January 6, 2026 • 43 mins
Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, Trumps. For better of worse, their names are synonmous with American politics. We're rapidly approaching the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. But if we openly revolted against the monarchy that long ago, then why does America continue to prop up dynasty families? Or are there signs the dynasty is finally on its way out? Presidential historian Alexis Coe guides us through America's history of powerful political families and what it all means.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We've been hearing about the Kennedys for well for decades,
but recently there's one guy that's been on our TVs
and newspapers and all over social media a lot. Robert F.
Kennedy Junior. You know him currently as the US Secretary
(00:21):
of Health and Human Services. He is also a former
presidential candidate, and of course he's the son of Senator
and Attorney General Robert F.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Kennedy.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
He's also, as you may have guessed from the name
if you didn't already, the nephew of President John F. Kennedy,
so his lineage to the White House runs pretty deep.
We're approaching in America the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary
of the American Revolution. That was the pivotal moment that
we openly revolted against the Brits, against the monarchy. So
(00:54):
given that that's the case, and we're coming up on
two fifty, why do we continue to fuel political dynasty families.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
We love to think of ourselves as people who don't
like dynasties. We don't embrace dynasty. We're a meritocracy. You
pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And if we could
just go back to the founding r For a second,
there were still portraits of King George. Those did not
automatically come down because the grift had worked.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
My guest today is author and presidential historian Alexis Co.
Alexis and I will talk about the historic famous families
that have served America and what their political lineage reveals
about power, myth and the idea of authenticity in our democracy.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Today.
Speaker 4 (01:44):
Here we go again again again.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Hey, I'm cal Penn and this is Here We Go Again,
a show that takes today's trends and headlines and.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Asks why does history keep repeating itself?
Speaker 4 (01:58):
Here we he so.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Alexis Co is the author of You Never Forget Your First,
a biography of George Washington, as well as the forthcoming
Young Jack, a biography of John F. Kennedy nineteen seventeen
to nineteen fifty seven. She is a New York Times
best selling writer and an expert on American dynasties. Welcome, Alexis,
Thank you for having me, Thanks for being here, and
(02:36):
I want to start with you. You're a presidential historian.
Can you just tell us a little bit about your career?
What got you interested in these very specific forty.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Five dudes, it's true. I always say, oh, I don't know.
It just sort of evolved over time. But then when
you ask what I was up to in the fourth grade,
I was reading Contract with America. And also my favorite
movie was The American President.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Reading Contract with America in fourth grade.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Yes, it came out around that time, and I had
just read Democracy in America because my greatest rebellion as
a child was sneaking into the adult section, which tells
you a lot, and so I would just grab, you know,
because of course that I could be arrested for such
high crimes, and so I would just grab whatever was
on display. And I think it was it must have
(03:23):
been on display, and I grabbed it. I read it.
I was very confused for a little bit, particularly because
I did love The American President. And actually, i'm writing
a piece I just talked to Sorkin. I'm writing a
piece for Rolling Stone about how that was my favorite
movie growing up, and so in retrospect, it makes sense.
I was a curator at the NYPL, but I always
(03:43):
had this love for presidential history, which is not fashionable.
So you can't really say that in a department and
think you're going to when I left graduate school, I
became a curator at the NYPL and I'd always harbored
this love of presidential history. But it's not fashionable. Can't
really say, oh, I'm going to be a historian. I
want to study the presidency. It's like, Okay, you're over.
(04:06):
That's like more of a liberty university type of thing,
and it's not really accepted. But I just loved it,
and so I kept going and finally, just you know,
the heart wants what the heart wants. And it's been
really lovely to see the response to the way I
tell history and to see what it inspires. I'm also
a senior fellow at a think tank, and presidential histories
(04:29):
is something that like isn't really studied at think tanks
unless they're conservative, unless it's sort of a project twenty
twenty five. And so that's really been fun for me,
is to sort of think really creatively within these institutions
that focus on policy. And then recently i'm the American
history columnist at the New York Times Book Review, And
(04:50):
so to have all these different jobs, none of which
provide health insurance, in conversation with each other makes for
a really exciting career and one in which I feel,
particularly at times like the present in which we do
face a I think overarching constitutional crisis. Although I don't
(05:12):
like to say these aren't constitutional acts or they're unconstitutional acts,
because I think that suggests that there's like some room
for argument, that we can interpret what's going on. I
think they're anti constitutional, which is a natural answer to
how I got into presidential history.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I mean, I love that. Also.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
I also feel like I talk about this endlessly with
various guests, but you know, we don't have the best
institutional memory when it comes to politics or really anything,
but especially things like the political system. So your skill
set is I think we're especially lucky to kind of
be able to talk to you about it. And okay,
before I ask you about political dynasties, Contract of America
(05:55):
was New Gingrich's plan, right, Yeah, Just for people who
don't know, I'm still floored that you read this in
the fourth grade.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
I mean, it really messed me up for a while,
to be totally honest, I was also president of the
Ecology Club. Like a lot of things didn't work, but
we contain multitudes, you know. It was very It was
a real leaves of grass. That's amazing year through elementary school.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
I mean when I think when I was in fourth grade,
I wrote a letter to Bush Senior to save the
owls and was offended when I got like a form
letter back with a signed photo.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
And I just.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Remember being like, I don't want to fucking signed photo
of George Bush.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
I want him to not sell the owls.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Yeah, you are obviously ten steps ahead to you. How
to like is this just nepotism? In our DNA, we
supposedly hated monarchies, but our political dynasties in some ways similar.
We seem to love a dynasty. Why do you think
that is? And why do political dynasties happen in this
country specifically?
Speaker 3 (06:52):
You know, we love to think of ourselves as people
who don't like dynasties. We don't embrace dynasty. Were a meritocracy.
You pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It doesn't matter
what class or you know, any of these things that
we know actually aren't really true. And going back to
if we could just go back to the founding r
(07:13):
for a second, there were still portraits of King George
throughout the very long, almost decades long American Revolution. Those
did not automatically come down because the grift had worked.
You know that now we have we see you know,
you go into the DMV and you see Trump's chosen
(07:38):
photo for his portrait, and that was true as far
as paintings wherever you went in early America. And also,
you know, the colonies were isolated from each other purposefully.
They even had their own currency and so that they
wouldn't do exactly what they ended up doing. You just
trying to eat them all isolated and uninformed. But you know,
(08:00):
lo and behold. People just love freedom. That was this
sort of shared experience that they all had, even if
they were angry at him in a very paternalistic way.
And then I started to think about that when everyone
got up so early to watch Will and Kate get married.
All my friends were like, I get up really early
(08:22):
anyway to work, And they asked, and I was like, no,
I was far more patriotic, I think at the time
I was working on my Washington book. But my point is,
I don't think Americans dislike the monarchy. I don't think
they can envision themselves as answering to some sort of monarchy.
But I do think that they are ensorceled by a
(08:43):
certain degree not of opulence, which is I think what
certain presidents might get wrong, but I think they're ensorceled
by this camelot vision and that is why it is
so effective. This was not the case, however, before technology changed,
like the ap wire was not a threat to Lincoln,
(09:06):
who at the time people were like, that is the
weirdest looking man I've ever seen. But I think that
it is when you start to see pictures when there
were portraits, and you know, actual Daguera types, not just
paintings which people were not going to see in the pub.
When someone held up the periodical they had purchased when
(09:28):
they went to town, and you know miss people couldn't read.
It just was not said. People didn't have a visual
necessarily for who was the president. And also nineteenth century president's,
twentieth century presidents, they were weirdos who would not do
well in this climate, in this media climate. So I
think this has changed over time. But I think what's
interesting is we have some forgotten dynasties.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Yeah, that was about to ask you who were the
earliest political dynasties, and then who are the ones we
don't think about?
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Well, of course, everyone was always thinking about the Harrisons.
They're thinking about William Henry Harrison and his grandson, Benjamin Harrison.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
I always think about those dudes all the time.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
William Henry Harrison, whh he won in eighteen forty. And
then the thing with William Henry Harrison that everyone knows
about if they know anything and they've ever been to
a pub night like a trivia night, is that he
died thirty one days after he took office, so it
was the shortest presidency. But so you have Henry Harrison, right,
that's eighteen forty, and he had become this quite famous
(10:29):
person through military leadership. And that's something that a lot
of these dynasties will have in common, that you will
not all of them, but a lot of them. And
then you have his grandson, Benjamin Harrison, and that's happening,
I think forty eight years later. Now we have this thing,
a very familiar situation to us. Benjamin Harrison. It's not
(10:50):
like his grandfather. Could you could really say, oh, well,
he was just such a great present, like thirty one days,
he didn't even really to pick a cabinet. But then
you have Benjamin Harrison, who wait, the electoral college, but
loses the popular vote vote. So that's sort of this
dynastic blueprint that we will see later with the Bushes.
But the Harrisons did not build a machine, so a
(11:12):
name can be resurrected the same way the Cheney's name is.
It's not really resurrected, but certainly transformed half a century later.
And so when people ask, you know, will we have
another Kennedy, like, it is not surprising to me that
rfk I mean, it is surprised me that anyone gave
him a paying job, let alone the head of any
(11:32):
let alone. That one is surprising to me. But that
that is someone who now represents the Kennedy name is
in no way of surprise.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Oh that's interesting, And I do want to ask you
about the Kennedys, including him in a minute. I'm curious
to hear a little more about There's the Adams family dynasty, right, Yes,
there's two presidents, a bunch of civil servants.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Did they in any way set the.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Tone for future dynasties or were they just yet another
like like the Harrisons, like the Bushes, like it just
sort of was what it was.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
I think John Quincy Adams by the way, it's Quinsy.
If you ever just want to ask, the town itself
is called that. I was corrected by the mayor. Oh wow,
which is a correction. I will never forget.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Yeah, Quinsy.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
There are so many ways to sort of I have
to explain this through quotes and almost memes of the time.
So Abigail Adams, who is often quoted alongside the founders
because she spilled the tea and had a certain frankness
about her. She once wrote to John Adams, you know,
(12:38):
not all my geese are Swans, which was her way
of talking about her children. And the rest of the
Adams children were great in their own right, but Quincy
was exceptional. He was also, as she then wrote to him,
when he was heading to Harvard College from living abroad
with his father and Benjamin Franklin and serving in Russia
(13:01):
as a secretary. At like thirteen, he had basically the
equivalent of a fanboy poster in his un bedroom of
George Washington. He was obsessed with George Washington, and Quinsy
got this letter from his mother saying, Okay, now you're
going to go to college. You've just had this incredible
experience where You've basically learned a lot of languages, You've
been on the fundraising arm of the American Revolution. Now
(13:25):
you're going to Harvard from you know, you've been given
a lot, and a lot is expected, and what emerged
is basically he is the only male with the exception
I would say Bo Biden, He's the only male presidential
son who was exceptional and good and like really good,
(13:47):
and the rest are just ne'er do wells across the board.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Can you talk a little bit about the Kennedy's as
a political dynasty and what made them stand out so
much throughout history? You know, obviously the one example of
just being good at TV at the right time in
the right place, but it was more than that if
you look at them as a family even today.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Right absolutely, I think it's It's interesting though, because the
Kennedys now would win on name Caroline Kennedy, who we
don't really talk about enough. I think, is I notice
when I talked about the nearer do well sons of
the founders and of all presidents with these few exceptions,
She's one of the great ones of the daughters, and
(14:28):
she has carried on a lot of this but Kennedy
was not a sure thing. Kennedy's dad was the ambassador
to the Court of Saint James, and that was a
big deal. Joe Senior, Joe Kennedy, he was a very
successful businessman. He is the kind of guy who for
(14:49):
some reason knew to sell high six months before the
Great Depression. He was just always there, right time, right place.
But what that always suggests as well, and we see
this a lot now as sort of tech leaders, is
that there is a shrewdness that doesn't always go well
with politics. But I think what's really interesting about the
(15:11):
Kennedys is you have Joe Kennedy. He is appointed at
the most pivotal moment. You have World War One, world
War Two, and Joe Senior had not served and was
not a big fan of World War One. But when
Joe Senior was at the Court of Saint James, it
was as World War Two was very obviously going to happen.
(15:32):
Hitler is invading this country, in that country, and Kennedy
actually goes, he takes a year from college and he
goes and he does research for his thesis. He goes
to Israel. It's so amazing. He writes a letter, He's like,
I don't know, like maybe a two states solution, just throwing,
you know, just spitballing here. And he is twenty twenty one.
He's really seeing a lot of these things on the ground,
(15:54):
and in fact, there is a boat. He has to
go and do some work for his dad as far
as helping people who've been attacked by Germans. Then he
comes back and he writes a book, which is his thesis,
and it's pretty good. It certainly, I think, better than
the one that won him a pulletzer later. But I'm
sort of I'm going slowly because I'm showing that at
this time that he is publishing his college thesis that
(16:17):
becomes a New York Times bestseller. While England's left, his
father is forced to resign by FDR because he basically said,
it was basically like, I don't know, let's see who wins.
Are we really going to get involved in the whole
morality thing. You have to remember that at this point,
Joe Senior as the ambassador, he knows what's going on.
(16:39):
He knows about concentration camps. He does not care. Kennedy
starts to break away during this time, and this is
I think what makes the legacy because when he starts
to get into politics this period, this name is not
helping him, it's hurting him. But what Kennedy does is
he sets out and he makes a name for him
(17:00):
as a war hero. He over time evolved and he
put in the time. So people think, oh, Kennedy, his
family money bought the presidency and he became president. It
wasn't that quick. He spent eleven years in Congress and
we're talking about we've already named two New York Times
bestselling books. He's going to win a Pulitzer in nineteen
(17:21):
fifty seven. He's received a Purple Heart for a very
very impressive show of bravery. So that is what I
think really built the Kennedy legacy. And then, of course
I think his funeral is procession. All of these things
really worked, but it was based on the person and
(17:41):
it was based on his own evolution over time. I
don't think that, however, works for everyone, because we've had
some Kennedy's who have not been appointed. Let's make sure
that we make that clear. They have not been appointed.
They have won elections, they have served, but they have
not been real power place. And Lincoln's son tried to
(18:03):
run for office and that was a disaster.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
And it was a disaster because what people just didn't
They didn't think you're in it.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
That would be the normal conclusion. It turns out that
if you try to have your mother committed in a
very public fashion and one is obviously a kangaroo court,
and then she gets out a year later because it
turns out you only want to put her away so
that you could run for office and also have control
and access to her money. Americans don't like that.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
So somebody who didn't know how optics worked.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Yes, I'll be back with my conversation with alexis Co
right after this break.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
A little closer to the present. The two big sort
of dynasties, the Bushes and the Clintons. In what ways
are they similar to the Kennedy's and how are they different?
Speaker 3 (18:53):
The Bushes, I think are so interesting. One of my
favorite things to do is if I'm giving a lecture
going to an event and it's tied to something, I
like to throw people off with a primary source. It's
important to remember presidents for people too, and they're human
and they have lives, and so I love to start
with a couple primary sources when it comes to the Bushes,
(19:13):
I always start with Senator Prescott Bush, who is HW's father,
so W's grandfather, and I love to show the stationery
the letterhead from the first planned Parenting fundraiser because Prescott
Bush was the secretary. And then of course you have W,
who is an evangelical who revokes access to abortion and
(19:37):
any sort of birth control, and there's such an interesting
family in that way. And then in the middle you
have HW Bush, who was of course a CIA director,
but when he was the ambassador to the UN, before
he was a vice president, before he was a president,
he talked about family planning so much that the media
nicknamed him Rubbers.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Oh no.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
So, now that we've reviewed the Bushes through the lens
of sex and family planning, I think that they are
a fascinating case study their authenticity, if you will, which
is I think so important to any of these, particularly
to a dynasty, but to any sort of successful president,
which is one of my projects at New America. This
(20:23):
thing Tankret, my senior fellow, has been about, you know,
how should a president be? And one of the things
that I kept thinking about that I wrestled with, which
you might not think because I just sort of had
a lot of fun talking about the Bushes, which is
that authenticity is something that voters really see in Trump
and they just do not see it in any Democrat
right now, you know, full stop, don't need to review
(20:44):
all of them. And so the thing that's interesting about
the Bushes is.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
They are.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Authentic in the way that everyone knows they're rich, the
same way with the Kennedys, but they offer this like
elite continuity dressed in like Texas populism, right, So they're
like ranchers in there, but they're buying sports teams, right.
But it's another case in which there's an expiration date.
(21:14):
It's there's a limited warranty kind of on the dynasty.
Because of course Jeb Bush got absolutely demolished by Trump.
He was humiliated. So dynasties don't always die with a loss.
The Bushes could come back, but they certainly not one
left to mark that that defeat left a mark.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Yeah, I mean, and that raises you know, your your
assessment of the Bushes, the fact that they were well
known to be wealthy and buying all the sports teams
and everything. I mean, the one of the sort of
go tos that I keep hearing about is like, well,
you know, the most most of their base would sort
of view them as that's the that's the aspirational thing
is we're all going to be if we work hard,
we're all going to be multimillionaires or billionaires who can
(21:55):
buy sports teams. The reality of American capitalism, of course.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Is that's a very very very few will and most
will not.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
But that that, I don't know if you want to
call it a fiction or a hope or a combination,
or just the aspirational storytelling of what is possible in America,
and certainly it is just not for everybody.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
I'm wondering if.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
That helped gain public trust at the right time and
that popularity. And I'm also thinking about the Clinton the
Clinton dynasty following the Bushes, and you'd mentioned Jeb and
I'm thinking Bill Clinton. But then Hillary couldn't write. I mean,
she very successful as a Senator for New York, but
then couldn't Land, couldn't even you know, get the nomination
(22:44):
the first time at least. What do you think helped
gain public trust and popularity and where the Clinton's a
response to the to the Bushes in the popular eye.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
I guess what's interesting, you know, we think it's so
conspicuous the friendship between Michelle, Obama and w and so
it's often remarked upon. But what is less obvious but
still very much there, is the relationship between the Bushes
and the Clintons. You see, they're chummy, they really like
each other. And there's a you know, I think it's
(23:19):
a clip. It certainly played out like one in my
mind often, which is Clinton says, you know, we were
friends before the election, and we were friends after the election.
I think he might say we're friends after I beat him,
And so I think there are a couple of things
going on. One, you have the Bushes were authentic in
(23:41):
their connection to the land, whether it be Connecticut or Texas,
because let's not forget you know, they're also all male.
And then you have the Clintons, and you have Clinton,
who could and Clinton was more of a centrist. He
left wildly popular that we always forget that he left
(24:01):
with like Bonker's approval ratings. But Hillary seemed you know,
when I think about that in retrospect, and I much
prefer my history dead. So this is a little challenging
to me. But when I think about it in retrospect,
I think a lot about initial reactions to Hillary Clinton
serving a role in Clinton's government. That she was working
(24:25):
on healthcare, she was working on things, these things that
have been really important to a lot of presidents. There
was resistance to her almost immediately. She's a woman, she
is very smart, So I think that she gave off
elite for all W's ridiculous wisms, you know how he
(24:45):
would just mess up a sentence or say, you know,
for only once all these things, he was himself and
Bill Clinton can't not be himself. Hillary Clinton does not
strike people as authentic. And I think it's just because
she's it's she's uncomfortable. I don't I think, well, you know,
oh but her emails. When you read those emails, it
was like, can we help out this young girl? Can
(25:07):
we do this?
Speaker 4 (25:08):
Can we do that?
Speaker 3 (25:09):
But she's not. She's so uncomfortable in front of the camera.
She would have done great aside from the whole woman
part in the eighteenth or nineteenth.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Century when there were no emails, right.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
When there are no emails, no, no, you know, very
few recordings maybe radio.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Yeah, And I wonder you know that wasn't necessarily a
barometer on the tide turning away from dynasties. I would
point more to kind of the two thousand and seven,
two thousand and eight Democratic primary season. You know, you've
you study this stuff. What turned the tide on these dynasties?
And do you think that American values have changed since
(25:50):
the peak of the fame of especially these two dynasties.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
Well, here's the funny thing. I I'm not sure if
I buy it.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Go on. This is interesting.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
I think that, if anything, Clinton exposed the limits of
dynastic inevitability because by that point she had proven herself
in her own right. She had been a Secretary of State,
one of the most difficult jobs. I would say, it's
in some ways more difficult than being the president. I
think there's this limit that we see. So I think
(26:24):
that there a name can be a symbol of continuity
of power, of proven track record, but I think it
can also tap into an establishment fatigue that has been
evolving for some time. We've changed in terms of what
(26:47):
we think of as politicians. Social media, I mean, these
are all it sounds like just the buzzwords everyone always says,
but it's true, right, because now we have dynasty by inheritance,
not so. And I think that's what's different is everyone
we have just discussed from the Harrisons, you know, Civil War,
(27:08):
Mexican American War, Territorial War. Benjamin Harrison was on it,
and then all of a sudden, we don't have that
being really important to people anymore. You know, service is
not something in fact we have. You know, Trump regularly
insults people who have served the country. And so Fred
Trump built a fortune, you know, Donald Trump lost a
(27:31):
lot of that fortune, but he built the brand and
then a presidency, and so his children. I think what's
interesting about them is you're seeing their testing whether the
loyalty can outlast the chaos. And so you see some
of them, and in particular Don Junior, and I guess
the other one too through his wife. But you have
(27:54):
some and then Avonka has her own deal. But you
have them either leaning in or out. What's different about
them is not only is an inheritance not service, but
that it is so much about branding. And so if
you were asked me just on the basis of the norms,
(28:15):
no one has ever benefited off the presidency in this way.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
It sounds like, this is the first time it's been
so transparent, not just flagrant, but they seem to kind
of be owning it.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Yes, you've articulated the ways.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
In which the Trump family fits or doesn't fit the
narrative about political dynasties in this country. But how jarring
is it historically that they're so transparent? What does that
mean for us? And what's the risk there of let's
say the kids want to run for office or there's
(28:49):
a whole school of thought about yeah and wanting to run.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
You know, I think again, can the name outlast the chaos?
If you'd asked me that question after I don't know,
he incited an insurrection, I would say no. But now
it's a different ballgame. And so I think, you know,
unlike the Bushes or the Kennedys or the Harrison's, for sure,
the Trump dynasty isn't built on public service, and so
(29:13):
it's built specifically on spectacle grievance. And I need a
third of course, omnipresence. Right, you can't get rid of them,
you can't escape them, and so I think that is different.
But no, the presidency has never come with a merch table,
more egregious, even than the sneakers and the bitcoin and
then this and that is the buying of citizenship. I
(29:34):
think has been really difficult for me personally. Just the
idea of it. I was talking to is a casual sentence.
I was talking to Aaron Slarkan and he was saying
that he's sort of bored with the Trumps, right, it's
a nightmare he doesn't want to address, and in part
because he's so invested in this grand idea of the
presidency and all his characters are always these like people
(29:58):
who are just trying to do their best and you know,
they believe in something and it's a real quandary all
the time, but also kind of do some terrible things.
And so I think that the Trump dynasty.
Speaker 4 (30:12):
Has to.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Well, he has to make it the full four years
or not, because let's face it, he will. He'll He'll
be older than Biden when he leaves office.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
He's so energetic, though, is he.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Yes, I'm not saying he's not crazy, but he is
objectively very energetic.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
He's very energetic.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Yes, but I mean I mean nominated entertainer.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
I should not be saying this out loud, but I've
already you know, I said a lot of things to Congress.
So it's fine. Trump is presiding over a two hundred
and fiftieth, which I know just sounds like a lot
of noise to people. Just by the way, something I've
been looking forward to my entire career is completely ruined.
But I have been really excited about and I think
that we will see it more next year, as you know,
(31:01):
when we actually go into it. Trump has complete control
over this, So I think the way that he casts
this and the way that he can align the Trump
name with the two hundred and fiftieth and make it
synonymous with America is what frightens me the most. So
it may be the dynasty to end all dynasties, or
(31:23):
it may be a real moment. We're not good at reckoning,
We're not good at accountability. If we had with Nixon,
with I don't know the Civil War. As a historian,
I don't like to predict the future. I don't like
to imagine something that you know. I'm not really Philip
k dicking our American history here, but I do think
(31:46):
that had their reconstruction not been under the purview of
Andrew Johnson, had Nixon not been pardon a month into
Ford's presidency that that we would feel differently about Trump.
But we have gotten used to this. We've been conditioned
(32:08):
over time, and that's very effective.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
I'll be back with my conversation with Alexis Co right
after this break.
Speaker 4 (32:15):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Okay, So going back to RFK Junior, what do you
make of the black sheep of political dynasties?
Speaker 3 (32:27):
RFK Junior is just amazing. I love you know, legally blonde.
There's that line where she says, you know there or
someone says about her. It's like she just woke up
one day and decided I think I'll go to law
school today. And that's kind of how it is with
someone like RFK or where they just all of a sudden,
(32:49):
they have no history of service. They've lived, let's say
five six decades in this country, yeah, on boards, you know,
divorcing wives, when they have cancer, that sort of thing.
But they've never actually done anything. They haven't served, and
(33:10):
then they decide, oh, I'm I'm going to take this
incredibly important position. I've never worked in a real office.
I was a curator at the NYPL. When I go
to New America, I just steal snacks and give talks
that's it. So I would never think that I could
manage people my poor research assistants, like God help them.
But these people think, oh, yes, I should run for president.
(33:33):
I should, you know, be in charge of incredibly influential
and consequential entities within government. So I think the problem
with the dynasties more than anything else is And this
this is particular to Kennedy though, to RFK Junior, because
(33:53):
the rest of them don't have this. His siblings, the
whole lot of them, because they are a little army
within themselves. They have all said he should not hold
the position that he holds. Caroline Kennedy, who does a
remarkable job of never being in the media, she doesn't
have to be. She wrote a letter and that sounds
(34:15):
like an O a letter. That's a big thing. She's
come out and said he is a deeply troubled person.
What I think is if we step back. Trump loves
to reward loyalty, but he also likes to demolish the competition.
I've never it's like being you know, it's awful to
(34:36):
be with someone and they're jealous of someone you dated
in the eighth grade or something. Trump is jealous of
every President. Ever, he's jealous of James K. Polk, He's
jealous of Wilson, He's probably jealous of Hoover, who no
one really thinks of as in a positive light. And
so there's no one who's a greater challenge to him
(34:57):
than the Kennedys. But to sort of degree the Kennedy name,
so you have the Rose Garden, which was a big thing.
You have usaid I would not be surprised if the
Peace Corps happened soon. He wouldn't get off the plane.
When Obama was awarded the Profiles and Courage Award in
I think twenty sixteen or twenty seventeen by the JFK Library,
(35:18):
Trump was so mad that his plane had landed at
the same time. He didn't even want to be on
the same like paper, the same spread. The Kennedy Center
used to be bipartisan. He's replaced them. Now it's just
Maga only. And people are always, you know, his sicker fans.
They're always sort of nominating Peace Prize and Trump Day.
(35:39):
But now they want to change the name of the
Kennedy Center to the Trump Center. And I think nothing
gives him greater pleasure, And so I do think and
this is me really just sort of taking a risk
care in my personal opinion, not in my professional capacity,
but also a little bit my professional capacity. I think
that he is attempting to obliterate the brand because he
(36:00):
finds it really frustrating. You know, it's you have Camelot
versus American carnage. There's no way he's going to beat
them in words, in looks, in elegance. I don't know
about money. I haven't done those numbers, but they certainly
(36:22):
didn't have to work in the way that he does.
They were better looking, they're in better shape, they were better, better, better,
and so I think that he's the only way he
knows how to deal with them is to cannibalize them.
And so that's that's a little bit of RFKE Junior.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
Okay, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
The last question I wanted to add, what do you
maybe this is what do you want personally? Since you
were forthcoming with personal versus professional, but also professionally, what
do you want, Slash, What do you think the future
of American dynasties will be? Who's the next JFK in
terms of the power of the myth?
Speaker 2 (37:05):
In your view?
Speaker 3 (37:07):
You know, my job has gotten really spicy in the
last eight to twelve years.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
Yeah, I bet.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
And look, now you're on a podcast, I'm asking you
for clickbaity predictions. But also I mean genuinely yeah, at
a pivotal moment, like you mentioned the anti constitutional crisis
in your words, so it's relevant now more than even
before about the idea of dynasty.
Speaker 3 (37:28):
I think dynasty is a certain advantage, just like anything,
but as we've already talked about, you have to back
it up with concerted effort and action. So as much
as we think of Donald Trump being woefully really emphasis
on woefully underprepared and then willfully underprepared in a lot
(37:52):
of ways for the presidency, he's been running for office
and building this brand more or less since I was
a child. I first met him in home alone, and
I think that that is influential in a way that
but it has to be backed up by something. So
(38:13):
even though Trump is not well informed, because you can't
be if you don't read, General Madis I think said
he's functionally illiterate, which means that you know, if you
don't read, you can have information. You can, but it's
just going to be really superficial, and he just does
not understand a lot of things, has absolutely no respect
(38:34):
or understanding for American history. And so I think the
move now, unfortunately is I think authenticity is the most
We've seen this in New York Mom, Donnie right, we
have a mayorial candidate who is running on platforms that
absolutely terrify, slash almost turn people on. There's like a
group that's just like reminds me of Obama in two
(38:57):
thousand and eight, two thousand and seven, where like every
grandparent was like like, ah, then you have and then
you have them getting used to it, realized it's fine,
and actually he's really centrist in all of these things,
and that's not true. Now with we have a candidate
who is very much like a more how can I
explain it more? You know this little place called New
York City. I don't know if the rest of the
country is aware of it, but he is basically like
(39:19):
AOC if she was what everyone wants her to be,
So if she was the socialist nightmare that they claim
that she is, and I think that the most important
thing would be authenticity and someone who is somehow informed,
hopefully more than Trump. But I was thinking about it.
You know a Matthew McConaughey who is really actually done
(39:43):
the work, could one hundred percent sweep primaries. And the
problem I think with a lot of celebrities or people
who come from some sort of prominent background is they
just think, oh, I'm out, that didn't work, I'm going
to quit. Whereas Trump, you have to be shameless, you
(40:05):
have to really take all the hits, which is usually
why second term they're all bitter. They're all bitter and sensitive,
no matter even if it looks like they had a
pretty nice ride. And that I guess is my takeaway
is the Trumps are not forever because as you said,
when I say, you know Trump is getting older, let's
(40:27):
see if he makes it. But you were talking about
his stamina, in his endurance, and that is what I
think is most important. Dynasty would be third on that list.
First would be authenticity, then stamina, and then the last Kennedy.
He had his father's name. They definitely knew he was rich,
he was good looking, he was single, all of these things,
purple heart, But the reason he won was probably none
(40:49):
of those things. That man campaigned like it was his
primary job and like he loved it, and the whole
family wasn't on it. People just need to own whatever.
If we've learned anything from Trumpet's sure a name, some
notoriety own it. Hillary should have owned those emails. She
should have been what's the big deal? So someone who
just really refuses to leave the room will maybe the
(41:12):
last one's standing will win in some ways. Endurance, Yeah,
it's like anything, isn't life justin in the starkest and
most negative way to describe it, life is an endurance challenge.
And so Jeb Bush really, to my mind, he was
not only humiliated, but he took the humiliation and he
(41:33):
sort of retreated with it. And I don't know what
would have happened if any of them not just owned
their liabilities but was like, you're the liability.
Speaker 1 (41:45):
Yeah, Alexis, thank you so much for joining us and
all your insights. I'm super fascinated. And I'm going to
start by reading Contract with America for the first time.
Speaker 3 (41:59):
Okay, well maybe maybe also read you never forget your
first and then we'll we could have like a nice
little book club. But I'm glad you're welcome.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Newt Thank you so much. Thanks.
Speaker 3 (42:10):
I really enjoyed it and I'm Gonna send my Navy or.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
What time is Your That was Alexis co an American
presidential historian, author, podcaster.
Speaker 2 (42:19):
And media commentator.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
If you want to hear more from Alexis, you can
read You Never Forget Your First, which is a biography
of George Washington, and her next book, Young Jack, which
digs into the early life of John F.
Speaker 2 (42:32):
Kennedy.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
You can also follow Alexis at Alexis Underscore co Here
We Go Again as a production of iHeart Podcasts and
Snafu Media in association with New Metric Media.
Speaker 2 (42:44):
Our executive producers.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Are me Kelpin Ed Helms, Mike Falbo, Alissa Martino, Andy Kim,
Pat Kelly, Chris Kelly, and Dylan Fagan. Caitlin Fontana is
our producer and writer. Dave Shumka is our producer and editor.
Additional writing from Megan tan Our consulting producer is Romin Borsolino.
Tory Smith is our associate producer. Theme music by Chris Kelly,
(43:06):
logo by Matt Gosson, Legal review from Daniel Welsh, Caroline
Johnson and Megan Halson. Special thanks to Glenn Bassner, Isaac Dunham,
Adam Horn, Lane, Klein and everyone at iHeart podcasts, but
especially Will Pearson, Carrie Lieberman and Nikki Etour.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
Thanks for listening. See you next week.
We've been hearing about the Kennedys for well for decades,
but recently there's one guy that's been on our TVs
and newspapers and all over social media a lot. Robert F.
Kennedy Junior. You know him currently as the US Secretary
(00:21):
of Health and Human Services. He is also a former
presidential candidate, and of course he's the son of Senator
and Attorney General Robert F.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Kennedy.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
He's also, as you may have guessed from the name
if you didn't already, the nephew of President John F. Kennedy,
so his lineage to the White House runs pretty deep.
We're approaching in America the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary
of the American Revolution. That was the pivotal moment that
we openly revolted against the Brits, against the monarchy. So
(00:54):
given that that's the case, and we're coming up on
two fifty, why do we continue to fuel political dynasty families.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
We love to think of ourselves as people who don't
like dynasties. We don't embrace dynasty. We're a meritocracy. You
pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And if we could
just go back to the founding r For a second,
there were still portraits of King George. Those did not
automatically come down because the grift had worked.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
My guest today is author and presidential historian Alexis Co.
Alexis and I will talk about the historic famous families
that have served America and what their political lineage reveals
about power, myth and the idea of authenticity in our democracy.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Today.
Speaker 4 (01:44):
Here we go again again again.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Hey, I'm cal Penn and this is Here We Go Again,
a show that takes today's trends and headlines and.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Asks why does history keep repeating itself?
Speaker 4 (01:58):
Here we he so.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Alexis Co is the author of You Never Forget Your First,
a biography of George Washington, as well as the forthcoming
Young Jack, a biography of John F. Kennedy nineteen seventeen
to nineteen fifty seven. She is a New York Times
best selling writer and an expert on American dynasties. Welcome, Alexis,
Thank you for having me, Thanks for being here, and
(02:36):
I want to start with you. You're a presidential historian.
Can you just tell us a little bit about your career?
What got you interested in these very specific forty.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Five dudes, it's true. I always say, oh, I don't know.
It just sort of evolved over time. But then when
you ask what I was up to in the fourth grade,
I was reading Contract with America. And also my favorite
movie was The American President.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Reading Contract with America in fourth grade.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Yes, it came out around that time, and I had
just read Democracy in America because my greatest rebellion as
a child was sneaking into the adult section, which tells
you a lot, and so I would just grab, you know,
because of course that I could be arrested for such
high crimes, and so I would just grab whatever was
on display. And I think it was it must have
(03:23):
been on display, and I grabbed it. I read it.
I was very confused for a little bit, particularly because
I did love The American President. And actually, i'm writing
a piece I just talked to Sorkin. I'm writing a
piece for Rolling Stone about how that was my favorite
movie growing up, and so in retrospect, it makes sense.
I was a curator at the NYPL, but I always
(03:43):
had this love for presidential history, which is not fashionable.
So you can't really say that in a department and
think you're going to when I left graduate school, I
became a curator at the NYPL and I'd always harbored
this love of presidential history. But it's not fashionable. Can't
really say, oh, I'm going to be a historian. I
want to study the presidency. It's like, Okay, you're over.
(04:06):
That's like more of a liberty university type of thing,
and it's not really accepted. But I just loved it,
and so I kept going and finally, just you know,
the heart wants what the heart wants. And it's been
really lovely to see the response to the way I
tell history and to see what it inspires. I'm also
a senior fellow at a think tank, and presidential histories
(04:29):
is something that like isn't really studied at think tanks
unless they're conservative, unless it's sort of a project twenty
twenty five. And so that's really been fun for me,
is to sort of think really creatively within these institutions
that focus on policy. And then recently i'm the American
history columnist at the New York Times Book Review, And
(04:50):
so to have all these different jobs, none of which
provide health insurance, in conversation with each other makes for
a really exciting career and one in which I feel,
particularly at times like the present in which we do
face a I think overarching constitutional crisis. Although I don't
(05:12):
like to say these aren't constitutional acts or they're unconstitutional acts,
because I think that suggests that there's like some room
for argument, that we can interpret what's going on. I
think they're anti constitutional, which is a natural answer to
how I got into presidential history.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I mean, I love that. Also.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
I also feel like I talk about this endlessly with
various guests, but you know, we don't have the best
institutional memory when it comes to politics or really anything,
but especially things like the political system. So your skill
set is I think we're especially lucky to kind of
be able to talk to you about it. And okay,
before I ask you about political dynasties, Contract of America
(05:55):
was New Gingrich's plan, right, Yeah, Just for people who
don't know, I'm still floored that you read this in
the fourth grade.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
I mean, it really messed me up for a while,
to be totally honest, I was also president of the
Ecology Club. Like a lot of things didn't work, but
we contain multitudes, you know. It was very It was
a real leaves of grass. That's amazing year through elementary school.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
I mean when I think when I was in fourth grade,
I wrote a letter to Bush Senior to save the
owls and was offended when I got like a form
letter back with a signed photo.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
And I just.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Remember being like, I don't want to fucking signed photo
of George Bush.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
I want him to not sell the owls.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Yeah, you are obviously ten steps ahead to you. How
to like is this just nepotism? In our DNA, we
supposedly hated monarchies, but our political dynasties in some ways similar.
We seem to love a dynasty. Why do you think
that is? And why do political dynasties happen in this
country specifically?
Speaker 3 (06:52):
You know, we love to think of ourselves as people
who don't like dynasties. We don't embrace dynasty. Were a meritocracy.
You pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It doesn't matter
what class or you know, any of these things that
we know actually aren't really true. And going back to
if we could just go back to the founding r
(07:13):
for a second, there were still portraits of King George
throughout the very long, almost decades long American Revolution. Those
did not automatically come down because the grift had worked.
You know that now we have we see you know,
you go into the DMV and you see Trump's chosen
(07:38):
photo for his portrait, and that was true as far
as paintings wherever you went in early America. And also,
you know, the colonies were isolated from each other purposefully.
They even had their own currency and so that they
wouldn't do exactly what they ended up doing. You just
trying to eat them all isolated and uninformed. But you know,
(08:00):
lo and behold. People just love freedom. That was this
sort of shared experience that they all had, even if
they were angry at him in a very paternalistic way.
And then I started to think about that when everyone
got up so early to watch Will and Kate get married.
All my friends were like, I get up really early
(08:22):
anyway to work, And they asked, and I was like, no,
I was far more patriotic, I think at the time
I was working on my Washington book. But my point is,
I don't think Americans dislike the monarchy. I don't think
they can envision themselves as answering to some sort of monarchy.
But I do think that they are ensorceled by a
(08:43):
certain degree not of opulence, which is I think what
certain presidents might get wrong, but I think they're ensorceled
by this camelot vision and that is why it is
so effective. This was not the case, however, before technology changed,
like the ap wire was not a threat to Lincoln,
(09:06):
who at the time people were like, that is the
weirdest looking man I've ever seen. But I think that
it is when you start to see pictures when there
were portraits, and you know, actual Daguera types, not just
paintings which people were not going to see in the pub.
When someone held up the periodical they had purchased when
(09:28):
they went to town, and you know miss people couldn't read.
It just was not said. People didn't have a visual
necessarily for who was the president. And also nineteenth century president's,
twentieth century presidents, they were weirdos who would not do
well in this climate, in this media climate. So I
think this has changed over time. But I think what's
interesting is we have some forgotten dynasties.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Yeah, that was about to ask you who were the
earliest political dynasties, and then who are the ones we
don't think about?
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Well, of course, everyone was always thinking about the Harrisons.
They're thinking about William Henry Harrison and his grandson, Benjamin Harrison.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
I always think about those dudes all the time.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
William Henry Harrison, whh he won in eighteen forty. And
then the thing with William Henry Harrison that everyone knows
about if they know anything and they've ever been to
a pub night like a trivia night, is that he
died thirty one days after he took office, so it
was the shortest presidency. But so you have Henry Harrison, right,
that's eighteen forty, and he had become this quite famous
(10:29):
person through military leadership. And that's something that a lot
of these dynasties will have in common, that you will
not all of them, but a lot of them. And
then you have his grandson, Benjamin Harrison, and that's happening,
I think forty eight years later. Now we have this thing,
a very familiar situation to us. Benjamin Harrison. It's not
(10:50):
like his grandfather. Could you could really say, oh, well,
he was just such a great present, like thirty one days,
he didn't even really to pick a cabinet. But then
you have Benjamin Harrison, who wait, the electoral college, but
loses the popular vote vote. So that's sort of this
dynastic blueprint that we will see later with the Bushes.
But the Harrisons did not build a machine, so a
(11:12):
name can be resurrected the same way the Cheney's name is.
It's not really resurrected, but certainly transformed half a century later.
And so when people ask, you know, will we have
another Kennedy, like, it is not surprising to me that
rfk I mean, it is surprised me that anyone gave
him a paying job, let alone the head of any
(11:32):
let alone. That one is surprising to me. But that
that is someone who now represents the Kennedy name is
in no way of surprise.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Oh that's interesting, And I do want to ask you
about the Kennedys, including him in a minute. I'm curious
to hear a little more about There's the Adams family dynasty, right, Yes,
there's two presidents, a bunch of civil servants.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Did they in any way set the.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Tone for future dynasties or were they just yet another
like like the Harrisons, like the Bushes, like it just
sort of was what it was.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
I think John Quincy Adams by the way, it's Quinsy.
If you ever just want to ask, the town itself
is called that. I was corrected by the mayor. Oh wow,
which is a correction. I will never forget.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Yeah, Quinsy.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
There are so many ways to sort of I have
to explain this through quotes and almost memes of the time.
So Abigail Adams, who is often quoted alongside the founders
because she spilled the tea and had a certain frankness
about her. She once wrote to John Adams, you know,
(12:38):
not all my geese are Swans, which was her way
of talking about her children. And the rest of the
Adams children were great in their own right, but Quincy
was exceptional. He was also, as she then wrote to him,
when he was heading to Harvard College from living abroad
with his father and Benjamin Franklin and serving in Russia
(13:01):
as a secretary. At like thirteen, he had basically the
equivalent of a fanboy poster in his un bedroom of
George Washington. He was obsessed with George Washington, and Quinsy
got this letter from his mother saying, Okay, now you're
going to go to college. You've just had this incredible
experience where You've basically learned a lot of languages, You've
been on the fundraising arm of the American Revolution. Now
(13:25):
you're going to Harvard from you know, you've been given
a lot, and a lot is expected, and what emerged
is basically he is the only male with the exception
I would say Bo Biden, He's the only male presidential
son who was exceptional and good and like really good,
(13:47):
and the rest are just ne'er do wells across the board.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Can you talk a little bit about the Kennedy's as
a political dynasty and what made them stand out so
much throughout history? You know, obviously the one example of
just being good at TV at the right time in
the right place, but it was more than that if
you look at them as a family even today.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Right absolutely, I think it's It's interesting though, because the
Kennedys now would win on name Caroline Kennedy, who we
don't really talk about enough. I think, is I notice
when I talked about the nearer do well sons of
the founders and of all presidents with these few exceptions,
She's one of the great ones of the daughters, and
(14:28):
she has carried on a lot of this but Kennedy
was not a sure thing. Kennedy's dad was the ambassador
to the Court of Saint James, and that was a
big deal. Joe Senior, Joe Kennedy, he was a very
successful businessman. He is the kind of guy who for
(14:49):
some reason knew to sell high six months before the
Great Depression. He was just always there, right time, right place.
But what that always suggests as well, and we see
this a lot now as sort of tech leaders, is
that there is a shrewdness that doesn't always go well
with politics. But I think what's really interesting about the
(15:11):
Kennedys is you have Joe Kennedy. He is appointed at
the most pivotal moment. You have World War One, world
War Two, and Joe Senior had not served and was
not a big fan of World War One. But when
Joe Senior was at the Court of Saint James, it
was as World War Two was very obviously going to happen.
(15:32):
Hitler is invading this country, in that country, and Kennedy
actually goes, he takes a year from college and he
goes and he does research for his thesis. He goes
to Israel. It's so amazing. He writes a letter, He's like,
I don't know, like maybe a two states solution, just throwing,
you know, just spitballing here. And he is twenty twenty one.
He's really seeing a lot of these things on the ground,
(15:54):
and in fact, there is a boat. He has to
go and do some work for his dad as far
as helping people who've been attacked by Germans. Then he
comes back and he writes a book, which is his thesis,
and it's pretty good. It certainly, I think, better than
the one that won him a pulletzer later. But I'm
sort of I'm going slowly because I'm showing that at
this time that he is publishing his college thesis that
(16:17):
becomes a New York Times bestseller. While England's left, his
father is forced to resign by FDR because he basically said,
it was basically like, I don't know, let's see who wins.
Are we really going to get involved in the whole
morality thing. You have to remember that at this point,
Joe Senior as the ambassador, he knows what's going on.
(16:39):
He knows about concentration camps. He does not care. Kennedy
starts to break away during this time, and this is
I think what makes the legacy because when he starts
to get into politics this period, this name is not
helping him, it's hurting him. But what Kennedy does is
he sets out and he makes a name for him
(17:00):
as a war hero. He over time evolved and he
put in the time. So people think, oh, Kennedy, his
family money bought the presidency and he became president. It
wasn't that quick. He spent eleven years in Congress and
we're talking about we've already named two New York Times
bestselling books. He's going to win a Pulitzer in nineteen
(17:21):
fifty seven. He's received a Purple Heart for a very
very impressive show of bravery. So that is what I
think really built the Kennedy legacy. And then, of course
I think his funeral is procession. All of these things
really worked, but it was based on the person and
(17:41):
it was based on his own evolution over time. I
don't think that, however, works for everyone, because we've had
some Kennedy's who have not been appointed. Let's make sure
that we make that clear. They have not been appointed.
They have won elections, they have served, but they have
not been real power place. And Lincoln's son tried to
(18:03):
run for office and that was a disaster.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
And it was a disaster because what people just didn't
They didn't think you're in it.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
That would be the normal conclusion. It turns out that
if you try to have your mother committed in a
very public fashion and one is obviously a kangaroo court,
and then she gets out a year later because it
turns out you only want to put her away so
that you could run for office and also have control
and access to her money. Americans don't like that.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
So somebody who didn't know how optics worked.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Yes, I'll be back with my conversation with alexis Co
right after this break.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
A little closer to the present. The two big sort
of dynasties, the Bushes and the Clintons. In what ways
are they similar to the Kennedy's and how are they different?
Speaker 3 (18:53):
The Bushes, I think are so interesting. One of my
favorite things to do is if I'm giving a lecture
going to an event and it's tied to something, I
like to throw people off with a primary source. It's
important to remember presidents for people too, and they're human
and they have lives, and so I love to start
with a couple primary sources when it comes to the Bushes,
(19:13):
I always start with Senator Prescott Bush, who is HW's father,
so W's grandfather, and I love to show the stationery
the letterhead from the first planned Parenting fundraiser because Prescott
Bush was the secretary. And then of course you have W,
who is an evangelical who revokes access to abortion and
(19:37):
any sort of birth control, and there's such an interesting
family in that way. And then in the middle you
have HW Bush, who was of course a CIA director,
but when he was the ambassador to the UN, before
he was a vice president, before he was a president,
he talked about family planning so much that the media
nicknamed him Rubbers.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Oh no.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
So, now that we've reviewed the Bushes through the lens
of sex and family planning, I think that they are
a fascinating case study their authenticity, if you will, which
is I think so important to any of these, particularly
to a dynasty, but to any sort of successful president,
which is one of my projects at New America. This
(20:23):
thing Tankret, my senior fellow, has been about, you know,
how should a president be? And one of the things
that I kept thinking about that I wrestled with, which
you might not think because I just sort of had
a lot of fun talking about the Bushes, which is
that authenticity is something that voters really see in Trump
and they just do not see it in any Democrat
right now, you know, full stop, don't need to review
(20:44):
all of them. And so the thing that's interesting about
the Bushes is.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
They are.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Authentic in the way that everyone knows they're rich, the
same way with the Kennedys, but they offer this like
elite continuity dressed in like Texas populism, right, So they're
like ranchers in there, but they're buying sports teams, right.
But it's another case in which there's an expiration date.
(21:14):
It's there's a limited warranty kind of on the dynasty.
Because of course Jeb Bush got absolutely demolished by Trump.
He was humiliated. So dynasties don't always die with a loss.
The Bushes could come back, but they certainly not one
left to mark that that defeat left a mark.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Yeah, I mean, and that raises you know, your your
assessment of the Bushes, the fact that they were well
known to be wealthy and buying all the sports teams
and everything. I mean, the one of the sort of
go tos that I keep hearing about is like, well,
you know, the most most of their base would sort
of view them as that's the that's the aspirational thing
is we're all going to be if we work hard,
we're all going to be multimillionaires or billionaires who can
(21:55):
buy sports teams. The reality of American capitalism, of course.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Is that's a very very very few will and most
will not.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
But that that, I don't know if you want to
call it a fiction or a hope or a combination,
or just the aspirational storytelling of what is possible in America,
and certainly it is just not for everybody.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
I'm wondering if.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
That helped gain public trust at the right time and
that popularity. And I'm also thinking about the Clinton the
Clinton dynasty following the Bushes, and you'd mentioned Jeb and
I'm thinking Bill Clinton. But then Hillary couldn't write. I mean,
she very successful as a Senator for New York, but
then couldn't Land, couldn't even you know, get the nomination
(22:44):
the first time at least. What do you think helped
gain public trust and popularity and where the Clinton's a
response to the to the Bushes in the popular eye.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
I guess what's interesting, you know, we think it's so
conspicuous the friendship between Michelle, Obama and w and so
it's often remarked upon. But what is less obvious but
still very much there, is the relationship between the Bushes
and the Clintons. You see, they're chummy, they really like
each other. And there's a you know, I think it's
(23:19):
a clip. It certainly played out like one in my
mind often, which is Clinton says, you know, we were
friends before the election, and we were friends after the election.
I think he might say we're friends after I beat him,
And so I think there are a couple of things
going on. One, you have the Bushes were authentic in
(23:41):
their connection to the land, whether it be Connecticut or Texas,
because let's not forget you know, they're also all male.
And then you have the Clintons, and you have Clinton,
who could and Clinton was more of a centrist. He
left wildly popular that we always forget that he left
(24:01):
with like Bonker's approval ratings. But Hillary seemed you know,
when I think about that in retrospect, and I much
prefer my history dead. So this is a little challenging
to me. But when I think about it in retrospect,
I think a lot about initial reactions to Hillary Clinton
serving a role in Clinton's government. That she was working
(24:25):
on healthcare, she was working on things, these things that
have been really important to a lot of presidents. There
was resistance to her almost immediately. She's a woman, she
is very smart, So I think that she gave off
elite for all W's ridiculous wisms, you know how he
(24:45):
would just mess up a sentence or say, you know,
for only once all these things, he was himself and
Bill Clinton can't not be himself. Hillary Clinton does not
strike people as authentic. And I think it's just because
she's it's she's uncomfortable. I don't I think, well, you know,
oh but her emails. When you read those emails, it
was like, can we help out this young girl? Can
(25:07):
we do this?
Speaker 4 (25:08):
Can we do that?
Speaker 3 (25:09):
But she's not. She's so uncomfortable in front of the camera.
She would have done great aside from the whole woman
part in the eighteenth or nineteenth.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Century when there were no emails, right.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
When there are no emails, no, no, you know, very
few recordings maybe radio.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Yeah, And I wonder you know that wasn't necessarily a
barometer on the tide turning away from dynasties. I would
point more to kind of the two thousand and seven,
two thousand and eight Democratic primary season. You know, you've
you study this stuff. What turned the tide on these dynasties?
And do you think that American values have changed since
(25:50):
the peak of the fame of especially these two dynasties.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
Well, here's the funny thing. I I'm not sure if
I buy it.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Go on. This is interesting.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
I think that, if anything, Clinton exposed the limits of
dynastic inevitability because by that point she had proven herself
in her own right. She had been a Secretary of State,
one of the most difficult jobs. I would say, it's
in some ways more difficult than being the president. I
think there's this limit that we see. So I think
(26:24):
that there a name can be a symbol of continuity
of power, of proven track record, but I think it
can also tap into an establishment fatigue that has been
evolving for some time. We've changed in terms of what
(26:47):
we think of as politicians. Social media, I mean, these
are all it sounds like just the buzzwords everyone always says,
but it's true, right, because now we have dynasty by inheritance,
not so. And I think that's what's different is everyone
we have just discussed from the Harrisons, you know, Civil War,
(27:08):
Mexican American War, Territorial War. Benjamin Harrison was on it,
and then all of a sudden, we don't have that
being really important to people anymore. You know, service is
not something in fact we have. You know, Trump regularly
insults people who have served the country. And so Fred
Trump built a fortune, you know, Donald Trump lost a
(27:31):
lot of that fortune, but he built the brand and
then a presidency, and so his children. I think what's
interesting about them is you're seeing their testing whether the
loyalty can outlast the chaos. And so you see some
of them, and in particular Don Junior, and I guess
the other one too through his wife. But you have
(27:54):
some and then Avonka has her own deal. But you
have them either leaning in or out. What's different about
them is not only is an inheritance not service, but
that it is so much about branding. And so if
you were asked me just on the basis of the norms,
(28:15):
no one has ever benefited off the presidency in this way.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
It sounds like, this is the first time it's been
so transparent, not just flagrant, but they seem to kind
of be owning it.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Yes, you've articulated the ways.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
In which the Trump family fits or doesn't fit the
narrative about political dynasties in this country. But how jarring
is it historically that they're so transparent? What does that
mean for us? And what's the risk there of let's
say the kids want to run for office or there's
(28:49):
a whole school of thought about yeah and wanting to run.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
You know, I think again, can the name outlast the chaos?
If you'd asked me that question after I don't know,
he incited an insurrection, I would say no. But now
it's a different ballgame. And so I think, you know,
unlike the Bushes or the Kennedys or the Harrison's, for sure,
the Trump dynasty isn't built on public service, and so
(29:13):
it's built specifically on spectacle grievance. And I need a
third of course, omnipresence. Right, you can't get rid of them,
you can't escape them, and so I think that is different.
But no, the presidency has never come with a merch table,
more egregious, even than the sneakers and the bitcoin and
then this and that is the buying of citizenship. I
(29:34):
think has been really difficult for me personally. Just the
idea of it. I was talking to is a casual sentence.
I was talking to Aaron Slarkan and he was saying
that he's sort of bored with the Trumps, right, it's
a nightmare he doesn't want to address, and in part
because he's so invested in this grand idea of the
presidency and all his characters are always these like people
(29:58):
who are just trying to do their best and you know,
they believe in something and it's a real quandary all
the time, but also kind of do some terrible things.
And so I think that the Trump dynasty.
Speaker 4 (30:12):
Has to.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Well, he has to make it the full four years
or not, because let's face it, he will. He'll He'll
be older than Biden when he leaves office.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
He's so energetic, though, is he.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Yes, I'm not saying he's not crazy, but he is
objectively very energetic.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
He's very energetic.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Yes, but I mean I mean nominated entertainer.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
I should not be saying this out loud, but I've
already you know, I said a lot of things to Congress.
So it's fine. Trump is presiding over a two hundred
and fiftieth, which I know just sounds like a lot
of noise to people. Just by the way, something I've
been looking forward to my entire career is completely ruined.
But I have been really excited about and I think
that we will see it more next year, as you know,
(31:01):
when we actually go into it. Trump has complete control
over this, So I think the way that he casts
this and the way that he can align the Trump
name with the two hundred and fiftieth and make it
synonymous with America is what frightens me the most. So
it may be the dynasty to end all dynasties, or
(31:23):
it may be a real moment. We're not good at reckoning,
We're not good at accountability. If we had with Nixon,
with I don't know the Civil War. As a historian,
I don't like to predict the future. I don't like
to imagine something that you know. I'm not really Philip
k dicking our American history here, but I do think
(31:46):
that had their reconstruction not been under the purview of
Andrew Johnson, had Nixon not been pardon a month into
Ford's presidency that that we would feel differently about Trump.
But we have gotten used to this. We've been conditioned
(32:08):
over time, and that's very effective.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
I'll be back with my conversation with Alexis Co right
after this break.
Speaker 4 (32:15):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
Okay, So going back to RFK Junior, what do you
make of the black sheep of political dynasties?
Speaker 3 (32:27):
RFK Junior is just amazing. I love you know, legally blonde.
There's that line where she says, you know there or
someone says about her. It's like she just woke up
one day and decided I think I'll go to law
school today. And that's kind of how it is with
someone like RFK or where they just all of a sudden,
(32:49):
they have no history of service. They've lived, let's say
five six decades in this country, yeah, on boards, you know,
divorcing wives, when they have cancer, that sort of thing.
But they've never actually done anything. They haven't served, and
(33:10):
then they decide, oh, I'm I'm going to take this
incredibly important position. I've never worked in a real office.
I was a curator at the NYPL. When I go
to New America, I just steal snacks and give talks
that's it. So I would never think that I could
manage people my poor research assistants, like God help them.
But these people think, oh, yes, I should run for president.
(33:33):
I should, you know, be in charge of incredibly influential
and consequential entities within government. So I think the problem
with the dynasties more than anything else is And this
this is particular to Kennedy though, to RFK Junior, because
(33:53):
the rest of them don't have this. His siblings, the
whole lot of them, because they are a little army
within themselves. They have all said he should not hold
the position that he holds. Caroline Kennedy, who does a
remarkable job of never being in the media, she doesn't
have to be. She wrote a letter and that sounds
(34:15):
like an O a letter. That's a big thing. She's
come out and said he is a deeply troubled person.
What I think is if we step back. Trump loves
to reward loyalty, but he also likes to demolish the competition.
I've never it's like being you know, it's awful to
(34:36):
be with someone and they're jealous of someone you dated
in the eighth grade or something. Trump is jealous of
every President. Ever, he's jealous of James K. Polk, He's
jealous of Wilson, He's probably jealous of Hoover, who no
one really thinks of as in a positive light. And
so there's no one who's a greater challenge to him
(34:57):
than the Kennedys. But to sort of degree the Kennedy name,
so you have the Rose Garden, which was a big thing.
You have usaid I would not be surprised if the
Peace Corps happened soon. He wouldn't get off the plane.
When Obama was awarded the Profiles and Courage Award in
I think twenty sixteen or twenty seventeen by the JFK Library,
(35:18):
Trump was so mad that his plane had landed at
the same time. He didn't even want to be on
the same like paper, the same spread. The Kennedy Center
used to be bipartisan. He's replaced them. Now it's just
Maga only. And people are always, you know, his sicker fans.
They're always sort of nominating Peace Prize and Trump Day.
(35:39):
But now they want to change the name of the
Kennedy Center to the Trump Center. And I think nothing
gives him greater pleasure, And so I do think and
this is me really just sort of taking a risk
care in my personal opinion, not in my professional capacity,
but also a little bit my professional capacity. I think
that he is attempting to obliterate the brand because he
(36:00):
finds it really frustrating. You know, it's you have Camelot
versus American carnage. There's no way he's going to beat
them in words, in looks, in elegance. I don't know
about money. I haven't done those numbers, but they certainly
(36:22):
didn't have to work in the way that he does.
They were better looking, they're in better shape, they were better, better, better,
and so I think that he's the only way he
knows how to deal with them is to cannibalize them.
And so that's that's a little bit of RFKE Junior.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
Okay, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
The last question I wanted to add, what do you
maybe this is what do you want personally? Since you
were forthcoming with personal versus professional, but also professionally, what
do you want, Slash, What do you think the future
of American dynasties will be? Who's the next JFK in
terms of the power of the myth?
Speaker 2 (37:05):
In your view?
Speaker 3 (37:07):
You know, my job has gotten really spicy in the
last eight to twelve years.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
Yeah, I bet.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
And look, now you're on a podcast, I'm asking you
for clickbaity predictions. But also I mean genuinely yeah, at
a pivotal moment, like you mentioned the anti constitutional crisis
in your words, so it's relevant now more than even
before about the idea of dynasty.
Speaker 3 (37:28):
I think dynasty is a certain advantage, just like anything,
but as we've already talked about, you have to back
it up with concerted effort and action. So as much
as we think of Donald Trump being woefully really emphasis
on woefully underprepared and then willfully underprepared in a lot
(37:52):
of ways for the presidency, he's been running for office
and building this brand more or less since I was
a child. I first met him in home alone, and
I think that that is influential in a way that
but it has to be backed up by something. So
(38:13):
even though Trump is not well informed, because you can't
be if you don't read, General Madis I think said
he's functionally illiterate, which means that you know, if you
don't read, you can have information. You can, but it's
just going to be really superficial, and he just does
not understand a lot of things, has absolutely no respect
(38:34):
or understanding for American history. And so I think the
move now, unfortunately is I think authenticity is the most
We've seen this in New York Mom, Donnie right, we
have a mayorial candidate who is running on platforms that
absolutely terrify, slash almost turn people on. There's like a
group that's just like reminds me of Obama in two
(38:57):
thousand and eight, two thousand and seven, where like every
grandparent was like like, ah, then you have and then
you have them getting used to it, realized it's fine,
and actually he's really centrist in all of these things,
and that's not true. Now with we have a candidate
who is very much like a more how can I
explain it more? You know this little place called New
York City. I don't know if the rest of the
country is aware of it, but he is basically like
(39:19):
AOC if she was what everyone wants her to be,
So if she was the socialist nightmare that they claim
that she is, and I think that the most important
thing would be authenticity and someone who is somehow informed,
hopefully more than Trump. But I was thinking about it.
You know a Matthew McConaughey who is really actually done
(39:43):
the work, could one hundred percent sweep primaries. And the
problem I think with a lot of celebrities or people
who come from some sort of prominent background is they
just think, oh, I'm out, that didn't work, I'm going
to quit. Whereas Trump, you have to be shameless, you
(40:05):
have to really take all the hits, which is usually
why second term they're all bitter. They're all bitter and sensitive,
no matter even if it looks like they had a
pretty nice ride. And that I guess is my takeaway
is the Trumps are not forever because as you said,
when I say, you know Trump is getting older, let's
(40:27):
see if he makes it. But you were talking about
his stamina, in his endurance, and that is what I
think is most important. Dynasty would be third on that list.
First would be authenticity, then stamina, and then the last Kennedy.
He had his father's name. They definitely knew he was rich,
he was good looking, he was single, all of these things,
purple heart, But the reason he won was probably none
(40:49):
of those things. That man campaigned like it was his
primary job and like he loved it, and the whole
family wasn't on it. People just need to own whatever.
If we've learned anything from Trumpet's sure a name, some
notoriety own it. Hillary should have owned those emails. She
should have been what's the big deal? So someone who
just really refuses to leave the room will maybe the
(41:12):
last one's standing will win in some ways. Endurance, Yeah,
it's like anything, isn't life justin in the starkest and
most negative way to describe it, life is an endurance challenge.
And so Jeb Bush really, to my mind, he was
not only humiliated, but he took the humiliation and he
(41:33):
sort of retreated with it. And I don't know what
would have happened if any of them not just owned
their liabilities but was like, you're the liability.
Speaker 1 (41:45):
Yeah, Alexis, thank you so much for joining us and
all your insights. I'm super fascinated. And I'm going to
start by reading Contract with America for the first time.
Speaker 3 (41:59):
Okay, well maybe maybe also read you never forget your
first and then we'll we could have like a nice
little book club. But I'm glad you're welcome.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Newt Thank you so much. Thanks.
Speaker 3 (42:10):
I really enjoyed it and I'm Gonna send my Navy or.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
What time is Your That was Alexis co an American
presidential historian, author, podcaster.
Speaker 2 (42:19):
And media commentator.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
If you want to hear more from Alexis, you can
read You Never Forget Your First, which is a biography
of George Washington, and her next book, Young Jack, which
digs into the early life of John F.
Speaker 2 (42:32):
Kennedy.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
You can also follow Alexis at Alexis Underscore co Here
We Go Again as a production of iHeart Podcasts and
Snafu Media in association with New Metric Media.
Speaker 2 (42:44):
Our executive producers.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Are me Kelpin Ed Helms, Mike Falbo, Alissa Martino, Andy Kim,
Pat Kelly, Chris Kelly, and Dylan Fagan. Caitlin Fontana is
our producer and writer. Dave Shumka is our producer and editor.
Additional writing from Megan tan Our consulting producer is Romin Borsolino.
Tory Smith is our associate producer. Theme music by Chris Kelly,
(43:06):
logo by Matt Gosson, Legal review from Daniel Welsh, Caroline
Johnson and Megan Halson. Special thanks to Glenn Bassner, Isaac Dunham,
Adam Horn, Lane, Klein and everyone at iHeart podcasts, but
especially Will Pearson, Carrie Lieberman and Nikki Etour.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
Thanks for listening. See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.