July 23, 2024 • 21 mins
Journalist and author, A.J. Jacobs, discusses his latest book “The Year of Living Constitutionally,” with Jon Stewart and breaks down what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Plus, Desi Lydic and Jordan Klepper welcome New York Times reporters Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer to chat about their new book “The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America,” and the impact abortion bans have on other components of reproductive rights.
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 (00:01):
You're listening to Comedy Central.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Now, hey there, this is Daisy Leideck. While the Daily
Show is off this week, we put together some special
highlights just for you. We'll be back next week, but
in the meantime, enjoy this episode.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
I'm not gonna tell us.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
So I guess can I?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
A journal had it all?
Speaker 4 (00:24):
Thor? His latest book is called The Year of Living Constitutionally,
One man's humble quest to follow the Constitution's original meeting?
Speaker 5 (00:32):
Is why wing the program? A? J. Jacobs, sir, you.
Speaker 6 (00:38):
Run nice to say it.
Speaker 5 (00:46):
Thank you the Year of Living Constitutionally?
Speaker 7 (00:50):
Agent?
Speaker 6 (00:51):
What so?
Speaker 4 (00:53):
How did the Year of Living Constitutionally? A humble quest
to follow the constitutionalism? How did this come about? Why
would you consider this?
Speaker 6 (01:01):
Well, first of all, thank you and goodmorrow? Of course?
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Is that a constitutional meetings?
Speaker 5 (01:06):
All right?
Speaker 6 (01:07):
And this came about because I wanted to figure out
what is in the Constitution?
Speaker 5 (01:13):
What does it actually say?
Speaker 6 (01:14):
And I thought it was a timely question because, as
you know, our current Supreme Court thinks we should follow
the original meaning from nineteen eighty.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Now, I haven't been watching the news, there is anything
going on.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
I recommend it. What a terrible thing.
Speaker 6 (01:28):
Yeah, so I thought, I'm going to try to figure
out what that was by getting in the mindset of
our founding father.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Now, as you go back and you revisit sort of
the mindset of the founders, are you struck by how
human they were? You know, we've deified them to a
large extent, But when you learn about them, do you think, like, oh,
a couple of these guys might be idiots?
Speaker 5 (01:49):
Like what was thought?
Speaker 6 (01:52):
Well, yes, the Constitution is amazing because parts of it
are so inspiring. The preamble fifty two of the greatest
words ever written about the general welfare and blessings of liberty.
But then there are it is a flawed document. There
are actual misspellings in the Constitution. The word Pennsylvania is
(02:12):
spelled two different ways p e m n and pe n,
So it is not perfect. And I ran the Constitution
through grammarly and grammarily found it found six hundred mistakes,
six hundred mistakes, so it is not perfect.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
And with the grammarly mistakes, did you correct it or
did you think, oh that one, no, let's pass that
one to it. How did you did you dismiss the
grammarly questions?
Speaker 6 (02:35):
Well, I couldn't go in and change it on the.
Speaker 4 (02:38):
Actual document spells Pennsylvania two different ways.
Speaker 6 (02:41):
That's rights and the its as actually should be an
it apostrophe s. So if Ben Franklin had invented social media,
they would have gotten a lot of flak for that.
Brilliant but so it is, and they knew it was flawed.
That's what's amazing. The founding fathers knew this is a
flawed and they said.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
Would they be surprised at how we've deified them?
Speaker 6 (03:03):
I think so. I think many of them would.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Be now in their discussions, did you as you looked
back and saw the discussions that they were having. My
understanding is they never really thought that partisan politics, would,
you know, be the thing we were fighting over. They
thought the branches of government would fight each other, that
the executive would fight the judicial would fight the legislative.
(03:26):
I don't think they thought parties would try and weaponize
each department against these.
Speaker 6 (03:31):
They did not see this rigid two party system coming.
And James Madison, he knew they were going to be factions,
but he thought there were going to be lots of
factions and maybe six or eight look more like a
European parliament, and they would have been shocked by so
much of what we have now, including the president. I
(03:51):
bring that up because it's kind of timely, and they.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
They were very understated in the seventeen hundreds.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
It is somewhat time well.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
They when the idea of a single presidency came up
in the convention, a lot of the delegates said, are
you jesting?
Speaker 5 (04:08):
That is a terrible idea.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
Wait, they said, are you jesting?
Speaker 5 (04:12):
I'm paraphrasing, I'm paraphrasing.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Are you jesting?
Speaker 6 (04:15):
But they said, we just fought a war to get
rid of a king, why do we want another. One
of them said, this is the fetus of monarchy. If
we do this, we should have three three presidents, twelve
presidents and.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
Almost like the court that the presidentcy and the court
would be similar. Not a unitary executive, not a single person.
Speaker 5 (04:35):
Right.
Speaker 6 (04:35):
And in the end it was fought for weeks. In
the end, the unitary executive one. But I have to
say that fetus of monarchy common. I mean, it's not
a fetus anymore. It's like a teenager. Right, it is
like we are two hundred and some years later.
Speaker 5 (04:51):
Right. It took a while, but it's here.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
What do we mistake about them. You know, now, do
you watch the arguments that you see about the founder's
intent differently? Do you? Does it make you a little
crazier knowing what the actual arguments were.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Oh? Absolutely, I mean it was.
Speaker 6 (05:09):
Their mindset was so different in so many ways. It
was like a foreign country. And just to give you
one example, their idea of rights were very different. Rights
were not trump cards, sorry about the right, but they
there were responsibilities with them.
Speaker 5 (05:24):
They exactly.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
They had They should have had a bill of responsibilities
in addition to a bill of rights. But they just
assumed that we were all going to be part of
and contribute to the betterment of our community. And you
saw this all over in the First Amendment, the Second Amendment,
and they would be shocked by they would be shocked
(05:46):
by how focused we are on individual rights, which I love,
I love them, but we need the balance.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Right and that we've in some ways exploited those conversations
to just get what we want or do what we
want right exactly.
Speaker 6 (05:59):
And they talked about virtue. They loved that word. And
this is before it had sort of a negative tage.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
How many of them do you think banged porn stars?
How many of them when they talk about virtue.
Speaker 6 (06:15):
Well, I talked to many constitutional scholars.
Speaker 5 (06:17):
Never none of them hasn't said that.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
But what about the level of discourse, because I'm always
struck by, you know, even in this situation that we
face now with the debate and all that, the way,
the gaslighting that occurs, the lack of trust in American's
instincts or ability to take complex issues and hear about
(06:41):
them honestly.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Right.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
But I imagine their conversations were very frank and very direct,
but also sophisticated.
Speaker 6 (06:49):
Absolutely, I think it was a genuine difference. I wrote
this book a lot of it with a quill pen.
And I'm not saying everyone needs to go back to
a quill pen.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
You wrote, you wrote the book with a quill pen.
Speaker 6 (07:00):
Yeah, because I was trying to live the Constitution. I
had my musket. I carried it around New York.
Speaker 5 (07:06):
I wrote a quill the quill pen.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
There's out of curiosity. Do you consider yourself a method writer?
Is that what this answer?
Speaker 5 (07:18):
That's exactly I love that phrase. Thank you so you
did so?
Speaker 4 (07:21):
It was a quill pen. And is there something about
using the quill that that is more deliberately and allows
you to think different.
Speaker 6 (07:29):
I really believe that there were no dings and chimes
from the internet, I could actually focus and maybe come
up with some subtle thoughts. And I can if the
Constitution were written on a iPhone with with emojis, that
would not be good.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
Can you imagine that, you know all men are created equal? Lol,
it would have been a nightmare.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
Nightm They loved cold takes, not hot takes.
Speaker 6 (07:56):
They're all about let's take a look at the frozen
const and one my favorite founding father, Ben Franklin said
at the Constitucal Convention. He said, the older I get,
the less certain I am of my own opinions, which
I love.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
I mean exactly.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
And they even they baked it into the cake. As
far as they really thought amendments will be necessary. This
has to be a document that can change with the
consent of the government.
Speaker 5 (08:21):
Exactly.
Speaker 6 (08:22):
They knew it was imperfect. They said, let's figure out
ways to change it. But as you say, they didn't
see this rigid two party system. Now, the last amendment
we had was nineteen ninety two, and I mean you
had to get two thirds of Congress to agree. You
can't get two thirds of Congress to agree on the
color of a green pepper.
Speaker 5 (08:42):
You know, you just can't. It's impossible.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Yeah, because they are reddish.
Speaker 5 (08:48):
That's a good point. Thank you very much forbidding.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
The Year of Living Constitutionally.
Speaker 7 (08:53):
Is available now.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Welcome back to the Daily Show our guests tonight, our
reporters at the New York Times and co authors of
the best selling book The Fall of Row The Rise
of a New America. Please welcome Elizabeth Das and Lisa Leahre.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Oh my goodness, thank you so much for being on
the show and for all of your incredible work on this.
We enjoyed your book very much. And also we're thoroughly
horrified by all of it. Obviously, but so many Americans
felt kind of blindsided when Roebi Wade was overturned. And
(09:57):
yet you walk us through every step the way. This
was not an overnight, shocking decision. This was decades in
the making. Walk us through some of that.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
You mean, the secret plan to overturn rov wide. Yes, yes,
there was one. For fifty years. The anti abortion movement
tried so hard, right, They made it their life's work,
generational commitment, to try to overturn Row. This was a
moral commitment for them, for them the greatest moral calling
of their lives, and they were not successful until about
(10:30):
ten years ago. Something changed, and we've taken to calling
it this was the last decade, the final decade of
their Row era in American life. They had new tactics,
new strategies, and they really radicalized along with the Republican
Party and did what many Americans thought was unimaginable, which
was overturning Roe.
Speaker 8 (10:50):
V Wade in telling this story, how much of this
did you find was based in sort of a moral
argument and how much of this felt like it was
groups who had political motives who are trying to utilize
Roe as a piece in which to gain more political power.
Speaker 9 (11:05):
Well, certainly there's a really deep moral and spiritual element.
These are conservative Christians, largely Evangelical and Catholics, and they
see this as a story that's rooted in biblical kinds
of terms. But I think there's also this broader effort,
and what they effectively want to do is overturn elements
of the sexual revolution and return the family, the American family,
(11:25):
to a more traditional time. I think one of the
most interesting things we found in our book was the
role that abortion plays. Of course, abortion is about the
right to terminate a pregnancy and when a woman can
legally do that, but it also has this great symbolism
in American life. It sort of symbolizes for people morality
and religion and medicine, and of course politics and gender
(11:46):
roles and all these really big things. And so if
you want to understand where this election might be going,
and it really if you want to understand where the
country might be going, the story of the fall of
Row is one way to understand.
Speaker 8 (11:59):
That you articulate that that Rome has taken on such
a larger Yeah, it's not just one thing anymore.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Was that always the case or is there?
Speaker 8 (12:07):
Can you pinpoint when that really started to pick up steam?
Speaker 9 (12:10):
Well, look, our book starts in twenty thirteen, which is
right when Obama ran one reelection, and it's also when
conservative Christians became a slight minority in America. So this
is a group that felt that they were losing their
holds on American life, losing their traditional power in American life,
and I think abortion rights were one way that they
(12:31):
thought they could sort of return the country to where
it was before. So it is this larger fight and
we're seeing that play out now in sort of efforts
around IVF, around some forms of contraception. This is, of
course about abortion, but it's about so much more than
just abortion.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
One of the things that I really appreciated about this
book is you go through the backstories of all of
these characters. You don't paint them as heroes and villains.
You talk about Leonard Leo from the Federalist Society and
talk about how he personally was affected, what formed his fate.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Leonard Leo devout Catholic, obviously legal mastermind, but the story
that motivated motivated him the most is the death of
his daughter when she was fourteen. Their firstborn daughter had
a very difficult prenatal diagnosis. They decided to give birth
and raise her, and uh, you know, when we talked
(13:23):
with him, he talked a lot about suffering and his
views motivated by Catholic theology about suffering and salvation in
the in the human experience, and so for him that
really shaped not only how he wanted to run his
own family, but how he sees how the entire country
and world should be structured.
Speaker 9 (13:44):
You know, for a lot of these anti abortion activists,
those two worlds are intertwined. This isn't a story that
you can understand just through politics or just through religion.
These are intertwined stories, and I think that's part of
what we really tried to get out at the book
was tell those intertwined stories in a way that reflected
sort of the intimate This is such an intimate issue,
you know. That reflected that intimacy and how personal it
(14:05):
is for these people. Look, it's something that everyone understands.
If you've had a baby, if you were with someone
who had a baby, if you were a baby, at
some level, you would inherently understand like how this works
and what this is about. And I think it's not
the kind of issue that even for the most committed
activists that can be disconnected or rooted just in politicals.
Speaker 8 (14:23):
I mean, this book talks about the successes of the activists, right,
A lot of them are the grassroot activists on the right. Like,
what were the failings of the left in this fight?
Speaker 9 (14:32):
Well, you know, look, I think it was really there
was this profound sense of denial across the left, and
in some ways that's reasonable, Right, It's really hard to
believe that this right that people had for generations could
suddenly just vanish. And because of that, Democrats, you know,
they would always go out Democratic candidates and warn about
threats to Row or Roe could fall, and people just
didn't believe them. Like we have in the book, tons
(14:54):
of polling and focus groups where the issue just didn't
resonate with people because they didn't believe it would happen.
And so it's hard to see and prevent something that
you don't think is happening, right, And then of course
they got very very unlucky. Trump won and he got
three appointments to Supreme Court, unheard of since Ronald Reagan.
And there becomes a point, a turning point, where the
(15:14):
march to end Row effectively becomes unstoppable for Democrats and
the abortion rights activists.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
There's the you know, part of the civil rights activists
were rooted in the Christian community. Where's the disconnect? Why
have liberals not been able to connect with the Christian
community since then?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Well, conservative Christians figured out that this wasn't really about
cultural opinion, and a majority of Americans support and abortion
rights for you know, for decades. But for them, this
was about finding ways to pull the levers of power right.
You can you can kind of do all the moral
(15:58):
conversation education that you want either on either side of this.
But if you don't have power, you can't do anything.
So they figured out exactly what levers where in the
country at what levels of government, from the smallest state
house lobbyists all the way up to the presidency the
Supreme Court, and they identified them, they pulled them, and
(16:18):
then they're able to change the culture that way, right,
instead of having culture change the law.
Speaker 9 (16:24):
Yeah, look, I think we think of politics as working
one way. Right, people protest, public opinion changes, politicians respond,
the culture changes. This is a really different kind of story.
This is a majority of America's supported rowe for decades.
But these activists on the right, where these conservative Christian
activists were able to seize controls of these levers of
power and change the culture effectively through force.
Speaker 8 (16:47):
Now take a step back into what's happening now. We
see the Republican platform seems to be softening on abortion,
at least not articulating that they want a federal PA.
We see what happened with Miffapristone at the Supreme Court.
Do you see a recalculation happening?
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Some different things are happening at once here, right, Like
obviously Trump and a lot of Republican leaders see that
this is now a losing issue for them. I mean,
Roe was a foundation for so long. Republicans were able
to use it in a certain way to motivate key
parts of their base, and that's obviously really changed. But
you know, now things we think of as maybe losses
(17:28):
for the anti abortion movement, they're able to reframe and
see them as wins, right. I mean, even the platform
can be doing whatever it's doing right in their minds,
But they're on the ground thinking in these generational long
terms of how they can change the groundwork, similarly to
how they overturned row right. They're thinking long term about
(17:49):
what does this mean for how we can restrict IVF right,
what does this mean for access to some forms of
birth control? That is such a different long game than
Democrats are playing, so in a way, it is definitely
a power struggle right now. The two movements, the anti
abortion activists and the Republican Party needed each other to
(18:11):
gain power and to accomplish their mutual goals, so that
we're seeing that as attention. But this is a movement
that cannot be undercounted. I mean, they accomplished one of
the biggest political resurgences this country has ever seen, and
under the noses of people, many of whom just weren't
paying attention.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Where do you feel, where do we go from here?
I mean, are women going to have to just run
for president and have presidential immunity in order to legally.
Speaker 9 (18:37):
Have a.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Definite are.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Well?
Speaker 9 (18:45):
I mean, it is worth pointing out that many of
the most prominent figures in the anti abortion movement are women,
that there was a strategy to put women at the
front of that movement. I think, you know, I've asked
a lot of abortion rights activists like that very question,
what happens now? It took fifty years for a row
to fall? How many years does it take for it
to return? And nobody knows. It's an unanswerable question. But
(19:07):
nobody's saying one year. Nobody's saying five years, this is
ten years, this is twenty years. There's no magic Wand
you know President Biden talks about restoring Row, there's no
way to do that without a margin in the Senate.
That feels almost impossible unless they overturn the filibuster and
then all agree on what that looks like, which, as
we know about the Senate, that's an extremely high bard
up there. So there's no easy answer here. There's not
(19:29):
some like thing that can just snap back in place
and Row returns. I think the country is in for
many more decades of wrangling over this issue.
Speaker 8 (19:37):
For the disheartened folks who see this story, what can
they take away? What positive change can they make?
Speaker 9 (19:46):
Look, I think one of the things that has been
that was most powerful for the anti abortion was this
sense of denial. They did something because nobody believed they
could do it, and that's been really shattered now. So
I think there's a lot more awareness of what's goinging on.
I think people are paying a lot more attention to
what's happening, not only with abortion rights, but with things
like IVF in some forms of contraception. So, like all
(20:08):
political issues, I think this is one of engagement and awareness,
and I do wonder if we're I do think we're
seeing more of that now.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
And there's this question of ten Democrats respond with any
kind of generational plan in the way that Republicans had.
I mean it was just a answer.
Speaker 9 (20:29):
Yeah, we've answered that.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
I mean, this is asymmetrical warfare. It hasn't been for
a very long time, and there's a real question. I mean,
even people like Hillary Clinton told us that the Democrats
just don't have the same kind of infrastructure on their side.
So there's an open question as too, you know that
are they thinking just an election cycle so or are
they thinking about one generation, two generations from now.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
We so appreciate all of the work that you're doing
and you being on here tonight. We're still hopeful that
there will be your next book, the Rerise of Row
putting out a yeah, we cycle going than Thanks so
much for being marring. The Paula Row is available now.
(21:15):
Elizabeth Dyas and Lisa.
Speaker 7 (21:16):
Larrer explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe
by searching The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts.
Watch The Daily Show weeknights at eleven ten Central on
Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Plus Paramount Podcasts
You're listening to Comedy Central.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Now, hey there, this is Daisy Leideck. While the Daily
Show is off this week, we put together some special
highlights just for you. We'll be back next week, but
in the meantime, enjoy this episode.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
I'm not gonna tell us.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
So I guess can I?
Speaker 3 (00:22):
A journal had it all?
Speaker 4 (00:24):
Thor? His latest book is called The Year of Living Constitutionally,
One man's humble quest to follow the Constitution's original meeting?
Speaker 5 (00:32):
Is why wing the program? A? J. Jacobs, sir, you.
Speaker 6 (00:38):
Run nice to say it.
Speaker 5 (00:46):
Thank you the Year of Living Constitutionally?
Speaker 7 (00:50):
Agent?
Speaker 6 (00:51):
What so?
Speaker 4 (00:53):
How did the Year of Living Constitutionally? A humble quest
to follow the constitutionalism? How did this come about? Why
would you consider this?
Speaker 6 (01:01):
Well, first of all, thank you and goodmorrow? Of course?
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Is that a constitutional meetings?
Speaker 5 (01:06):
All right?
Speaker 6 (01:07):
And this came about because I wanted to figure out
what is in the Constitution?
Speaker 5 (01:13):
What does it actually say?
Speaker 6 (01:14):
And I thought it was a timely question because, as
you know, our current Supreme Court thinks we should follow
the original meaning from nineteen eighty.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Now, I haven't been watching the news, there is anything
going on.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
I recommend it. What a terrible thing.
Speaker 6 (01:28):
Yeah, so I thought, I'm going to try to figure
out what that was by getting in the mindset of
our founding father.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Now, as you go back and you revisit sort of
the mindset of the founders, are you struck by how
human they were? You know, we've deified them to a
large extent, But when you learn about them, do you think, like, oh,
a couple of these guys might be idiots?
Speaker 5 (01:49):
Like what was thought?
Speaker 6 (01:52):
Well, yes, the Constitution is amazing because parts of it
are so inspiring. The preamble fifty two of the greatest
words ever written about the general welfare and blessings of liberty.
But then there are it is a flawed document. There
are actual misspellings in the Constitution. The word Pennsylvania is
(02:12):
spelled two different ways p e m n and pe n,
So it is not perfect. And I ran the Constitution
through grammarly and grammarily found it found six hundred mistakes,
six hundred mistakes, so it is not perfect.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
And with the grammarly mistakes, did you correct it or
did you think, oh that one, no, let's pass that
one to it. How did you did you dismiss the
grammarly questions?
Speaker 6 (02:35):
Well, I couldn't go in and change it on the.
Speaker 4 (02:38):
Actual document spells Pennsylvania two different ways.
Speaker 6 (02:41):
That's rights and the its as actually should be an
it apostrophe s. So if Ben Franklin had invented social media,
they would have gotten a lot of flak for that.
Brilliant but so it is, and they knew it was flawed.
That's what's amazing. The founding fathers knew this is a
flawed and they said.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
Would they be surprised at how we've deified them?
Speaker 6 (03:03):
I think so. I think many of them would.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Be now in their discussions, did you as you looked
back and saw the discussions that they were having. My
understanding is they never really thought that partisan politics, would,
you know, be the thing we were fighting over. They
thought the branches of government would fight each other, that
the executive would fight the judicial would fight the legislative.
(03:26):
I don't think they thought parties would try and weaponize
each department against these.
Speaker 6 (03:31):
They did not see this rigid two party system coming.
And James Madison, he knew they were going to be factions,
but he thought there were going to be lots of
factions and maybe six or eight look more like a
European parliament, and they would have been shocked by so
much of what we have now, including the president. I
(03:51):
bring that up because it's kind of timely, and they.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
They were very understated in the seventeen hundreds.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
It is somewhat time well.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
They when the idea of a single presidency came up
in the convention, a lot of the delegates said, are
you jesting?
Speaker 5 (04:08):
That is a terrible idea.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
Wait, they said, are you jesting?
Speaker 5 (04:12):
I'm paraphrasing, I'm paraphrasing.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Are you jesting?
Speaker 6 (04:15):
But they said, we just fought a war to get
rid of a king, why do we want another. One
of them said, this is the fetus of monarchy. If
we do this, we should have three three presidents, twelve
presidents and.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
Almost like the court that the presidentcy and the court
would be similar. Not a unitary executive, not a single person.
Speaker 5 (04:35):
Right.
Speaker 6 (04:35):
And in the end it was fought for weeks. In
the end, the unitary executive one. But I have to
say that fetus of monarchy common. I mean, it's not
a fetus anymore. It's like a teenager. Right, it is
like we are two hundred and some years later.
Speaker 5 (04:51):
Right. It took a while, but it's here.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
What do we mistake about them. You know, now, do
you watch the arguments that you see about the founder's
intent differently? Do you? Does it make you a little
crazier knowing what the actual arguments were.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Oh? Absolutely, I mean it was.
Speaker 6 (05:09):
Their mindset was so different in so many ways. It
was like a foreign country. And just to give you
one example, their idea of rights were very different. Rights
were not trump cards, sorry about the right, but they
there were responsibilities with them.
Speaker 5 (05:24):
They exactly.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
They had They should have had a bill of responsibilities
in addition to a bill of rights. But they just
assumed that we were all going to be part of
and contribute to the betterment of our community. And you
saw this all over in the First Amendment, the Second Amendment,
and they would be shocked by they would be shocked
(05:46):
by how focused we are on individual rights, which I love,
I love them, but we need the balance.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Right and that we've in some ways exploited those conversations
to just get what we want or do what we
want right exactly.
Speaker 6 (05:59):
And they talked about virtue. They loved that word. And
this is before it had sort of a negative tage.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
How many of them do you think banged porn stars?
How many of them when they talk about virtue.
Speaker 6 (06:15):
Well, I talked to many constitutional scholars.
Speaker 5 (06:17):
Never none of them hasn't said that.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
But what about the level of discourse, because I'm always
struck by, you know, even in this situation that we
face now with the debate and all that, the way,
the gaslighting that occurs, the lack of trust in American's
instincts or ability to take complex issues and hear about
(06:41):
them honestly.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Right.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
But I imagine their conversations were very frank and very direct,
but also sophisticated.
Speaker 6 (06:49):
Absolutely, I think it was a genuine difference. I wrote
this book a lot of it with a quill pen.
And I'm not saying everyone needs to go back to
a quill pen.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
You wrote, you wrote the book with a quill pen.
Speaker 6 (07:00):
Yeah, because I was trying to live the Constitution. I
had my musket. I carried it around New York.
Speaker 5 (07:06):
I wrote a quill the quill pen.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
There's out of curiosity. Do you consider yourself a method writer?
Is that what this answer?
Speaker 5 (07:18):
That's exactly I love that phrase. Thank you so you
did so?
Speaker 4 (07:21):
It was a quill pen. And is there something about
using the quill that that is more deliberately and allows
you to think different.
Speaker 6 (07:29):
I really believe that there were no dings and chimes
from the internet, I could actually focus and maybe come
up with some subtle thoughts. And I can if the
Constitution were written on a iPhone with with emojis, that
would not be good.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
Can you imagine that, you know all men are created equal? Lol,
it would have been a nightmare.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
Nightm They loved cold takes, not hot takes.
Speaker 6 (07:56):
They're all about let's take a look at the frozen
const and one my favorite founding father, Ben Franklin said
at the Constitucal Convention. He said, the older I get,
the less certain I am of my own opinions, which
I love.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
I mean exactly.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
And they even they baked it into the cake. As
far as they really thought amendments will be necessary. This
has to be a document that can change with the
consent of the government.
Speaker 5 (08:21):
Exactly.
Speaker 6 (08:22):
They knew it was imperfect. They said, let's figure out
ways to change it. But as you say, they didn't
see this rigid two party system. Now, the last amendment
we had was nineteen ninety two, and I mean you
had to get two thirds of Congress to agree. You
can't get two thirds of Congress to agree on the
color of a green pepper.
Speaker 5 (08:42):
You know, you just can't. It's impossible.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Yeah, because they are reddish.
Speaker 5 (08:48):
That's a good point. Thank you very much forbidding.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
The Year of Living Constitutionally.
Speaker 7 (08:53):
Is available now.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Welcome back to the Daily Show our guests tonight, our
reporters at the New York Times and co authors of
the best selling book The Fall of Row The Rise
of a New America. Please welcome Elizabeth Das and Lisa Leahre.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Oh my goodness, thank you so much for being on
the show and for all of your incredible work on this.
We enjoyed your book very much. And also we're thoroughly
horrified by all of it. Obviously, but so many Americans
felt kind of blindsided when Roebi Wade was overturned. And
(09:57):
yet you walk us through every step the way. This
was not an overnight, shocking decision. This was decades in
the making. Walk us through some of that.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
You mean, the secret plan to overturn rov wide. Yes, yes,
there was one. For fifty years. The anti abortion movement
tried so hard, right, They made it their life's work,
generational commitment, to try to overturn Row. This was a
moral commitment for them, for them the greatest moral calling
of their lives, and they were not successful until about
(10:30):
ten years ago. Something changed, and we've taken to calling
it this was the last decade, the final decade of
their Row era in American life. They had new tactics,
new strategies, and they really radicalized along with the Republican
Party and did what many Americans thought was unimaginable, which
was overturning Roe.
Speaker 8 (10:50):
V Wade in telling this story, how much of this
did you find was based in sort of a moral
argument and how much of this felt like it was
groups who had political motives who are trying to utilize
Roe as a piece in which to gain more political power.
Speaker 9 (11:05):
Well, certainly there's a really deep moral and spiritual element.
These are conservative Christians, largely Evangelical and Catholics, and they
see this as a story that's rooted in biblical kinds
of terms. But I think there's also this broader effort,
and what they effectively want to do is overturn elements
of the sexual revolution and return the family, the American family,
(11:25):
to a more traditional time. I think one of the
most interesting things we found in our book was the
role that abortion plays. Of course, abortion is about the
right to terminate a pregnancy and when a woman can
legally do that, but it also has this great symbolism
in American life. It sort of symbolizes for people morality
and religion and medicine, and of course politics and gender
(11:46):
roles and all these really big things. And so if
you want to understand where this election might be going,
and it really if you want to understand where the
country might be going, the story of the fall of
Row is one way to understand.
Speaker 8 (11:59):
That you articulate that that Rome has taken on such
a larger Yeah, it's not just one thing anymore.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Was that always the case or is there?
Speaker 8 (12:07):
Can you pinpoint when that really started to pick up steam?
Speaker 9 (12:10):
Well, look, our book starts in twenty thirteen, which is
right when Obama ran one reelection, and it's also when
conservative Christians became a slight minority in America. So this
is a group that felt that they were losing their
holds on American life, losing their traditional power in American life,
and I think abortion rights were one way that they
(12:31):
thought they could sort of return the country to where
it was before. So it is this larger fight and
we're seeing that play out now in sort of efforts
around IVF, around some forms of contraception. This is, of
course about abortion, but it's about so much more than
just abortion.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
One of the things that I really appreciated about this
book is you go through the backstories of all of
these characters. You don't paint them as heroes and villains.
You talk about Leonard Leo from the Federalist Society and
talk about how he personally was affected, what formed his fate.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Leonard Leo devout Catholic, obviously legal mastermind, but the story
that motivated motivated him the most is the death of
his daughter when she was fourteen. Their firstborn daughter had
a very difficult prenatal diagnosis. They decided to give birth
and raise her, and uh, you know, when we talked
(13:23):
with him, he talked a lot about suffering and his
views motivated by Catholic theology about suffering and salvation in
the in the human experience, and so for him that
really shaped not only how he wanted to run his
own family, but how he sees how the entire country
and world should be structured.
Speaker 9 (13:44):
You know, for a lot of these anti abortion activists,
those two worlds are intertwined. This isn't a story that
you can understand just through politics or just through religion.
These are intertwined stories, and I think that's part of
what we really tried to get out at the book
was tell those intertwined stories in a way that reflected
sort of the intimate This is such an intimate issue,
you know. That reflected that intimacy and how personal it
(14:05):
is for these people. Look, it's something that everyone understands.
If you've had a baby, if you were with someone
who had a baby, if you were a baby, at
some level, you would inherently understand like how this works
and what this is about. And I think it's not
the kind of issue that even for the most committed
activists that can be disconnected or rooted just in politicals.
Speaker 8 (14:23):
I mean, this book talks about the successes of the activists, right,
A lot of them are the grassroot activists on the right. Like,
what were the failings of the left in this fight?
Speaker 9 (14:32):
Well, you know, look, I think it was really there
was this profound sense of denial across the left, and
in some ways that's reasonable, Right, It's really hard to
believe that this right that people had for generations could
suddenly just vanish. And because of that, Democrats, you know,
they would always go out Democratic candidates and warn about
threats to Row or Roe could fall, and people just
didn't believe them. Like we have in the book, tons
(14:54):
of polling and focus groups where the issue just didn't
resonate with people because they didn't believe it would happen.
And so it's hard to see and prevent something that
you don't think is happening, right, And then of course
they got very very unlucky. Trump won and he got
three appointments to Supreme Court, unheard of since Ronald Reagan.
And there becomes a point, a turning point, where the
(15:14):
march to end Row effectively becomes unstoppable for Democrats and
the abortion rights activists.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
There's the you know, part of the civil rights activists
were rooted in the Christian community. Where's the disconnect? Why
have liberals not been able to connect with the Christian
community since then?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Well, conservative Christians figured out that this wasn't really about
cultural opinion, and a majority of Americans support and abortion
rights for you know, for decades. But for them, this
was about finding ways to pull the levers of power right.
You can you can kind of do all the moral
(15:58):
conversation education that you want either on either side of this.
But if you don't have power, you can't do anything.
So they figured out exactly what levers where in the
country at what levels of government, from the smallest state
house lobbyists all the way up to the presidency the
Supreme Court, and they identified them, they pulled them, and
(16:18):
then they're able to change the culture that way, right,
instead of having culture change the law.
Speaker 9 (16:24):
Yeah, look, I think we think of politics as working
one way. Right, people protest, public opinion changes, politicians respond,
the culture changes. This is a really different kind of story.
This is a majority of America's supported rowe for decades.
But these activists on the right, where these conservative Christian
activists were able to seize controls of these levers of
power and change the culture effectively through force.
Speaker 8 (16:47):
Now take a step back into what's happening now. We
see the Republican platform seems to be softening on abortion,
at least not articulating that they want a federal PA.
We see what happened with Miffapristone at the Supreme Court.
Do you see a recalculation happening?
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Some different things are happening at once here, right, Like
obviously Trump and a lot of Republican leaders see that
this is now a losing issue for them. I mean,
Roe was a foundation for so long. Republicans were able
to use it in a certain way to motivate key
parts of their base, and that's obviously really changed. But
you know, now things we think of as maybe losses
(17:28):
for the anti abortion movement, they're able to reframe and
see them as wins, right. I mean, even the platform
can be doing whatever it's doing right in their minds,
But they're on the ground thinking in these generational long
terms of how they can change the groundwork, similarly to
how they overturned row right. They're thinking long term about
(17:49):
what does this mean for how we can restrict IVF right,
what does this mean for access to some forms of
birth control? That is such a different long game than
Democrats are playing, so in a way, it is definitely
a power struggle right now. The two movements, the anti
abortion activists and the Republican Party needed each other to
(18:11):
gain power and to accomplish their mutual goals, so that
we're seeing that as attention. But this is a movement
that cannot be undercounted. I mean, they accomplished one of
the biggest political resurgences this country has ever seen, and
under the noses of people, many of whom just weren't
paying attention.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Where do you feel, where do we go from here?
I mean, are women going to have to just run
for president and have presidential immunity in order to legally.
Speaker 9 (18:37):
Have a.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Definite are.
Speaker 4 (18:44):
Well?
Speaker 9 (18:45):
I mean, it is worth pointing out that many of
the most prominent figures in the anti abortion movement are women,
that there was a strategy to put women at the
front of that movement. I think, you know, I've asked
a lot of abortion rights activists like that very question,
what happens now? It took fifty years for a row
to fall? How many years does it take for it
to return? And nobody knows. It's an unanswerable question. But
(19:07):
nobody's saying one year. Nobody's saying five years, this is
ten years, this is twenty years. There's no magic Wand
you know President Biden talks about restoring Row, there's no
way to do that without a margin in the Senate.
That feels almost impossible unless they overturn the filibuster and
then all agree on what that looks like, which, as
we know about the Senate, that's an extremely high bard
up there. So there's no easy answer here. There's not
(19:29):
some like thing that can just snap back in place
and Row returns. I think the country is in for
many more decades of wrangling over this issue.
Speaker 8 (19:37):
For the disheartened folks who see this story, what can
they take away? What positive change can they make?
Speaker 9 (19:46):
Look, I think one of the things that has been
that was most powerful for the anti abortion was this
sense of denial. They did something because nobody believed they
could do it, and that's been really shattered now. So
I think there's a lot more awareness of what's goinging on.
I think people are paying a lot more attention to
what's happening, not only with abortion rights, but with things
like IVF in some forms of contraception. So, like all
(20:08):
political issues, I think this is one of engagement and awareness,
and I do wonder if we're I do think we're
seeing more of that now.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
And there's this question of ten Democrats respond with any
kind of generational plan in the way that Republicans had.
I mean it was just a answer.
Speaker 9 (20:29):
Yeah, we've answered that.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
I mean, this is asymmetrical warfare. It hasn't been for
a very long time, and there's a real question. I mean,
even people like Hillary Clinton told us that the Democrats
just don't have the same kind of infrastructure on their side.
So there's an open question as too, you know that
are they thinking just an election cycle so or are
they thinking about one generation, two generations from now.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
We so appreciate all of the work that you're doing
and you being on here tonight. We're still hopeful that
there will be your next book, the Rerise of Row
putting out a yeah, we cycle going than Thanks so
much for being marring. The Paula Row is available now.
(21:15):
Elizabeth Dyas and Lisa.
Speaker 7 (21:16):
Larrer explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe
by searching The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts.
Watch The Daily Show weeknights at eleven ten Central on
Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Plus Paramount Podcasts
Popular Podcasts
1. 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.
2. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.