Supported by
How a Book From 1981 Anticipated This Political Moment
In this conversation, the New York Times Opinion columnists Carlos Lozada, a former book critic, and Pamela Paul, previously the editor of The Times’s Book Review, each share one book that, in their opinion, can help us understand this point in history.
How a Book From 1981 Anticipated This Political Moment
Two columnists sit down to discuss two books that crystallize this period in America.transcript
How a Book From 1981 Anticipated This Political Moment
Two columnists sit down to discuss two books that crystallize this period in America.
This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email transcripts@nytimes.com with any questions.
- speaker
This is “The Opinions,” a show that brings you a mix of voices from “New York Times Opinion.” You’ve heard the news. Here’s what to make of it.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
- pamela paul
I’m Pamela Paul, an opinion columnist for “The New York Times.”
- carlos lozada
And I’m Carlos Lozada, also an opinion columnist at “The Times.”
[MUSIC PLAYING]
- pamela paul
So both of us have had long roles in the book world. I was the editor of “The New York Times Book Review” for almost a decade. And you, of course, were the long-time nonfiction critic for “The Washington Post.” So the two of us tend to see things through the lens of books. And I thought this would be a good time for us to look at our current moment, whether that’s political, economic, historical, and think about a book that in some way captures or crystallizes or helps us understand this moment.
- carlos lozada
The book — the book —
- pamela paul
The book — the book of all time.
- carlos lozada
That’s a little — that’s a high bar.
- pamela paul
Yes, but you have a book. What did you pick?
- carlos lozada
I do. I have a book. So I should mention, in my prior incarnation as a book critic at “The Washington Post” and now as a columnist at “The Times,” I spent a lot of my time reading political books and thinking about this question — books that help explain the moment. So I’ve read my fill of books that explain the Trump era.
- pamela paul
You’ve written a whole book about books that explain the Trump era.
- carlos lozada
Yes, yes. Yeah, to get meta. And a lot of these are books that have come out in recent years. But the book that I keep turning to that helps me think about what is going on now is a much older book. It was published when I was in elementary school in 1981. I did not read it then. But it’s called “American Politics — The Promise of Disharmony,” by the late political scientist Samuel Huntington. I have a very tattered falling apart copy here in front of me.
- pamela paul
Yes, with many Post-Its to show that you’ve actually read it and reread it.
- carlos lozada
[LAUGHS]: Yes, exactly. Which I have. I keep coming back to it. So if you know Huntington, you probably know him for his “Clash of Civilizations” thesis from the ‘90s. If you’re a military buff, you may know him for this book “The Soldier and the State,” which he wrote in the ‘50s. He had a very long career.
This book is less well known. And it looks at what happens in America when we fail to live up to our professed values, to who we say we are. So he writes that there’s always a gap between our values of liberty and equality and individualism and constitutionalism, and the ability of our government and our institutions and our nation to live up to those values, to deliver on those values.
But he says that in moments when that gap is greatest, you get what he calls a moment “creedal passion.” We get mad because we can’t live up to the creed, right? And he says that in those moments, “the promise of American politics becomes its central agony.”
So he looks at the Jacksonian era. He looks at 1960s. He looks at various moments in American life. And he says, in these moments, here’s what happens. Authority and expertise are questioned. Polarization is high. Protest is high. Intense hostility towards power and wealth. You get new social movements surrounding criminal justice, surrounding women’s rights. And you see new media emerging devoted to advocacy and adversarial journalism. And he wrote this in 1981.
- pamela paul
1981. Yeah.
- carlos lozada
In ‘81. And when I first read it was in 2017. It was early in the Trump presidency. And it amazed me how well it anticipated so many of those debates. And what’s crazy is that he even wrote then, in ‘81 — he tried to anticipate when the next such creedal passion moment would happen. And he said, “If the periodicity of the past prevails, a major, sustained creedal passion period will occur in the second and third decades of the 21st century.”
- pamela paul
I thought you were going to say something scary, like in the fall of 2024.
- carlos lozada
[LAUGHS]: No, but we’re basically —
- pamela paul
That is — yeah.
- carlos lozada
— right on schedule, right? And so what I find fascinating about this book is that, in his telling, the American dream matters most because it is never quite fulfilled. The reconciliation of liberty with inequality and the rest is never complete.
But it’s not really a pessimistic book, even if it sounds like it. He has this line at the end that I just always think about. “Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie. It is a disappointment. But it can only be a disappointment because it is also a hope.”
And that is something that I think about and rely on all the time as I’m thinking about not just what I write about or what I do as a journalist, but just as a citizen. This kind of gets me by.
- pamela paul
So thinking about what we can expect in the next four years, what would you say — in what way does this book, “American Politics — The Promise of Disharmony,” not a very positive title —
- carlos lozada
It kind of gives it away. Right.
- pamela paul
Yeah. I mean, what does this tell us about where we are now in terms of what we think it means to be an American?
- carlos lozada
Yeah. One of the things I find fascinating about the book is how it highlights not just what Americans fight over, but how Americans fight over those things. Whether you’re debating health care or taxes or immigration or war, Americans invariably invoke the founding values. The founding creed of America to challenge whatever policy or injustice they perceive. So it’s not that a reform is just necessary or sensible. It has to be articulated and defended in terms of the creed. That’s not who we are is a very common attack line, right?
- pamela paul
Yes.
- carlos lozada
It’s not just it’s bad. It’s un-American. That’s why you see a lot of Trump’s opponents have often attacked his policies not just by saying they’re wrong, but by saying they’re un-American, they’re not who we are. And Huntington really speaks to that. He says, “Americans divide most sharply over what brings them together.” And so it’s those definitional questions that we overlay on all our debates. And I think you’ve seen that not just in the last election, but throughout the Trump era.
- pamela paul
Right. I mean, that was the response of many to the election, which was actually this is exactly who we are, and we have to deal with this.
- carlos lozada
Yeah. And I think that’s hard to deal with, because sometimes the way we make these arguments is not just about policy preferences, but these kind of foundational beliefs about what the country is or should be. And the rise of Trump has challenged that for a lot of folks who would instinctively rely on this is not normal. This is not who we are. When, in fact, it very much may be.
- pamela paul
Well, I’m going to read it, but I think I’m going to get a copy that is not as war torn as yours.
- carlos lozada
That is not falling apart. Yes. What’s yours? What’s your book that helps you figure out this time?
- pamela paul
So when you and I talked about this, when we conceived of having this conversation, is it the book of all time, is it the book that we read this year, and you went wide horizon. And I suffer from the tyranny of choice when I think about it in those terms. And I also have the residual way of thinking from my years at the “Book Review,” which is often like, what are the books this year? And even more often, what’s the book this week?
And I’m actually going to go even further to talk about the book that I read most recently. It is called “The Sing Sing Files — One Journalist, Six Innocent Men, and a Twenty-Year Fight for Justice,” by Dan Slepian, who is a producer at “Dateline.” And this book came out this year. And it looks at a subject that has of long been of interest to me, which is basically all of the problems with our criminal justice system.
I tend to look at every book that I’m reading at a given moment as the most important book of that moment. I tend to view it through the lens of what’s going on now. And when I was thinking about which book I wanted to choose, I didn’t want to think about it simply in terms of Washington or the presidential election, partly because I think we often focus so much on that, to the exclusion of the rest of the huge country and everything that’s going on.
So this book is an account of the work that Slepian has been doing for “Dateline,” but also, to a large extent, on his own time, looking at cases of wrongful conviction. In Sing Sing, an infamous prison that is in Ossining, New York, just outside of the city — and all of the people whom he writes about were imprisoned in Sing Sing, and all of them were convicted for crimes they did not commit. And all of them spent years in prison, even after it was quite clear there was overwhelming evidence that their convictions were wrong.
Of course, we’ve had a number of these very high-profile situations. And the Central Park Five is probably the most notorious case in New York. And that comes up in this book. And what is terrifying and depressing is that even after these very high-profile situations, where convictions have proven to have been incorrect and people are in prison, it can take years to get them out.
So what this book brought up for me are a number of things, both specific to the criminal justice system, but also tell a story about this country and the way it thinks about good and evil, and crime and punishment, and innocence and guilt. We are such a vindictive, vengeful kind of culture.
I think, especially right now, there’s a tendency to think in terms of good and evil, of bad guys, of good guys. We’re so polarized. We’re so incapable of re-examining our own biases and assumptions. And it’s that kind of ideological intransigence that makes this kind of petty, practical intransigence even worse.
- carlos lozada
I picked a book that was very much about American politics, these big picture questions of American identity and values. You picked something very specific, very contained — the lives of six people caught up in the criminal justice system. How do you see that book connecting in a tight way with the moment we’re living through politically?
- pamela paul
Yeah. Crime, which obviously is what this book focuses on, was one of the most common concerns articulated by voters. And in that sense, maybe there’s room for a little bit of optimism because criminal justice reform is one of the few issues that does have a certain degree of bipartisan support.
And I don’t know how much we can judge Trump two based on Trump one. But during the first Trump administration, he had the First Step Act. He was interested, it seems, and open to ideas around reforming the criminal justice system. So this might be one of those places where not only might we see movement on a state by state basis, but perhaps could see some positive change federally.
- carlos lozada
I think I should probably dip into the “Sing Sing Files.”
- pamela paul
Do you want to trade books?
- carlos lozada
If you don’t mind this old, tattered, pathetic copy, we can go ahead and do that.
- pamela paul
All right. On that note, on that holiday giving note, thank you, Carlos.
- carlos lozada
Thanks, Pamela.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
- speaker
If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. This show is produced by Derek Arthur, Sophia Alvarez Boyd, Vishakha Dharba, Phoebe Lett, Kristina Samulewski, and Jillian Weinberger. It’s edited by Kaari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek and Annie-Rose Strasser.
Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carole Sabouraud, and Efim Shapiro. Additional music by Aman Sahota. The fact-check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta, Kristina Samulewski and Adrian Rivera. The executive producer of “Times Opinion Audio” is Annie-Rose Strasser.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Below is an edited transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
Pamela Paul: Both of us have had long roles in the book world. I was the editor of The New York Times Book Review for almost a decade, and you, of course, were the longtime nonfiction critic for The Washington Post.
So the two of us tend to see things through the lens of books. And I thought this would be a good time for us to look at our current moment — whether that’s political, economic, historical — and think about a book that in some way captures or crystallizes or helps us understand this moment.
Carlos Lozada: The book of all time. That’s a high bar. Yes.
Paul: Yes. But you have a book. What did you pick?
Lozada: I do have a book. I should mention, in my prior incarnation as a book critic at The Washington Post and now as a columnist at The Times, I spent a lot of my time reading political books and thinking about this question — books that help explain the moment. So I’ve read my fill of books that explain the Donald Trump era, right?
Paul: You’ve written a whole book about books that explain the Trump era.
Lozada: Yes, to get meta. And a lot of these are books that have come out in recent years, but the book that I keep turning to that helps me think about what is going on now is a much older book. It was published when I was in elementary school, in 1981. I did not read it then, but it’s called “American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony,” by the political scientist Samuel Huntington. I have a very tattered, falling-apart copy here in front of me.
Paul: Yes, with many Post-its to show that you’ve actually read it and reread it.
Lozada: Yes, exactly. I keep coming back to it.
So if you know Huntington, you probably know him for his “Clash of Civilizations” thesis from the ’90s. If you’re a military buff, you may know him for his book “The Soldier and the State,” which he wrote in the ’50s. He had a very long career.
This book is less well known, and it looks at what happens in America when we fail to live up to our professed values, to who we say we are. He writes that there’s always a gap between our values of liberty and equality and individualism and constitutionalism and the ability of our government and our institutions and our nation to live up to those values, to deliver on those values.
But he says that in moments when that gap is greatest, you get what he calls “creedal passion.” We get mad because we can’t live up to the creed, right? And he says that in those moments, the promise of American politics becomes its central agony.
So he looks at the Jacksonian area. He looks at the 1960s. He looks at various moments in American life. And he says, in these moments, here’s what happens: Authority and expertise are questioned. Polarization is high. Protest is high. Intense hostility toward power and wealth. You get new social movements surrounding criminal justice, surrounding women’s rights. And you see new media emerging devoted to advocacy and adversarial journalism. And he wrote this in 1981.
Paul: 1981!
Lozada: And when I first read it, it was in 2017. It was early in the Trump presidency. And it amazed me how well it anticipated so many of those debates. And what’s crazy is that he even wrote then, in ’81 — he tried to anticipate when the next such creedal passion moment would happen. And he said, “If the periodicity of the past prevails, a major sustained creedal passion period will occur in the second and third decades of the 21st century.”
Paul: I thought you were going to say something scary, like in the fall of 2024.
Lozada: No, but we’re basically right on schedule, right? And so what I find fascinating about this book is that in his telling, the American dream sort of matters most because it is never quite fulfilled. The reconciliation of liberty with inequality and the rest is never complete. But it’s not really a pessimistic book, even if it sounds like it.
He has this line at the end that I just always think about: “Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie. It is a disappointment. But it can only be a disappointment because it is also a hope.” That is something that I think about and kind of rely on all the time as I’m thinking about not just what I write about or what I do as a journalist but just as a citizen. It kind of gets me by.
Paul: So thinking about what we can expect in the next four years: In what way does this book, “American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony” — not a very positive title —
Lozada: Kind of gives it away, right?
Paul: What does this tell us about where we are now, in terms of what we think it means to be an American?
Lozada: One of the things I find fascinating about the book is how it highlights not just what Americans fight over but how Americans fight over those things. Whether you’re debating health care or taxes or immigration or war, Americans invariably invoke the founding values, the founding creed of America to challenge whatever policy or injustice they perceive. So it’s not that a reform is just necessary or sensible. It has to be articulated and defended in terms of the creed. “That’s not who we are” is a very common attack line.
Paul: Yes.
Lozada: You know, “It’s not just bad. It’s un-American.” That’s why you see a lot of Trump’s opponents have often attacked his policies not just by saying they’re wrong but by saying they’re un-American — they’re not who we are. And Huntington really speaks to that. He says, “Americans divide most sharply over what brings them together.”
And so it’s those definitional questions that we overlay on kind of all our debates. And I think you’ve seen that not just in the last election but throughout the Trump era.
Paul: I mean, that was the response of many to the election, which was: Actually, this is exactly who we are, and we have to deal with this.
Lozada: Yeah. And I think that’s hard to deal with. Because sometimes the way we make these arguments is not just about policy preferences but these kinds of foundational beliefs about what the country is or should be. And the rise of Trump has challenged that for a lot of folks who would instinctively rely on “This is not normal. This is not who we are.”
Paul: Right.
Lozada: When, in fact, it very much may be. What’s your book that helps you figure out this time?
Paul: So when you and I talked about this, when we conceived of having this conversation, like, is it the book of all time? Is it the book that we read this year? And you went wide horizon, and I suffer from the tyranny of choice when I think about it in those terms. And I also have the residual way of thinking from my years at The Book Review, which is often, like, what are the books this year? And even more often, what’s the book this week?
And I’m actually going to go even further to talk about the book that I read most recently. It is called “The Sing Sing Files: One Journalist, Six Innocent Men, and a 20 Year Fight for Justice” by Dan Slepian, who is a producer at “Dateline.” This book came out this year, and it looks at a subject that has long been of interest to me, which is basically all of the problems with our criminal justice system.
I tend to look at every book that I’m reading at a given moment as the most important book of that moment. I tend to view it through the lens of what’s going on now. And when I was thinking about which book I wanted to choose, I didn’t want to think about it simply in terms of Washington or the presidential election, partly because I think we often focus so much on that, to the exclusion of the rest of the huge country and everything that’s going on.
So this book is an account of the work that Slepian has been doing for “Dateline” but also, to a large extent, on his own time, looking at cases of wrongful conviction in Sing Sing, an infamous prison that is in Ossining, N.Y., just outside the city.
All of the people whom he writes about were imprisoned in Sing Sing. And all of them were convicted of crimes they did not commit. And all of them spent years in prison even after it was quite clear there was overwhelming evidence that their convictions were wrong. Of course, we’ve had a number of these very high-profile situations. The Central Park Five is probably the most notorious case in New York, and that comes up in this book.
And what is terrifying and depressing is that even after these very high-profile situations where convictions have proved to have been incorrect and people are in prison, it can take years to get them out. So what this book brought up for me are a number of things, both specific to the criminal justice system and also about this country and the way it thinks about good and evil and crime and punishment and innocence and guilt.
And the specific things that it brings up that I think continue are the resistance to truth, the resistance to fact, often out of self-preservation. It’s really disheartening to read that even now, after cases like the Central Park Five, there is such strong systemic resistance within the criminal courts in New York, which we tend to think of as a pretty liberal city and state, to admitting that they’ve made a mistake and to taking steps to address that.
You realize that it is a dysfunctional, sclerotic, slow-moving system in which everyone is sort of looking out for their political future.
Lozada: So it’s not ideological in the sense you think. It’s really just people not wanting to go to the trouble that it would take to admit and undo mistakes.
Paul: Yes. It’s not ideological. It’s systemic. It’s practical. It’s petty. But where I do think ideology plays into in this larger story around incarceration and when I think about this country today, I think that we are such a vindictive, vengeful kind of culture. I think, especially right now, there’s a tendency to think in terms of good and evil, of bad guys, of good guys. We’re so polarized. We’re so incapable of re-examining our own biases and assumptions, and it’s that kind of ideological intransigence that makes this kind of petty, practical intransigence even worse.
And the other reason I wanted to talk about this book is just to talk about the fact that the criminal justice system at every step in the process is so troubled. I don’t want to use the word “problematic” because you and I both have a problem —
Lozada: Everything is problematic. Everything is problematic.
Paul: Yes. Every step, from arrest to prosecution to appeals to sentencing to the ways that prisons operate, that we profit off people’s imprisonment, that we continue to staff prisons with people who are not necessarily qualified or trained and that the guiding principles around our prison system are retribution and punishment. It’s not rehabilitation or redemption.
And therefore, we focus very little, once people are in prison, on programs like retraining and education and mental health care and substance abuse treatment. One of the things that I still find really appalling is the disenfranchisement of not only people while they’re in prison but of former convicts that sometimes never get to vote again.
You’re basically depriving people from having hope and a stake in the society that has punished them. You continue to punish them after they have served their sentence. And that, to me, is the ugliest side of America, but it’s very real.
Lozada: I picked a book that was very much about American politics, these big-picture questions of American identity and values. You picked something very specific, very contained — the lives of six people caught up in the criminal justice system. How do you see that connecting in sort of a tight way with the moment we’re living through politically?
Paul: Yeah. Crime, which obviously is what this book focuses on, was one of the most common concerns articulated by voters. And in that sense, maybe there’s room for a little bit of optimism because criminal justice reform is one of the few issues that does have a certain degree of bipartisan support.
And I don’t know how much we can judge Trump Part 2 based on Trump Part 1, but you know, during the first Trump administration, he had the First Step Act. He was interested, it seems, and open to ideas around reforming the criminal justice system, so this might be one of those places where not only might we see movement on a state-by-state basis but perhaps could see some change from the federal government.
Lozada: I think I should probably dip into “The Sing Sing Files.”
Paul: You want to trade books?
Lozada: If you don’t mind this old, tattered, pathetic copy, we can go ahead and do that.
Paul: All right. On that note, on that holiday giving note, thank you, Carlos.
Lozada: Thanks, Pamela.
Thoughts? Email us at theopinions@nytimes.com.
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Vishakha Darbha. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Carole Sabouraud. Original music by Isaac Jones and Carole Sabouraud. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. Our executive producer is Annie-Rose Strasser.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.
Carlos Lozada is an Opinion columnist and a co-host of the weekly “Matter of Opinion” podcast for The Times, based in Washington, D.C. He is the author, most recently, of “The Washington Book: How to Read Politics and Politicians.” @CarlosNYT
Pamela Paul is an Opinion columnist at The Times, writing about culture, politics, ideas and the way we live now.
Advertisement
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment