there’s, I think, a real difficulty there. And I think it’s true that we need to teach people about our history, where this country came from. Um, so I don’t really know. I mean, I, I, I think that’s a question that’s best, uh, you know, suited to people who have the, I think, very difficult task of trying to t- (laughs) impart civics to very young people today.

Um, but I will, what I’ll say, though, is that, you know, when it comes to the attitudes we have as adults about these, uh, people, um, the actual culture we have is very concerning. Um, as you said at the very beginning, we have a president who attacks historians and attacks museums if they offer any kind of critical attitude towards the Founders. We have people who are, that regard as suspicious if they have anything but a reverential attitude in their public writing about people like Jefferson. And I think that that’s an unhealthy culture. So whatever happens at the level of young people, um, certainly when it comes to people who are adults and should be having adult conversations and frank conversations about where this country came from, um, you know, I, I don’t think we have a culture that, that, that, uh, takes criticism, uh, very well. And I hope that changes.

John Donvan (00:56:11):

Well, you, you kind of wandered a little bit off the, what do we teach kids question a little bit (laughs).

Osita Nwanevu (00:56:14):

Yeah, sorry.

John Donvan (00:56:16):

Because, because... No, that’s okay. I think your answer is, you’re not sure, um, which is p- perfectly reasonable. Um, but I want to take the same question to you, Helena, again-

Helena Rosenblatt (00:56:23):

Yeah. I-

John Donvan (00:56:23):

... to get out of the, the college age student, because I, I really think these things begin really early.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:56:28):

It’s very funny because I had some closing remarks that refer to that (laughs). But I would answer your question, uh, yes, uh, I think we can, um, say that they’re exceptional people to six-year-olds, to first-graders, to second-graders, to third-graders. I think we should add other heroes from American history, we should add Martin Luther King, we should add, uh, but not demote those, uh, brilliant, uh, and ad- admirable men.

John Donvan (00:57:00):

I, I... Because I, I might have stumbled into your opening, your closing remarks, I don’t wanna drain that moment for you. So why don’t we move to our closing remarks then, and, and call it a wrap on the discussion portion. So we’re gonna move to our closing round, and it’s where the debaters have one more time, very briefly, to make their case, uh, for why they are taking the side they are. Osita, you’re up first, one more time, why you believe that we should stop idolizing the Founding Fathers. The floor is yours.

Osita Nwanevu (00:57:22):

So thanks again for having me. Um, so I was actually in D.C. on the 4th of July. I was there to write a little bit about the commemorative events, uh, all the song and dance that was going on. Um, and I decided to take a moment to actually go to the National Archives. For as much as I’d spent time in D.C., lived in D.C., I’d never actually gone into that place to see the Constitution, see the Declaration. It was about 102 degrees outside. I was there for two hours with people who were eager to see them.

And once you got into this space, um, the first thing you notice, as the historian Pauline Maier has written in her wonderful book, American Scripture, um, is that this place is kind of like a shrine, it’s kind of like a, a chapel, something you would see in a kind of religious building. Um, and there are these throngs of people who are there in front of these documents, crowding around them, to the point where you can’t actually see them. People are doing selfies, people are trying to take pictures with their children. Um, it’s this kind of mob scene. And, and in it all, you can’t actually see the documents at hand very closely until you push and shove your way towards them. If you do, in the Declaration’s case, the document is, is basically faded to the point of illegibility, even when you get up there.

Uh, one of the things I noticed is that, out in the corner of this rotunda, they have the 19th Amendment, which was totally unseen by most people, not of any interest, the engrossed copy that, that they, they had in Congress. And, you know, as a journalist, you look for visual metaphors to try to make (laughs) to make the argument that you’re trying to make. But, you know, this was the, almost a perfect example to the point... Like, we worship them to the point that we obscure what they actually did, we obscure the history that followed them.

And, you know, for me, I think the most interesting thing in that room was not the documents themselves, but seeing the American people, in their diversity, in their differences, from all corners of the planet, um, coming together, um, to respect history, sure, but I, I thought that th- that crowd was more interesting than, than the documents that they were there to see. Uh, it was a vision of a country the Founders couldn’t have imagined, a beautiful country, uh, and one that I think it’s still a, a privilege to be a part of. And I’d like us to take more of an interest in ourselves and our possibilities.

John Donvan (00:59:26):

Thank you very much, Osita. And, uh, Helena, you get the last word with your closing, please.

Helena Rosenblatt (00:59:30):

Okay, wonderful. So, I, I also have a personal story. And that’s what, that’s, um, again, in, in my, uh, school in Beirut, Lebanon, uh, the American Community School, where every morning we were asked to... There was a flag in the classroom, and we were asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. And I thought, as a Swedish citizen, I thought that was beautiful. It was a beautiful moment. We are pledging allegiance to a flag that represents an idea and a constitution. It’s not a person, it’s not a king, it’s an idea. And it’s something that binds us together. Uh, it, you, uh, Osita just talked about also people coming together to look at the Constitution. Now, that’s beautiful. We need moments like this, more than ever today, to bring us together.

John Donvan (01:00:25):

Thank you very much. Um, and, uh, sounds like I didn’t steal your thunder, so, uh, (laughs) very much appreciate your closing. And I appreciate both of you as, uh, we wrap up the debate. I want to thank Osita and Helena. Uh, we really appreciate that you were willing to have this conversation, that you, um, approached it the way you did, that you argued civilly. Of course, there’s a lot of common ground, but there was some meaningful disagreement and you talked it through in a way that let us all learn from the points you’re making. So thank you very, very much for taking part in the program.

Helena Rosenblatt (01:00:54):

Thank you.

Osita Nwanevu (01:00:55):

Thank you so much.

John Donvan (01:00:56):

Uh, I’d also like to thank, uh, the other voices that joined the conversation, uh, Manisha Sinha, uh, and, uh, Michael McConnell and John Malcolm, thank you very much for bringing in interesting questions and moving the conversation in an even more interesting direction. And finally, a big thank you to you, our audience, uh, for tuning in to this episode of Open To Debate. We’re a nonprofit working to combat extreme polarization through what you just saw, which was civil debate. And our work is made possible because of you, by listeners like you, and by the Rosenkranz Foundation and by supporters of Open To Debate.

Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Our CEO is Lia Matthow. Andrew Lipson is head of production. Michele Debreceni is head of marketing. This episode was produced by Julia Sirkin. Alexis Pancrazi is our executive producer. The Open To Debate team also includes Catie Perry, Gabriella Mayer, Gabrielle Iannucelli, Linda Lee, and Scott Jacobi. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode. Our theme music is by Alex Clement.

(01:01:46):

And I’m John Donvan. We’ll see you next time on Open To Debate.