historian and executive director of the george washington presidential library talks about president biden's decision to not seek reelection and sister were your loans with other presidents who chose to end their public careers, and south carolina republican congressman wells norman talks about camping 2024 and is really prime minister -- israeli's prime minister benjamin netanyahu's address to congress. watch on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including midco. ♪

announcer: midco supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. a political historian and also the author of “disunion among ourselves." the perils of politics of the american revolution. also author of "american, wealth -- commonwealth." thank you for joining us. guest: good to be with you. host: what with the founding fathers say about the current state of political polarization in the u.s.? guest: i feel with confidence based on my book and research i have done that the number one thing they would say and repeat

over and over again is we are getting something incredibly wrong about democracy or a democratic republic. they would say civility is equally as important as the constitution in maintaining a republic or a democracy. they would say what we are getting most incorrect, dangerously incorrect, is the prevalence and pervasiveness of demagoguery in american clinical discourse and the presence of demagogues in the political system and our media systems. most importantly, they would be shocked to find that we have recently elected the first demagogue as president of the united states and that demagogue is on course now to, as we all

know, donald trump, to become president again. their insight would be to say we have not studied and understood democracy well enough to understand demagogues bring down democracies. we can talk about what that process is. for anyone -- for further clarification of what demagoguery is and what a demagogue is, a demagogue is a political figure ora media figure specific -- or media figure who practices fear mongering and hatemongering, division, bigotry, disinformation and demonization as a method to gain political power or sustain clinical power. it's an achilles of democracy that this method -- achilles' heel of democracy that this sometimes works.

once a demagogue is deep into the skin or the brain or the neuroscience of the brain it is possible to frighten people into voting for a strong mentor demagogue -- strongman or demagogue. that is what they would say. they would say we need to get to work immediately on a vast and profound mitigation project with regard to demagoguery and demagogues. this is what causes polarization. host: your book came out last year, “disunion among ourselves ." tell us about your book and why you chose to write about that topic. guest: the story of how i got interested in that topic has a lot to do with the history of our country and where the north-south civil war actually

originated. as i began to look at the early records of the founding period, i found in fact that the greatest fear of the founders -- we tend to think and historians have long handed down there greatest fear was the british army and navy. certainly at that time in the 1770's and 1780's the greatest and mightiest military and political force on earth was the british army. there was something to fear. if you look at the records, you find the greatest fear was that something would happen within the federal government at that time. the government then was donnelly composed of the continental congress. they figured something would happen in the continental congress that would cause the breaking apart of the original 13 colonies, later described as states. they would form separate confederations, separate countries. what is the problem with that

that instead of forming one united states we formed two or three separate nations or confederations? it might have been very natural in terms of their understanding of democracy and the differences between new england and the middle colonies and the southern colonies. there greatest fear was they were going to end up fighting and civil wars. they had all manners of unresolved problems among them. they feared the finances of the nation, the debt they owed france and some to spain and commerce on rivers, commerce and land and the disposition of lands in the country -- there was a lot of unclaimed land -- who was going to get it? they did not result these differences through the remediating process of the central government, they were certain they would fight civil wars. that is the central conclusion.

what was that something they could happen in the continental congress that could lead to a breaking apart of the government? i posit to you it was the pursuit of one of the geographic regions or the others. highly explosive topics such as trade differences, slavery, and also to repeat my earlier findings about the founders, they feared demagogues and demagoguery ate its way into the government that would be a crucial force to break apart the government and lead to what is a three stage chain reaction. division and demagoguery breaks apart the unit states. that lease to the formation of two or three separate confederations and then they fight civil wars. in the book i call that shotgun wedding, leading to a shotgun marriage that the founders and their various 13 colonies stayed together because they felt they had no other option. that is the great finding of my

book. that is the unique angle i have taken. no one has written about that thing before. host: how do your findings, your book, what you talk about compare to what we are seeing today? did you find any similarities? guest: well, there are a number of similarities. in general, democrats and republican forms of government are not unique in the way they operate. to repeat myself, but they feared the most was an approach the politics which was fear mongering and hatemongering. they feared what happened most nominally then was a demagogue would rise up, declare himself in that time against the federal government in the attempt, and frankly one of the greatest fears was patrick henry might do

that and it attempt to form a southern confederation. that is somewhat similar to what we are encountering today. not precisely. our government is more coherent. there is less fear today. it was very fragile then. it was not inevitable we would form one country. we are one united states now. we hear talk of disunion. we hear talk of secession. we are hearing way too much talk about the prospect of civil war. they legitimately feared the toxicity dig got great -- demagoguery with the to the breaking apart of the government. today we in some ways unfortunately don't deeply understand the risks are current forms of demagoguery and polarization, what the outcomes can be. we are living in a more secure and unified democracy now. part of that was determined by the civil war. the question of can a

dissatisfied section of the country withdraw from the country on the basis of a sense of right. that was solved by the civil war. the constitution is not entirely clear on that but abraham lincoln made clear for whatever dissatisfactions secession will not be permitted. today we are looking at -- we talk a lot about polarization. we need to. i believe, and again i often like to think of myself as an ambassador for the founders because i have learned most about their political theories by studying the 1770's and 1780's. i think they would look and say and conclude that profit driven demagoguery in our society and demagoguery that leads to the acquisition of power -- i'm referring to the clinical system and our media systems -- this demagoguery leads to not just polarization and not just hyper

polarization but i think we all know now and in particular after the january 6 assault on the capitol and there are recent assassination attempt on donald trump, it leads to a place of a life-and-death polarization. those are parallels. all democracies are corrupt of these interests. that is what it is very important that when you are structuring a democracy in the form of checks and balances that one of the most important goals is to exclude demagogues and demagoguery from the body politic. host: we are talking with eli merritt, author of “disunion among ourselves: the perilous politics of the american revolution," about his books and what can teach us about today's political polarization. if you have a question, you can start calling in. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you talked about the country coming together despite their differences. we did unite. we are the united states. what was the ultimate motivation? what brought those colonies together? guest: very good question. in some ways that takes place in stages. i think -- we think of 45 or 50 founders at the constitutional convention of 1787. the truth is if you look at the service in the continental congress already -- starting in 1774 there were several hundred. i believe we brought them together here and ask them the question, they would all say, what brought us together was the

fight for liberty, justice and ultimately independence from the british. the circumstance of the 1760's and 1770's, a couple of things. one is that the 13 colonies had somewhat come to a place of maturity and capacity for independence. they were ready to not be treated as second-class citizens. that is the theme we see throughout all of our history. when individuals rise up against the establishment is a desire to no longer be treated as second-class citizens. we know this ultimately in the long journey and ongoing journey of african-americans in the united states to no longer be treated as second-class citizens. other people of color and of women to the longer be treated as second-class citizens. the fact is that the colonists

of the 1770's and 1780's felt categorically like they were being treated as second-class citizens on many fronts. importantly, they had no representation in the overarching government which determine the course of their lives. that was the parliament in great britain. this led them to demand from great britain and the parliament and king george iii equal rights and an end to the second-class citizen three of the colonists -- citizenry of the colonists. the seven parliament and the stubborn king george wanted to perpetuate the second-class citizenry of what was then white male ownership and expand later to the concept of second-class citizenry. they banded together. it was the fight for liberty and

justice and equality. ultimately independence initially united them. look at what happens once we have an end to the war of independence in the founders and the continental congress are on the brink of victory in the war and the peace treaty. you lose this binding force of the war to unite the founders and congress. that was a time of extraordinary peril from 1781 to 1783. they no longer have the war of independence as their unifying force. they have to find others. one of which is they did indeed want to become one of the greatest nations that ever existed on the planet. that was the plan of the founders in 1770's and 1780's. then again, you make reference to my book, i call the key idea the survivalist interpretation of the american revolution.

they could not come up with the an alternative. for many reasons the natural outcome after the war of independence had been them breaking into probably three different confederations. new england, the middle states and the southern states as i hope i communicated successfully. they felt they could not do that. envision the founders in their congress or in the continental congress as trying to work out their problems. what you got outside is guns lined up against them. that is the idea of the shotgun marriage. either they got married or they were going to step out after the war of independence and have what many of the founders said you will have a much worse and bloody were on your hands if you don't successfully unite. that was protecting civil wars over land contest between the states and possibly land contests over the acquisition of the millions of acres of land.

the peace treaty of 1783 we obtained all the land from the appalachian mountains to the mississippi river, doubling the size of the country. who was going to get that land? they needed once again to have a government to resolve those questions peaceably rather than without a central government. we note anything about human nature in history, men primarily fight wars over land. host: we have several callers waiting to ask you questions. we will start with adriana in los angeles on the democrats line. good morning, adriana. caller: how are you this morning? i have been listening to the speaker and i would like to know if he can make three or four citations in any of the documents of the 1700s which use the word demagogue. he used the term frequently. i think i would like to hear

more about that. guest: that is a wonderful question. i'm very glad you're asking that. one place where we find the use of demagogue that is perhaps not surprising is in 1787 -- most people know that george washington served for nine years as commander-in-chief and then retired. legitimately retired. he did not want to -- he had given so much of the american revolution that he went into retirement. 1783. by 1786 and 1787, the original 13 colonies under our first constitution, the articles of confederation, was spiraling apart. only after two weeks at the philadelphia convention in june of 1787, washington wrote two letters to the marqeta lafayette who many people know as his right-hand man, one of the most important aides.

he said i'tually out of my retirement because the people have lost confidence in our constitution. there is instability. i fear a demagogue -- he used the word demagogue will emerge or arise and that will end up pursuing selfish ends instead of altruistic ends and that will potentially lead to the downfall of the new country. another example of this is the constitution was completed in september of 1787. in october, many people know these things called the federalist papers. it's about 85 letters written by alexander hamilton, john jay and james madison persuading americans not to disband into separate confederations but to form one country. alex enter hamilton in federalist 1 and federalist 85 romines the people of that time,

1787. it reminds us now you must adopt a central government that has some strength, because demagogues are extraordinary risks. he worried -- as i mentioned earlier, a demagogue would arise and encourage the people to form separate confederations and that would lead to civil war. my favorite talk over the past few years goes by the title of "alexander hamilton's theory of democratic collapse." i will try to be brief as i described this. the great fear the demagogue was two things. one is that the demagogue, the fear mongering, the hatemongering and demonization an us versus them thinking basically damages the spirit of the people. if rank them apart, causes the hyper polarization. that's a bad enough damage that a demagogue does. even more significantly and more catastrophically for democracy

once a demagogue is in the power, what happens? they drink from the cup of power and what do we know the foremost principles and offputting philosophy is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. that is why the executive power is so dangerous. what happens to the demagogue? do they soften and decide i will step out of office peacefully? the demagogue already has an incredibly compromised moral compass. once power is added to the negative office, the theory is that the demagogue turns into authoritarianism. the famous quote is you may come in a demagogue but you exit a tyrant. that is one of those important political theories and all of our studies of history and one we need to deeply take the heart

today and the vast importance of mitigating demagoguery and demagogues' presence of the foot and the media system. i think that is the most important projects we need to be working on in the coming decade. i thought to myself recently lyndon johnson launched the great society project in the 1960's. we need something akin to the great society projects, specifically focused on restoring civility and a splitting demagogues and demagoguery because civility in a democracy is equally as important as the constitution and maintaining the stability and health of the democracy. host: let's hear from dan in palm bay, florida, republican line. caller: hi. is he talking about donald trump being a demagogue or the media being a demagogue? guest: good question. i should have clarified something you are bringing up.

it's a very common -- maybe it's how i pronounce it. not demigod. it is demagogue. it is a demagogue. i really am -- i care about our democracy and constitution and civil political discourse more than i care about anything. everyone may have a little partisan vote within them but when i talked about the importance in our democracy of mitigating and exclude demagogues from the presidential pipeline, i'm talking equally as much about. democrats and republicans that said, i will say authoritarian type presidents, people the jackson as a demagogue on a 4.5 or 5. nixon had more authoritarian

tendencies then demagoguery but he had some of that too. i will overstate it. the fact is that donald trump is an extra nearly talented demagogue. -- extraordinarily talented demagogue. i don't use that word in a critical way. i use it to describe a specific actor within a democracy. he is talented to the nth degree in demagoguery. i think of him as a turbocharged demagogue. the problem is that the vulnerability that democracies have going back to ancient athens is demagogues through the process i described. alexander hamilton's theory, demagogues do bring down marcy's. -- democracies. an agent at the -- in ancient athens they had the idea of building a democracy on monday,

all these people will participate, our friends in togas will give speeches and the people will vote. by thursday, they were saying what have we done? my gosh. that is where the invented almost medially the word demagogue, to recognize demagogues who use these unfortunate talents of fear mongering, hatemongering, division, demonization, etc. to do harm to democracy. yes, i'm talking about donald trump it only because he is the best people are going to be studying donald trump for as long as democracy survives and books are allowed to be written. there is freedom of conscience and independent study. i think in the next 500 years people will be studying donald trump as the most remarkable classic case of a demagogue in at least modern history.

host: robert in lake jackson, texas, independently. -- independent line. caller: hello and good morning to my fellow americans. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask a few questions to mr. merritt. my first question. in regards to president washington, he read his farewell address and i want to direct your attention [indiscernible] he warned about the formation of political parties in the united states. i wanted to know if you believe as i do that we ignored his warning and allow political parties to form because the political parties by their nature include and encourage

demagoguery and that i want to know if you believe that we should abolish political parties to correct the country's course. my second question is more of a hypothetical in regards to the current circumstances. my hypothesis is if the electoral college somehow by some chance [indiscernible] an even split of a majority to cause -- let's say the majority split between robert kennedy and marion williamson and causes

donald trump to lose, does that cause a runoff election or the the and senate taken from their -- take it from there? i will give you the floor to answer that. guest: i think those are great questions. i am pleased as punch you broader political parties. indeed, the founders were worried about political parties because of this process of polarization and the sectarian nation of human beings and the ease with which demagogues and the art of demagoguery can poison these groups. that said, they did correct the electoral college for many reasons. it was a check on the rise of demagogues, authoritarians and corrupt individuals into executive power.

that's failed but that's another long conversation to discuss why so quickly the electoral college disappeared in its efficacy. one reason was ultimately the emergence of political parties. i along with many thinkers in political science today believe for all the defects and difficulties our parties bring to our democracy, they actually are or should be a fundamental instrument of locking the rise of demagogues and authoritarians to executive power. how is this supposed to happen? in quick summary, as the political parties today are weak , very weak. they have no power within their conventions, either democrats or republicans, no power to block the emergence of the demagogue or authoritarian, even if it were hitler or stalin.

we have a primary system with delegates being bound. this to me is my second favorite talk. is the fatal flaw in our democracy today the fact that the political parties should be remarkable and formidable checks and balances on the rise of demagogues and authoritarians? now they serve no purpose in that regard. what a successful form of government is is systems of the will of the people being stacked up with checks and balances. the will of the people and checks and balances. the way a person becomes president today, there are no checks and balances. let me reiterate. zero checks and balances. we have a primary system which in is very dysfunctional way represents the will of the people, the extremist will of the people. that is pure democracy to become the nominee of a political party. after that, with a slight

dysfunction of the electoral college, it's another active peer democracy that elect the president of the united states. my deepest heartfelt view is we should have the will of the people determine the president. there is no question about that. but the political parties, we need to restore institutional power to our political parties so they do not have to allow a stall in order hi -- stalin or hitler to proceed from the convention into the presidential pipeline for the people to vote on. that is because in some ways no matter how educated the people are, demo calyx -- demagogues have the cult of personality to capture the brain, not of just people we described as the uneducated. i think that's a fallacy. as we have seen in the republican party over the past eight years or so, it is some of the best educated individuals in the country who have signed on under donald trump's demagoguery and some authoritarian

tendencies certainly devastated by his incitement of the gentry six assault -- january 6 assault. if the electoral college -- if someone in the electoral college does not achieve 270 votes, are system is sadly set up not to have a runoff. we could configure how it's done to have a runoff the way the reason he did in france. unfortunately, if you don't achieve 270 electoral college votes in the general election, what happens? the races thrown to the house of representatives and they don't vote by individuals. they vote by states. that does not seem like a great outcome for most people. that is one reason we narrowly pursued two parties and are fearful of one of those candidates not achieving 270 votes. the future of our democracy, in my view, i will be optimistic and