November 3, 2024 • 57 mins
In this episode, producer Erin Rogers interviews FBTM's host & writer, Logan, about the past and future of the podcast. Topics discussed include: what inspired Logan to start a history podcast; book recommendations for US history fans; how the perspective brought by troubling current events should or shouldn't affect our approach to the show; why Thomas Dewey may be an underrated mid-20th Century moderate Republican, and why Eisenhower is one who is often overrated; what Logan's favorite episodes to write have been; the challenges of covering the turbulent 1960s; a denial that the show has been unreasonably obsessed with the Kennedys; what we do and do not about our show's audience; why Logan is not publicly disclosing his favorite color at this time; and what the future of the rebooted podcast holds.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Logan (00:01):
Welcome to the From Boomers to Millennials podcast,
a modern US history podcast.
This is episode 19A, a specialinterview episode behind the
scenes of From Boomers toMillennials.
This is going to be aninterview conducted by my
(00:25):
esteemed producer.
She is my sister, Erin Rogers,who has been a huge help and
helping to produce and do someproofreading on the show since
the beginning.
But we thought it might be anice change to go behind the
scenes a little bit, talk aboutwhere we are in the podcast and
where we're going and just howwe feel looking back.
(00:46):
So Aaron, go ahead and take itaway.
Erin (00:50):
Thanks for having me.
It's fun to be on the otherside of things.
So excited to be here and toget some answers so that our
listeners can get to know you alittle bit better and how the
podcast came to be.
So I'll go ahead and ask yousome questions.
So it's been about five yearssince the start of the podcast.
(01:12):
How do you feel about the stateof the podcast so far?
Logan (01:18):
It feels like a blink of an eye.
I don't feel great about itbeing five years already.
Yikes.
But I guess it has been,looking at the calendar.
As far as the state of thepodcast goes, I mean, the state
of the podcast could be better.
The show's kind of been on lifesupport for a little while in
terms of the frequency of theepisodes, mostly due to my own
(01:40):
situation, which has beenunfortunate for our listeners.
We really appreciate those whohave stuck with us.
The good news is, you know, Idon't want to overpromise
anything, but I definitely am ina position now to kind of
reboot and revive the podcastdue to a career change, which
I'll kind of get into a bit morelater, probably.
(02:02):
So that's the negative, whichis just how few episodes we've
put out in the last couple ofyears.
But the big picture is a lotbrighter in terms of how I view
what we've done and what we'veaccomplished.
I mean, I recently after liketaking a year break from going
back and listening to oldepisodes, I've had a little more
(02:26):
free time over the past fewweeks, and I've re-listened to
most of the podcast, not quitedone with it.
It's, you know, over 40 hoursof material.
And I would say I'm proud of80% of it.
I, you know, 75% 80 to 85,depending on, you know, the
episode I'm listening to andmaybe how I'm feeling that day.
Erin (02:49):
We're our own worst critics, I think.
Logan (02:53):
Yeah, no, that's, that's inevitable.
I think anybody who wants toput out quality work is their
own worst critic.
I think what stands out aboutour podcast is just the careful
writing and research andrevision and editing and that
went into it.
That's what I chalk up to thereason.
(03:15):
A lot of it holds up reallywell.
The other 15% or whatever thatI would change is just little
things.
We usually do a really good jobof catching mistakes, but there
have been a few really littlethings that have slipped by.
Usually we try to correctthose.
(03:35):
I've had some mispronunciationsthat were not great, like when
I called the Soviet GeneralGeorgi Zhukov, which makes him a
lot more cuddly than I think heactually was.
There has been some earlyepisodes.
I would say the early ones arethe ones that I cringe a little
(03:57):
more at parts just because maybeI was still learning the ropes.
Some scripts were maybe alittle too wordy or I would try
too hard to be cute or clever.
or a strange attempt at humorthat fell flat.
I think the writing has gottenbetter over time.
We've kind of found our voice.
The only thing that I regret isthe audio issues.
(04:20):
And unfortunately, that has todo with the fact that early on,
I had a really good permanentplace to record.
And over the past two or threeyears, I've been bouncing around
a lot and didn't have as goodof a of a location to record in.
I'm hoping we'll be able toimprove on that and have things
(04:41):
be a little more stable in thefuture.
If I can work that out in thenext place I'm living, we'll
continue to strive to makeimprovements on that.
Erin (04:50):
Right, right.
Yeah, the goal is always thebest we can do and rolling with
whatever complications come up.
So I just want to echo thankyou to our listeners for bearing
with those.
So let's switch gears a littlebit.
And I want to ask you, when didyou first fall in love with
history?
Logan (05:10):
Well, I would probably say I didn't really think about
it because I feel like, youknow, My interest in history
goes back a long way.
And it kind of was one of manyinterests, I think, when I was a
kid and a teenager.
And then it became a biggerpart of my life as I went off to
(05:32):
college.
I would say, I would creditthings like, I think it's fair
to say we grew up in a familywith a fair amount of enthusiasm
for public television.
There was some documentariesthat I grew up with.
Some classic old documentaries,but very good.
Ken Burns, The Civil War is agreat documentary.
(05:57):
If you saw one of his morerecent ones where he went on for
like 80 hours on jazz orwhatever, or whatever he's
country music or whatever he'sdoing now.
No shade to Ken Burns, but someof his work may be require an
attention span that many youngerpeople do not have now.
(06:20):
But I would recommend the CivilWar to anybody, even though
there are dated elements to it.
It's still pretty classic interms of really grounding the
emotional stakes of thatconflict and what it meant to
the people who were fighting init, to the people who are
suffering under slavery, theperspectives of North and South.
(06:43):
So that really...
brought the history to life andnot had it be just names and
dates in a book, but you reallycould see the human stakes.
And then I was kind ofinterested in history, among
other things, when I went off tocollege.
I wasn't a big science and mathguy, so I knew I'd probably do
something in the humanities orsocial sciences, something
(07:06):
involving writing.
I probably thought I was goingto major in poli sci, political
science, but that didn't end uphappening because I took some
poli sci classes and some ofthem were really heavily
statistical and pretty dry.
And I also took some historyclasses and the history classes
were the ones that reallygrabbed me and I felt the
(07:31):
enthusiasm for.
There was some professors I hadin particular, one Professor
Reed who really brought historyto life And it so happens he did
a lot of talking about theperiod we're talking about, kind
of US history from the CivilWar onward, including the period
after World War II.
(07:53):
He kind of specialized inmilitary history, talked a lot
about World War II and Vietnam,and had us read famous theorists
like Carl von Clausewitz, whichis a little unusual to read
these days and probably a littlebit dry military history for
most people.
But Clausewitz's famous thingthat everyone should remember is
(08:17):
war is a instrument of politicsby other means.
So basically, war should havesome political goal.
And if you lose track of that,then you're in trouble.
Yeah.
as a country.
But Professor Reed also talkedabout things like labor history,
the labor movement, theprogressive era, the fight for
(08:38):
better wages and workingconditions.
He talked about Lyndon Johnsonand the Great Society.
So there were a lot of thesethings that he brought to life,
a lot of these struggles thatreally grabbed me, probably even
more so than the militaryhistory aspect.
that really convinced me that Ishould be a history major.
(09:00):
So I did that.
I fell out of love for a timewith history and grad school, I
think, because, you know, it waskind of my job and it's easier
to love a hobby than to try toachieve an academic career when
the stakes are so high andyou're caught in all these
(09:20):
debates of between scholars andhow do I side with this group or
that group.
It creates a lot of drama tothe point where you can't really
just enjoy yourself as muchbecause it is your career.
But I feel a lot better withthe podcast because I'm free to
do what I want with it prettymuch.
Luckily, I have some people,including yourself, I can bounce
(09:44):
ideas off of and can pull measide if I'm going in the wrong
direction.
But generally, I have a lotmore controlled than I did as a
grad student.
I'm more like a tenuredprofessor who relies on other
advisors but can kind of do whatI want.
A tenured professor with nosalary who makes no money off
(10:08):
the history does.
But still, at least I have thefreedom.
At least I have the freedom.
And I actually would sayexpanding my horizons beyond
just U.S.
history has really revitalizedmy passion for history because
having...
done grad school, like, I knewthe big themes of US history,
the big events, obviously, youcan always go into greater
(10:30):
detail.
But, you know, I felt like Ihad a pretty clear understanding
of like, all the major eventsof US history.
And I the comparison of othersocieties.
I've been looking into a lotmore European history, Latin
American history, things likethat.
And it really helps you seeyour country through fresh eyes
to see how other societies canbe different.
(10:52):
So mostly a lot of what Ilisten to now for history
podcasts is actually not UShistory podcasts.
And that actually helps me, Ithink, have a fresher
perspective on the history Ialready kind of know.
Erin (11:08):
Yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense.
And I'm so glad that you'vebeen able to recapture that love
of history.
Also want to just shout outthat influence of a good
teacher, not to beunderestimated, I think, for a
lot of us that really helpedwith the love of history.
Erin
Logan (11:26):
is a teacher herself, just for the record.
So I think she of all people.
I'm biased.
Appreciate.
The importance of teachers.
Erin (11:36):
Yeah, yeah.
Logan (11:38):
The underappreciated influence of teachers.
Erin (11:41):
The underappreciated influence, yes.
So you refound your love ofhistory.
And what made you decide to gofrom a history lover to a
history podcaster?
Logan (11:52):
Well, I'll try to keep this answer a little shorter
than my last one.
And I think it'll be easybecause it's a pretty
straightforward story.
First of all, I started gettinginto...
long-form chronological historypodcasts that tell like one
story in order from beginning toend about like an era for
(12:13):
instance to pick a not randomexample the french revolution uh
probably the first one like somany other history podcasters i
was inspired by mike duncan'srevolutions
Erin (12:24):
A
Logan (12:25):
podcast that you introduced to me, by the way, so
I have to give you credit forthat.
Erin (12:30):
You're welcome.
A very, very
Logan (12:32):
good one.
I think I was the only one ofus who actually finished it all.
Erin (12:37):
There are many fascinating seasons.
I need to listen to more ofthat.
Logan (12:43):
Yeah, well, you have...
You have a much healthierbalanced diet of podcasts about
science and a variety of topicsthat I really should know more
about.
I'm a little obsessive when itcomes to the history stuff.
Probably makes you a good history podcaster.
Yeah, I hope.
Yeah, so there's other similarpodcasts following that kind of
(13:06):
chronological long form episodeby episode approach.
Mark Painter's History of the20th Century, Age of Napoleon,
History of the Great War.
And those were the podcaststhat I really loved.
But I'd been thinking moreabout recent U.S.
history.
And I really wished that therewas a podcast in that kind of
(13:27):
format about post-1945 U.S.
history, especially kind of upto the present that I could
listen to to kind of think aboutlike, How did we get here as a
country?
Whatever you think about themoment we're in now, I want
something that's even moreapplicable to my own life and to
(13:49):
the lives of people around meliving in the United States.
I thought it would be helpfulto review the past 75 years
here, kind of in order, or 50years or whatever.
And I just couldn't find it.
I looked for it and I couldn'tfind it.
And then I had the light bulbmoment that if it isn't out
there, maybe I should make itmyself.
(14:10):
I mean, as I thought about it,I realized it was one of the few
things that I could use myhistorical training or my
ability to research and mybackground knowledge and all my
old notes from grad school thatwere sitting there gathering
dust that I could actuallyrepurpose them.
(14:30):
and actually have other peoplehopefully appreciate the
knowledge that I could bring tobear when I tell a story.
So that's where the idea camefrom, and we've just gone
forward from there.
Erin (14:45):
I love that.
So who are some of yourfavorite historians?
Logan (14:51):
So there's many historians, both academic and
more public.
Many, many, as long as they...
are true to their sources andare good storytellers and give
an accurate picture of whathappened, there's a ton that I
have a lot of respect for.
Particularly academichistorians is a difficult path
(15:14):
because sometimes the stuff theypublish isn't read by a lot of
people, but they're doing veryimportant work.
There's nobody I really fanboyout on.
There's nobody I have like aparasocial relationship or who
I'm like stalking on socialmedia or anything like that.
There's nobody I really put upon a huge pedestal.
But I would say that if I hadto tell you at least my favorite
(15:39):
history book when it comes toUS history, I would say a book I
read in grad school calledBattle Cry of Freedom by James
McPherson was a tremendousachievement when I would
recommend to people It is thedefinitive one-volume work on
the U.S.
Civil War.
So if you see the Ken Burns'The Civil War and that isn't
(16:03):
enough and you really want to doa deep dive, this is the book
to get.
I have to warn listeners thatit's rather daunting in its
length.
I think it's got to be over 800pages.
It's part of the Oxford Historyof the United States series.
that has published all thesebig volumes by prominent
(16:25):
historians that provide theend-up story of a whole era.
That's had a big impact on me.
I haven't read all of thoseseries, but a couple of books
that will probably be familiarto listeners of our podcast
include Grand Expectations byJames T.
Patterson and From Colony toSuperpower by George C.
(16:49):
Herring.
These are sources we cite inmost of our episodes.
They're
Erin (16:55):
familiar names.
Logan (16:56):
Yeah, they're part of that same series.
And I rely on those a lot.
I rely also on, I usually haveat least one presidential
biography from the period I'mlooking at.
With Truman, it was the DavidMcCullough one.
With Eisenhower, it was one bya historian named Gene Edward
(17:17):
Smith.
or I think it's more of abiographer generally, not an
academic historian.
And then with JFK, it's beenRobert Daleks that I've mostly
relied on.
And mostly I do tend to want toget these big picture sources
because with any given year,there are entire books written
(17:38):
on certain events, but we don'thave time to get into a granular
level of detail.
So I want other books that kindof give insight 30,000 feet
picture of what was going onrather than putting it under a
microscope.
Although we have cited morespecific sources where needed,
like with the Freedom Riders,there was a book I read in grad
(18:00):
school that I was able to goback and use for that one
specifically about the FreedomRiders of 1961.
But these big sources like thatare ones that I rely on a lot.
Yeah, so sorry, that took us alittle bit away from the
original question about favoritehistorians.
But those are some of myfavorite historians to use in
(18:21):
the podcast.
Erin (18:22):
Great.
Yeah, there's a lot ofexcellent recommendations,
places to go learn more ifyou're interested.
One thing that I've beencurious about is across these
five years, how has the podcastchanged how you think about US
history?
I
Logan (18:40):
I don't know if it's if just doing the podcast has
changed the way I think about UShistory a ton, I'm sure on the
margins it has, but maybe not asmuch as some other factors.
I think actually probably theway I think about US history has
been more shaped by currentevents than it has by doing the
(19:02):
podcast.
Probably current events issomething that has driven me to
do the podcast just becausewe're at a time in our country
where I think there's a lot ofdebate over our identity and,
you know, what America has been,what America should be, where
are we going?
And I also think there's a lotof feeling on both sides of the
(19:25):
political fence that likesomething has gone off track, I
guess.
Erin (19:30):
Yeah.
Logan (19:31):
And, and that really makes me want to go back and
kind of like diagnose theorigins of current attitudes of
disillusionment, currentproblems we may have.
This thing that maybe haschanged for a lot of people who
look at U.S.
history is kind of a move awayfrom American exceptionalism.
(19:53):
American exceptionalism is kindof the idea that the U.S.
has like a special path and forwhatever reason, it is
different than other countries.
And maybe the same rules don'teven apply.
And there are people who aregonna point to things like
(20:14):
destiny or divine providence orsomething like that.
Serious historians are morelikely to rely on things like
the unique geographic locationof the United States, the unique
population as You know, it'scomfort with different waves of
immigration previously and beingable to kind of assimilate
(20:34):
those waves of immigration, ourconstitutional system, our
separation of powers, ourindividual freedoms, the Bill of
Rights.
A lot of people would point tothat and say, this is why the
U.S.
doesn't have the problems theseother countries have.
But the reality is likeincreasingly, you know, you look
at issues like uh lower lifeexpectancy than here than in
(20:58):
other western nations over thepast two or three decades you
look at things like lack of apeaceful transfer of power after
the last presidential electionuh three or four years ago and
uh these are things that arelike showing that you know maybe
we're not so special maybe wecan fall into some of the
problems that other countriesalso fall into i mean we we've
(21:20):
been blessed by these two oceansthat protect us We're not
surrounded by countries withpotential invading armies.
I mean, no disrespect to ourfriends in Canada and Mexico,
but they have smallerpopulations.
They can't compete with usmilitarily.
They're not going to be athreat to invade us militarily
or overthrow our government.
(21:41):
Obviously, I have toacknowledge that, yes, there are
countries that have us withinnuclear range during the Cold
War and even now, countries likeRussia and maybe China.
So there are threats out there,but just like we haven't had to
worry as much about oursecurity and we've had rich
(22:02):
natural resources that have ledto prosperity.
So we've had these certainadvantages, but it doesn't mean
that we're always gonna be thetop superpower or the most
powerful and most free.
Like it's still where the lawof gravity applies.
And if we make bad decisions asa country, We can always go
(22:23):
into a decline and some peoplethink that's where we're heading
and I don't wanna editorializetoo much and the future is
uncertain, but I do thinkwithout being too pessimistic
about the whole thing, I thinkan appreciation for some of the
problems we have is part of whatmotivates me to kind of go back
(22:43):
and look at our pasttrajectory, especially over the
past four or five decades.
Erin (22:50):
I think that makes a lot of sense.
There's something very valuableabout putting things in
perspective and looking at wherewe're coming from and how
things have been while you'rethinking about all the things
that are going on today.
What is the most surprisingthing that you have learned
while doing the podcast?
Are there any interestinghistorical characters you've
(23:12):
learned about?
Logan (23:13):
Well, I always learn new details about events.
Even when it's a topic I thinkI know well, even if I know like
the Cliff Notes big picturestory, there's always some new
details that surprise me.
And when I find them, I try toput them in because maybe
they'll surprise other people.
As far as interestingcharacters, pretty much anyone
(23:35):
I've done a 10-minute profileepisode about is somebody I find
interesting.
I added that format in part sowe could talk about some
fascinating people who wouldn'thave time to spotlight
otherwise, particularly peoplewho aren't presidents or
powerful politicians andbusiness leaders, but are more
like people who are maybeactivists, writers,
(23:58):
intellectuals, even notoriouspeople at times.
They don't always have to bepeople I admire, although
sometimes they are, but just itallows me to put the spotlight
on people that are giant,powerful historical figures of
the period.
Another couple more specificexamples of things I've learned
and opinions that I've come to.
(24:20):
One person I find interestingis Thomas Dewey, who was the
Republican presidential nomineein 1944 and 1948.
I think he was a prettyimpressive guy and he could have
been a good president, eventhough he wasn't the greatest
politician.
He wasn't a great speech maker.
from my research, but he hadthis track record of prosecuting
(24:45):
corruption and organized crime.
He was pretty moderate for aRepublican.
In 1948, he even did a debatewith another Republican
candidate, I think it was HaroldStassen, about whether it
should be illegal to be a memberof the Communist Party.
And Thomas Dewey said it shouldbe illegal to be a member.
(25:06):
It's freedom of speech.
more of like a civil libertieskind of mentality there than
from a Republican like JoeMcCarthy, obviously.
So I think he's an interestingguy.
I think it would have beeninteresting to see what
direction he went in.
He was fairly progressive oncivil rights and some other
things while still being kind ofa fiscal conservative as a
(25:29):
Republican.
But I think he maybe could havebrought the GOP in a different
direction.
The open question there, Imean, Anytime, if you want to go
back and plug in a differentperson as president, it's very
eager to be like, you know, it'dbe better if such and such had
won.
But you don't know that.
I mean, it could have beenworse.
(25:49):
Like, for instance, you know, Ithink it's very likely given
the kind of advisors from theRepublican Party that Dewey
would have had, that hedefinitely, like Truman, would
have gone into Korea had theNorth Koreans still invaded the
South.
And the question is, wouldDewey have had the courage that
Truman showed in being willingto fire Douglas MacArthur when
(26:11):
he was becoming wildlyinsubordinate to the president
and trying to escalate the war,would he have the guts to do
that?
Because I think it was one ofTruman's finest hours that he
was willing to do that, eventhough it was a wildly unpopular
decision, at least at first.
So who knows if Dewey wouldhave stepped up to the plate on
(26:32):
that.
But I just think it's aninteresting, like maybe the
whole history of the RepublicanParty would be different had he
become president in the 40s.
So that's what I would say.
To go a little tougher onanother Republican, I'm going to
talk about Dwight Eisenhower,who I think at first he was very
(26:53):
underrated by historians.
The first guy who published thepresidential ranking list of
historians, if I recall right,was Arthur Schlesinger Jr., I
believe, and he rated Eisenhowervery low and he rated John F.
Kennedy very high and it shouldbe noticed that Arthur
(27:13):
Schlesinger like was goodfriends with Kennedy and would
like hang out in the KennedyWhite House so he was totally
biased and of course becauseKennedy replaced Eisenhower you
know the idea was Eisenhower wasthis non-dynamic chamber of
commerce old buddy-duddy stuckin his ways and the Kennedy
(27:36):
people were the best and thebrightest and they were going to
go in and fix things.
So a lot of historians likethat for reasons of, you know,
partisanship or ideology or whathave you, we're a little down
on Eisenhower.
And I think a way that was alittle unfair and he's really
been reassessed and historiansrank him a lot higher now.
Certainly I think also the factthat compared to some, some
(28:02):
recent, presidents like GeorgeW.
Bush, for instance.
He seemed a lot more moderatein his sort of conservative
approach to foreign policy.
He at least had more restraintand prudence, more like George
H.W.
Bush than George W.
Bush.
But having studied him myself,I think there were a lot of
(28:24):
things to admire aboutEisenhower.
I think he was a good presidentin a lot of ways, particularly
on domestic policy.
But Just getting toward the endof his administration, I think
he was starting to veer in moreof a reckless, more of a George
W.
Bush direction that put JFK ina bad spot.
I mean, he was the one that waskind of, after the Cuban
(28:46):
Revolution, letting the CIA planout the Bay of Pigs, which they
kind of got handed to JFK,like, this is what we're going
to do.
You're going to sign off onthis, right?
And Eisenhower even personallytook JFK aside and famously and
said, hey, you may need tomilitarily intervene in the
country of Laos, which hethankfully didn't end up doing.
But I just feel like Eisenhowerwas getting a little more
(29:09):
reckless.
He had the Dulles brothers whowere doing too many shady things
in terms of like overthrowingor messing with other
governments.
It was creating some blowback.
You can argue that in somecases that was necessary to
check the advance of communism.
Certainly their defenders willsay that, but I just think the
Eisenhower foreign policy got alittle reckless.
(29:30):
I mean, he was usually the onewho would push back on the
Dulles brothers when they wantedto be more aggressive, like
after the fall of the Frenchfortress that I can't pronounce
in Vietnam.
You know, they were talkingabout escalating militarily and
Eisenhower was like, no, we'renot ready for that.
So he was kind of the voice ofcaution.
(29:50):
But when you put all thesehotheads around you in your
administration, sometimes it'sgoing to be hard to not listen
to them at some point.
So I would say that Eisenhoweris a little overrated at this
point, just because I think heended on a dangerous note that
kind of paved the path for theCuban Missile Crisis, which is
what we're finally going to talkabout in our next full length
(30:11):
episode, which was probably thesingle most dangerous moment of
the Cold War, at least duringthe the period from the 50s to
the 70s.
So those are some things I'vebeen reflecting about recently.
Yeah,
Erin (30:24):
yeah, that's all really interesting.
I love the additional contextthat all of this has been able
to give to these moments andfigures in history.
Do you have a favorite episode?
Logan (30:37):
I would say that my favorite episodes, and I don't
think these are necessarily thepublic's favorite episodes,
because I They aren't the onesthat have gotten the most
downloads, but I would say 1955and 1958, because they're both
episodes where I didn't have tofocus on just a couple of major
events.
And I was able to like jumparound various topics in order
(31:00):
to give examples of like a, togive a general feel for daily
life and for the national moodat the time.
I like to paint that picturewhen I can and just, take my
eyes off, you know, whatevercrisis the president is dealing
with and getting into like,well, here's, here's what people
were, this is when McDonald'sstarted.
(31:21):
And this is, you know, peoplestarted going to Disneyland and
this is when this pop culturetrend or this music started.
And this is what the writerswere saying.
And you can kind of get a wholefeel for what it felt like to
live there.
And when I can get away withdoing that, sometimes there are
so many big things I have tocover.
It's hard when I can get awaywith doing that.
I like to do that.
(31:42):
I
Erin (31:44):
I think that's a helpful way of kind of grounding things
for listeners.
I know for me listening, it ishelpful to be like, oh, that's
around the same time this washappening, and I didn't realize.
And so yeah, I do also enjoywhen you get a chance to ground
us in the moment in history.
Yeah, I like that as well.
Continue.
Logan (32:03):
I try to flag those years where it's like, oh, Good.
Nothing big happened this year.
I can catch up with theeveryday life stuff and I don't
have to cover a giantinternational crisis.
So I look for thoseopportunities.
Erin (32:16):
Good.
Yeah.
Logan (32:17):
Um, there's definitely episodes that I think were
stronger than others.
Some of the supplementals Ithink were maybe not as strong
as the, uh, the main full lengthepisodes like, uh, the OK
Boomer episode.
I think we were kind of justtrying to comment on a trend,
and it was fine for what it was,but maybe it's not the most
(32:37):
evergreen content there.
But generally, every topic I'vedone an episode on is something
I'm at least interested in, andhopefully it connects with
people.
But I think the ones I'm mostpassionate about are where I'm
really able to give a broadoverview of what was going on in
(32:57):
the country not just in theWhite House or whatever.
Yeah,
Erin (33:02):
yeah.
And I'm glad you mentioned inthe previous question, some of
those profiles, because I amglad to have learned about some
of these specific figures, inaddition to the generalized
information about various timeperiods.
So that is one of the delightsand many things I have learned
about while working on thepodcast.
(33:23):
So what topics do you think youare most looking forward to
covering down the road?
Logan (33:28):
Well, it's interesting.
I was excited about coveringthe late 1940s, particularly
like the 1948 election hasalways fascinated me.
And then, you know, the 50s, alittle less exciting, but I knew
there were some things that Icould bring to attention that
people maybe didn't know as muchabout.
I think we both enjoyed theelection.
(33:51):
research went into the Sputnikepisode and some of that.
But I've kind of been dreadingthe 1960s, to be honest with
you.
I just, there's so much likereheated boomer nostalgia for
that period.
For a time, there were so manymovies and TV shows that, oh,
the, you know, the rice pattiesof Vietnam and they're playing
(34:15):
the Creedence Clearwater revivalmusic in the background or you
know, Woodstock or whatever,like all the Forrest Gump type
stereotypes of like therehashed, this has been done to
death.
We've heard this a milliontimes.
We know the tropes of thetragic troops in Vietnam
suffering and then the protestsand the peace signs and the
(34:40):
banners.
And for a lot of people ofcertain generations, it felt
like we're always getting thispushed on us that this was like
the most important decade ever.
And some of us kind of began tochafe at that a little bit, I
guess.
Erin (34:54):
Yeah, it is understandable.
I do feel like that has beenhighly saturated into pop
culture.
Logan (35:01):
But I think maybe it's more so for older millennials
and Gen X.
I feel like maybe youngermillennials haven't been as
exposed to that, because I thinkpop culture is moved on a
little bit more from the 60s.
Of course, there's still stuffcoming out about the 60s, but I
see more historical things setin the 70s and 80s now than
(35:22):
they're used to.
And maybe we'll get to the 90snostalgia movement eventually.
True, true.
Fingers crossed.
But having started working onthese episodes, I had to
appreciate that the 60s arehugely eventful and important,
whether you like it or not.
They're much harder to coverthan the 50s because there's
(35:45):
just so much going on, which iswhy we've had to break some of
these years into two parts.
And I know now we've gottenbogged down in the Kennedy
miniseries.
I
Erin (35:56):
It's easy to have happen.
Plenty of information aboutthe Kennedys.
t
Logan (35:58):
K And I know some people are probably like another
Kennedy episode.
Why is he so obsessed with theKennedys?
Because I'm not obsessed withthe Kennedys.
I want to know why everyoneelse is obsessed with the
Kennedys.
Everyone older than me isobsessed with the Kennedys.
And the miniseries has beenkind of easier to write than
some other things because once Istarted covering like the 1960
(36:23):
election, I went out and got abiography.
I founded a used bookstore, acopy of Dalek's biography, which
a lot of people think is one ofthe best that's been written so
far about John F.
Kennedy.
And then I got as a gift abiography of Robert F.
Kennedy, somebody who knew Iwould be covering this era.
(36:43):
So that makes it easy for me tojust read about their lives and
then write about it and do someadditional research to make
sure I'm bringing in some othersources as well.
But what I'm trying to do withthose, and if people are sick of
them, please write and let meknow and maybe we'll stop.
But I want to understand thedifference between the truth and
(37:04):
the myth.
I've been trying to kind oftake them off the pedestal
without doing an unfair hit job.
There was one book that cameout a couple decades ago, that
really finally took like the hottake, because there's been so
much pro Kennedy stuff.
There was one that's like,actually, the Kennedy's were
bad.
And I think it was called likethe dark side of Camelot.
(37:25):
And it talked about all the badthings that Kennedy's did.
And of course, there were somebad things.
I mean, it talked about, youknow, the the lobotomy of, uh,
of Rosemary and a lot of issueslike that and some of the
scandals.
So there certainly is some dirtto dig up there, but I don't
want to just be, I kind of liketry to be human about it in
terms of like, yeah, they didsome bad things, but I also want
(37:48):
you to empathize with JFK'shealth struggles and things like
that.
And, uh, They were veryprivileged, but they also were
human and had problems andweaknesses.
And I want that to come acrossand to have that more fleshed
out, richer view of them ashumans.
But there's so much we get evennow that does put them on that
(38:11):
pedestal.
I was literally listening to asong that came out a couple of
years ago.
just came up on my Spotify by aband that I know is from
outside the United States thathad some lyric about, oh, the
only good politicians thatactually can make a difference
always get murdered.
Just look at what happened tothe Kennedys.
And it just goes to show, onceagain, there's that myth that
Erin (38:35):
the Kennedys,
Logan (38:37):
everything, if only they had lived, everything would have
been perfect.
Logan and Erin (38:40):
And that's this overly idealized picture.
Erin (38:44):
Yeah.
Logan and Erin (38:45):
Yeah.
Logan (38:45):
And I'm trying to correct that.
And even now, there is anelection in Massachusetts,
primary election just a fewyears ago, where Joseph Kennedy
III, I don't know if he's agrandkid or I don't, I haven't
looked at the family tree, buthe is one of the direct
(39:07):
descendants of the Kennedys.
The same with Joseph KennedyIII.
He was running in theDemocratic primary against Ed
Markey.
Ed Mackey, as they say inMassachusetts.
And Kennedy lost that primary.
And this is the first time aKennedy has ever lost a
statewide election inMassachusetts.
(39:27):
So I thought maybe the fever isbroken.
Maybe we're out of love withthe Kennedys.
We aren't going to necessarilyvote for anybody with that last
name.
But then you have the QAnonstuff of JFK Jr.
is still alive.
And now you have RFK Jr.
being a big public figure.
I don't think this guy would begetting the same level of
(39:50):
attention if his name was RobertF.
Jones or whatever.
I mean, he still gets a lot ofattention despite the...
The whale thing and the brainworm and the thing with the
bear.
Erin (40:04):
That name can take you surprisingly far.
It's
Logan (40:07):
impressive.
And he looks kind of like hisfather.
He has those Kennedy teeth andeverything.
And I think it just strikes achord still with the legendary
role that they have in ourcountry.
Even if I think it wouldn't betoo controversial to say that
his ideas are...
farther out there than hisfamous ancestor, his dad's ideas
(40:29):
were.
And he's clearly more of acrank, but still having that
name creates so much prestigeeven now.
So we're still dealing with it.
So I hope the Kennedy series isrelevant.
So that's a big part of 60stuff we've been dealing with.
I'm actually really lookingforward, though, to being done
with that, to talking more aboutLyndon B.
(40:50):
Johnson and the Great Society.
Lyndon B.
Johnson, who was another hugelycomplicated and flawed figure
who's huge talents, a huge ego,huge hubris, and fascinating
guy.
So I'm looking forward tomoving on to the LBJ
administration when we getthere.
And I'm also really lookingforward to the 70s, 80s, and
(41:12):
90s.
Those are the ones I'm mostexcited about.
And it's ridiculous to eventalk about this because will we
ever even get there?
But if we did, I might stop atlike 9-11 or maybe the 2008
financial crisis and election.
But yeah, I would like to getat least through part of the 70s
and 80s just because I thinkit's something that I was kind
(41:36):
of taught toward the very end ofhistory class.
I would, at least in college, Iwould learn about the 60s.
But the 80s were like in thewindow where I didn't really,
wasn't conscious to rememberwhat happened, but It was too
recent to be viewed as history.
So it took me a long time toactually learn about what
(41:56):
Iran-Contra really was.
And I think a lot of peopledon't know and should know.
So hopefully we get there.
Erin (42:03):
Yeah, I feel like my knowledge of those periods could
definitely be improved as well.
What do you know about theaudience of the podcast?
Logan (42:13):
I don't know a ton.
I know a little bit.
I do want to talk about thisbecause...
Listening to the earlyepisodes, I think the very first
one I talk about, the originalpremise was kind of this being
geared more towards millennials.
And I don't know if I stillagree with that being the
premise.
I want to appeal to everybody.
And I know of some like Gen Xor Boomer friends and family who
(42:38):
listen to the show and enjoyit.
So I hope it's accessible toall.
I guess in terms of talkingabout younger generations, It
more goes in with it being kindof a fresh look that's not
assuming a ton of backgroundknowledge.
And hopefully I'm still doingthat because if I'm not bringing
like a fresh perspective, Imean, you could read a book on
(43:01):
the Kennedy administrationthat's 20 years old.
And when I bring in things thatare a little more contemporary,
I think that is kind of alittle bit of extra context that
we add that hopefully makes usenjoyable to listen to.
you know, who is our audience?
Well, you all can write in andtell me who you are.
(43:23):
I've had some members of theaudience reach out.
The stereotype is that mosthistory podcasters and their
listeners tend to skew male andcertainly judging by the ads
that appear in some otherpopular history podcasts, that
appears to be the case.
They're Definitely areexceptions.
There are some really goodfemale history podcasters out
(43:46):
there.
Look at the Partial Historianspodcast on Roman history or the
professors who appear on thisday in esoteric political
history talking about morerecent US history.
So there are some great femalepodcasters out there.
I'm sure there's a lot offemale history podcast
listeners.
I don't know how it breaks downwith us.
(44:07):
You know, it can be tough justbecause the most powerful
figures in U.S.
history, particularly prior tothe 1970s, tend to be white
males.
So it's kind of difficult toavoid talking about them if you
really want to cover things,including the big political
stuff.
But at the same time, I thinklike the 10 minute profile
(44:28):
episodes are going to continueto try a little bit to be a
corrective to that and look atsome people, who are of
different backgrounds, moremarginalized, and show what they
were doing and the significantthings they were doing and the
achievements they had.
But yeah, I don't know a lotabout, I don't have data on
(44:48):
race, sex, gender, nationality,although what I do have from
Buzzsprout, our podcast hostingplatform, is just the data on
where the podcasts are beingdownloaded.
Erin (45:01):
And
Logan (45:03):
I don't know if this surprises people or not,
probably not, that like 80% ofour downloads are in North
America, vast majority of thosein the United States.
Outside the US tends to be alot of Anglophone countries, you
know, Canada, UK, Ireland,Australia, that kind of thing.
I think Germany and Mexico arethe countries that are not
(45:26):
English speaking that we havethe most downloads from.
In particular, I want to give ashout out to Frankfurt,
Germany.
Had a lot of downloads inFrankfurt.
So danke, Shane.
Love you,
Erin (45:38):
Frankfurt.
Logan (45:40):
Yeah, sorry.
I shouldn't even try topronounce German because it's
not one of the languages I'vestudied.
I'll butcher it.
So please forgive me,Frankfurt.
Erin (45:49):
And many thanks to all of our international listeners and
national listeners, of course.
So at this stage, I'm curioushow you balance the hope of
keeping the podcast relevant tocontemporary events with having
evergreen content.
Logan (46:07):
It's one of the most difficult things I deal with in
making the show, I think,because, like I said, I think
bringing that currentperspective is part of what we
bring to the table, but I worryabout overdoing it.
I mean, you already see that ifyou go back and listen to even
pop culture podcasts from say2020, you know, they'll be like,
(46:30):
oh, this pandemic is crazy, youknow?
And, you know, so it very muchdates it to a particular point
in time and reminds you you'relistening to an old podcast.
So I'm sure we've had asidesabout like the current pandemic
or even,
Erin (46:44):
but
Logan (46:45):
we kind of hinted at, wow, you know, no president
would tweet anything crazy.
Like, That would never happenexcept for last week.
These little subtweets orlittle subtle references to
current events we try to sneakin that maybe aren't always
going to make as much sense ifyou're listening six years from
(47:06):
now.
So it's a balancing act.
I'm open to suggestions as tohow to get it right.
Erin (47:12):
And I guess that's certainly something listeners
could share if they like theinclusion of contemporary
information or if they prefer tostick to the events at the time
in which they happened.
Logan (47:24):
Yeah, there are podcasts where they never mention
anything going on in the worldand they are more evergreen.
But at the same time, I feellike I think that the past looks
differently in the context ofnow.
than it did through the contextof 30 years ago.
And that's one of the things Ifind most interesting about
this.
So that's why it's such a toughbalance.
(47:46):
I did want to add one thingreal quick about my perspective.
I want to emphasize, and Idon't know to what extent I
succeed, because I certainlyhave my own viewpoints.
I try to avoid hitting you overthe head with my views or
telling listeners what to thinkand being willing to criticize
(48:06):
people I might be sympathetic toin terms of their politics or
what they were trying to achievewhen I think they made mistakes
or bad strategy or had personalcharacter flaws.
Certainly my own opinions sneakthrough it at times and I'm
human and I don't want topretend that I don't have a
viewpoint.
But most of the time I try tolay out the facts and let
(48:31):
listeners make their ownconclusions.
I'm very willing to criticizepeople everybody and anybody,
because I think there's a lot ofblame to go around in our
current problems.
So it's a shame that somethinglike January 6th has become like
a partisan issue.
I mean, even some polls saidDemocrats thought the media was
giving too much attention to it.
(48:51):
And certainly Republicans,there's conspiracy theories
about who was behind it.
And you can bring up certainevents like the COVID pandemic
and January 6th have been sopoliticized.
And I really tried to say, hey,this isn't about me taking a
side.
It's about the fact that whenthere's a violent insurrection
(49:12):
at the Capitol building, it'ssignificant.
The study of history of othercountries shows that it can be a
sign that the country isheading in a more politically
unstable direction.
But I hope I don't come acrossas preachy or partisan.
Above all, what I'm saying is Ihope that people with different
beliefs than me can listen toour show and still get useful
(49:33):
information.
And even if they see that Ihave a perspective that isn't so
blatant that it's driving themnuts.
Erin (49:40):
Yeah, absolutely.
So we've got a lot of goodinformation about the podcast
itself.
I would like to know a fewthings that your listeners might
be interested to know aboutyou.
What do you do when you're notpodcasting?
Logan (49:56):
Well, I received this question and I thought about it
and I came to the conclusionthat I don't know that people
are really going to beinterested in what my hobbies
are.
Personally, I'm not interestedin like what musical instrument
Mike Duncan plays or what DanCarlin's favorite breakfast
cereal is.
I don't know if I have manyhobbies that are all that unique
(50:17):
or interesting and I kind ofprefer a certain degree of
privacy and I don't think thepublic cares that much.
So I'll keep a little bit of anair of mystery about myself.
If you really want to know moreabout me, feel free to write
in.
Our email isboomertomillennialatoutlook.com.
Our Instagram is at boomers tomillennials.
(50:38):
If you have a question about meor about podcast, maybe I'll
respond and tell you my favoritecolor or whatever you want to
know.
Erin (50:48):
You heard it here.
Send us questions about whatLogan's favorite color might be.
So that takes us at long lastto our final big question, which
is, what does the future of thepodcast hold?
Logan (51:04):
Thanks, Erin.
Before I answer that, let methrow a question back at you.
Is there any episode thatstands out to you or any aspect
of the podcast that you want toshare your opinion about?
Do you just want to sayanything about what it's been
like to work on it?
I kind of want to bring in yourperspective since you've been
(51:25):
involved since the beginning.
My
Erin (51:27):
favorite color is green.
A little bit about me.
Now, in terms of history, It'sbeen really valuable because,
although I've always foundhistory quite interesting,
American history, U.S.
history specifically, is anarea in which I feel I have a
bit of a gap of knowledge.
And I have appreciated theopportunity to fill in some of
(51:51):
that gap as I have worked onthis podcast.
So for me, it really has beenabout gaining that greater
understanding of learning aboutthese specific lesser-known
figures.
I mentioned some of thesupplemental episodes, learning
about the tensions of some ofthese moments in time.
I have appreciated getting toknow more about the impact of
(52:13):
the Kennedys, why they were sofamous, and the complexities of
them, because they have had sucha legendary status.
And I wanted to betterunderstand, yeah, why was that?
Who were they really?
Yeah, it's been definitely afulfilling project.
(52:33):
I've liked being able to workon the technical aspects and
feel like my understanding ofthe past has been improved,
which does help shape myunderstanding of the present.
So I think that's the briefanswer.
So
Logan (52:50):
what does the future of the podcast hold?
So I have to figure out whatthe future will be by deciding
what I'm going to say next.
OK, on a serious note,hopefully there'll be more
interviews.
This is kind of a trial run.
We'll see how this goes.
And I may reach out to someother podcasters and eventually
(53:15):
maybe some other authors andwhatnot in order to have similar
conversations about history andhistory.
and learn from people with abroader expertise than my own.
I'm hoping to release episodesmore regularly, certainly, than
I have in the last couple ofyears.
I don't want to give an exacttimeline because I've
(53:35):
over-promised once or twicebefore, and a lot of things are
in flux for me personally.
But all I will say is thepodcasts should be more frequent
in the future because I haveleft a demanding full-time job
and I'm moving overseas to teachEnglish part-time, so I'll have
a lot more time to spend on thepodcast.
The downside is I may have lessaccess to sources.
(53:58):
So we'll have to kind of workwith that.
But that's what the futureholds.
I think we need to kind of tryto build our audience back up.
I can't really blame anyone whounsubscribed during the lean
years, if it had been three orfour months since an episode was
out.
You know, I understand thatsome people are going to assume
that the podcast is essentiallydead.
(54:19):
They call this phenomenon podfade podcasts.
A lot of people start a podcastand lose interest and there are
fewer and fewer episodes andlonger and longer between and
then eventually they die.
But I want to reassure people,once again, that we will tell
you if we ever decide to stop.
So unless we tell you thepodcast is over, please stay
(54:40):
subscribed and we will keep youposted of future developments.
We're gonna have to look intosome different ways of promoting
the podcast.
There used to be a really goodcommunity of history podcasters
over on Twitter.
Things are different there now.
Things are different there now,and I don't spend as much time
there.
But we continue to useInstagram.
(55:02):
You can still email us.
We may look into a Facebookpage or a new website.
I think interviews with guestscould potentially help.
lead us to more exposure todifferent audiences who tune in
to hear somebody they know andmaybe discover us.
But at the end of the day, itisn't about having a huge
(55:22):
audience.
It's about having a loyalaudience, one that's big enough
to give support and enoughpeople who enjoy it to make it
worth doing for me.
Because I genuinely do enjoymaking these podcasts and
sharing them with people.
Otherwise, I wouldn't do this.
And if you want to help outwith how slow things have been,
(55:44):
you know, you may want to holdoff on a Patreon, although we
really appreciate those who havegiven and continue to give.
But you can always, it'spainless and doesn't cost you
anything to leave a rating or areview or to give a word of
mouth recommendation.
My deeply Scandinavian naturemakes me very reticent about
(56:05):
self-promotion in person andtelling people, to listen to my
podcast in person.
So if you can maybe be my hypeman a little bit, some people
out there and just spread theword a little bit, I'd
appreciate it.
Do you have anything to add,Erin, about the future of the
podcast or any thoughts?
Erin (56:24):
Yes, just much gratitude for those who have stuck around
or even those who are justdiscovering us and who want to
give us a chance.
So yeah, spread the word.
We appreciate it.
Reviews, All that good stuff.
So thank you so much forlistening and being interested
in history.
Yeah.
(56:44):
Anything
Logan (56:45):
else you want to add?
Thank you, Erin, for the greatquestions.
We're not going to do ournormal outro except for the last
sentence we always say, whichis thank you for listening.
Erin (56:56):
Thank you for listening.
Thank you.
Logan and Erin (57:08):
Bye.
Welcome to the From Boomers to Millennials podcast,
a modern US history podcast.
This is episode 19A, a specialinterview episode behind the
scenes of From Boomers toMillennials.
This is going to be aninterview conducted by my
(00:25):
esteemed producer.
She is my sister, Erin Rogers,who has been a huge help and
helping to produce and do someproofreading on the show since
the beginning.
But we thought it might be anice change to go behind the
scenes a little bit, talk aboutwhere we are in the podcast and
where we're going and just howwe feel looking back.
(00:46):
So Aaron, go ahead and take itaway.
Erin (00:50):
Thanks for having me.
It's fun to be on the otherside of things.
So excited to be here and toget some answers so that our
listeners can get to know you alittle bit better and how the
podcast came to be.
So I'll go ahead and ask yousome questions.
So it's been about five yearssince the start of the podcast.
(01:12):
How do you feel about the stateof the podcast so far?
Logan (01:18):
It feels like a blink of an eye.
I don't feel great about itbeing five years already.
Yikes.
But I guess it has been,looking at the calendar.
As far as the state of thepodcast goes, I mean, the state
of the podcast could be better.
The show's kind of been on lifesupport for a little while in
terms of the frequency of theepisodes, mostly due to my own
(01:40):
situation, which has beenunfortunate for our listeners.
We really appreciate those whohave stuck with us.
The good news is, you know, Idon't want to overpromise
anything, but I definitely am ina position now to kind of
reboot and revive the podcastdue to a career change, which
I'll kind of get into a bit morelater, probably.
(02:02):
So that's the negative, whichis just how few episodes we've
put out in the last couple ofyears.
But the big picture is a lotbrighter in terms of how I view
what we've done and what we'veaccomplished.
I mean, I recently after liketaking a year break from going
back and listening to oldepisodes, I've had a little more
(02:26):
free time over the past fewweeks, and I've re-listened to
most of the podcast, not quitedone with it.
It's, you know, over 40 hoursof material.
And I would say I'm proud of80% of it.
I, you know, 75% 80 to 85,depending on, you know, the
episode I'm listening to andmaybe how I'm feeling that day.
Erin (02:49):
We're our own worst critics, I think.
Logan (02:53):
Yeah, no, that's, that's inevitable.
I think anybody who wants toput out quality work is their
own worst critic.
I think what stands out aboutour podcast is just the careful
writing and research andrevision and editing and that
went into it.
That's what I chalk up to thereason.
(03:15):
A lot of it holds up reallywell.
The other 15% or whatever thatI would change is just little
things.
We usually do a really good jobof catching mistakes, but there
have been a few really littlethings that have slipped by.
Usually we try to correctthose.
(03:35):
I've had some mispronunciationsthat were not great, like when
I called the Soviet GeneralGeorgi Zhukov, which makes him a
lot more cuddly than I think heactually was.
There has been some earlyepisodes.
I would say the early ones arethe ones that I cringe a little
(03:57):
more at parts just because maybeI was still learning the ropes.
Some scripts were maybe alittle too wordy or I would try
too hard to be cute or clever.
or a strange attempt at humorthat fell flat.
I think the writing has gottenbetter over time.
We've kind of found our voice.
The only thing that I regret isthe audio issues.
(04:20):
And unfortunately, that has todo with the fact that early on,
I had a really good permanentplace to record.
And over the past two or threeyears, I've been bouncing around
a lot and didn't have as goodof a of a location to record in.
I'm hoping we'll be able toimprove on that and have things
(04:41):
be a little more stable in thefuture.
If I can work that out in thenext place I'm living, we'll
continue to strive to makeimprovements on that.
Erin (04:50):
Right, right.
Yeah, the goal is always thebest we can do and rolling with
whatever complications come up.
So I just want to echo thankyou to our listeners for bearing
with those.
So let's switch gears a littlebit.
And I want to ask you, when didyou first fall in love with
history?
Logan (05:10):
Well, I would probably say I didn't really think about
it because I feel like, youknow, My interest in history
goes back a long way.
And it kind of was one of manyinterests, I think, when I was a
kid and a teenager.
And then it became a biggerpart of my life as I went off to
(05:32):
college.
I would say, I would creditthings like, I think it's fair
to say we grew up in a familywith a fair amount of enthusiasm
for public television.
There was some documentariesthat I grew up with.
Some classic old documentaries,but very good.
Ken Burns, The Civil War is agreat documentary.
(05:57):
If you saw one of his morerecent ones where he went on for
like 80 hours on jazz orwhatever, or whatever he's
country music or whatever he'sdoing now.
No shade to Ken Burns, but someof his work may be require an
attention span that many youngerpeople do not have now.
(06:20):
But I would recommend the CivilWar to anybody, even though
there are dated elements to it.
It's still pretty classic interms of really grounding the
emotional stakes of thatconflict and what it meant to
the people who were fighting init, to the people who are
suffering under slavery, theperspectives of North and South.
(06:43):
So that really...
brought the history to life andnot had it be just names and
dates in a book, but you reallycould see the human stakes.
And then I was kind ofinterested in history, among
other things, when I went off tocollege.
I wasn't a big science and mathguy, so I knew I'd probably do
something in the humanities orsocial sciences, something
(07:06):
involving writing.
I probably thought I was goingto major in poli sci, political
science, but that didn't end uphappening because I took some
poli sci classes and some ofthem were really heavily
statistical and pretty dry.
And I also took some historyclasses and the history classes
were the ones that reallygrabbed me and I felt the
(07:31):
enthusiasm for.
There was some professors I hadin particular, one Professor
Reed who really brought historyto life And it so happens he did
a lot of talking about theperiod we're talking about, kind
of US history from the CivilWar onward, including the period
after World War II.
(07:53):
He kind of specialized inmilitary history, talked a lot
about World War II and Vietnam,and had us read famous theorists
like Carl von Clausewitz, whichis a little unusual to read
these days and probably a littlebit dry military history for
most people.
But Clausewitz's famous thingthat everyone should remember is
(08:17):
war is a instrument of politicsby other means.
So basically, war should havesome political goal.
And if you lose track of that,then you're in trouble.
Yeah.
as a country.
But Professor Reed also talkedabout things like labor history,
the labor movement, theprogressive era, the fight for
(08:38):
better wages and workingconditions.
He talked about Lyndon Johnsonand the Great Society.
So there were a lot of thesethings that he brought to life,
a lot of these struggles thatreally grabbed me, probably even
more so than the militaryhistory aspect.
that really convinced me that Ishould be a history major.
(09:00):
So I did that.
I fell out of love for a timewith history and grad school, I
think, because, you know, it waskind of my job and it's easier
to love a hobby than to try toachieve an academic career when
the stakes are so high andyou're caught in all these
(09:20):
debates of between scholars andhow do I side with this group or
that group.
It creates a lot of drama tothe point where you can't really
just enjoy yourself as muchbecause it is your career.
But I feel a lot better withthe podcast because I'm free to
do what I want with it prettymuch.
Luckily, I have some people,including yourself, I can bounce
(09:44):
ideas off of and can pull measide if I'm going in the wrong
direction.
But generally, I have a lotmore controlled than I did as a
grad student.
I'm more like a tenuredprofessor who relies on other
advisors but can kind of do whatI want.
A tenured professor with nosalary who makes no money off
(10:08):
the history does.
But still, at least I have thefreedom.
At least I have the freedom.
And I actually would sayexpanding my horizons beyond
just U.S.
history has really revitalizedmy passion for history because
having...
done grad school, like, I knewthe big themes of US history,
the big events, obviously, youcan always go into greater
(10:30):
detail.
But, you know, I felt like Ihad a pretty clear understanding
of like, all the major eventsof US history.
And I the comparison of othersocieties.
I've been looking into a lotmore European history, Latin
American history, things likethat.
And it really helps you seeyour country through fresh eyes
to see how other societies canbe different.
(10:52):
So mostly a lot of what Ilisten to now for history
podcasts is actually not UShistory podcasts.
And that actually helps me, Ithink, have a fresher
perspective on the history Ialready kind of know.
Erin (11:08):
Yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense.
And I'm so glad that you'vebeen able to recapture that love
of history.
Also want to just shout outthat influence of a good
teacher, not to beunderestimated, I think, for a
lot of us that really helpedwith the love of history.
Erin
Logan (11:26):
is a teacher herself, just for the record.
So I think she of all people.
I'm biased.
Appreciate.
The importance of teachers.
Erin (11:36):
Yeah, yeah.
Logan (11:38):
The underappreciated influence of teachers.
Erin (11:41):
The underappreciated influence, yes.
So you refound your love ofhistory.
And what made you decide to gofrom a history lover to a
history podcaster?
Logan (11:52):
Well, I'll try to keep this answer a little shorter
than my last one.
And I think it'll be easybecause it's a pretty
straightforward story.
First of all, I started gettinginto...
long-form chronological historypodcasts that tell like one
story in order from beginning toend about like an era for
(12:13):
instance to pick a not randomexample the french revolution uh
probably the first one like somany other history podcasters i
was inspired by mike duncan'srevolutions
Erin (12:24):
A
Logan (12:25):
podcast that you introduced to me, by the way, so
I have to give you credit forthat.
Erin (12:30):
You're welcome.
A very, very
Logan (12:32):
good one.
I think I was the only one ofus who actually finished it all.
Erin (12:37):
There are many fascinating seasons.
I need to listen to more ofthat.
Logan (12:43):
Yeah, well, you have...
You have a much healthierbalanced diet of podcasts about
science and a variety of topicsthat I really should know more
about.
I'm a little obsessive when itcomes to the history stuff.
Probably makes you a good history podcaster.
Yeah, I hope.
Yeah, so there's other similarpodcasts following that kind of
(13:06):
chronological long form episodeby episode approach.
Mark Painter's History of the20th Century, Age of Napoleon,
History of the Great War.
And those were the podcaststhat I really loved.
But I'd been thinking moreabout recent U.S.
history.
And I really wished that therewas a podcast in that kind of
(13:27):
format about post-1945 U.S.
history, especially kind of upto the present that I could
listen to to kind of think aboutlike, How did we get here as a
country?
Whatever you think about themoment we're in now, I want
something that's even moreapplicable to my own life and to
(13:49):
the lives of people around meliving in the United States.
I thought it would be helpfulto review the past 75 years
here, kind of in order, or 50years or whatever.
And I just couldn't find it.
I looked for it and I couldn'tfind it.
And then I had the light bulbmoment that if it isn't out
there, maybe I should make itmyself.
(14:10):
I mean, as I thought about it,I realized it was one of the few
things that I could use myhistorical training or my
ability to research and mybackground knowledge and all my
old notes from grad school thatwere sitting there gathering
dust that I could actuallyrepurpose them.
(14:30):
and actually have other peoplehopefully appreciate the
knowledge that I could bring tobear when I tell a story.
So that's where the idea camefrom, and we've just gone
forward from there.
Erin (14:45):
I love that.
So who are some of yourfavorite historians?
Logan (14:51):
So there's many historians, both academic and
more public.
Many, many, as long as they...
are true to their sources andare good storytellers and give
an accurate picture of whathappened, there's a ton that I
have a lot of respect for.
Particularly academichistorians is a difficult path
(15:14):
because sometimes the stuff theypublish isn't read by a lot of
people, but they're doing veryimportant work.
There's nobody I really fanboyout on.
There's nobody I have like aparasocial relationship or who
I'm like stalking on socialmedia or anything like that.
There's nobody I really put upon a huge pedestal.
But I would say that if I hadto tell you at least my favorite
(15:39):
history book when it comes toUS history, I would say a book I
read in grad school calledBattle Cry of Freedom by James
McPherson was a tremendousachievement when I would
recommend to people It is thedefinitive one-volume work on
the U.S.
Civil War.
So if you see the Ken Burns'The Civil War and that isn't
(16:03):
enough and you really want to doa deep dive, this is the book
to get.
I have to warn listeners thatit's rather daunting in its
length.
I think it's got to be over 800pages.
It's part of the Oxford Historyof the United States series.
that has published all thesebig volumes by prominent
(16:25):
historians that provide theend-up story of a whole era.
That's had a big impact on me.
I haven't read all of thoseseries, but a couple of books
that will probably be familiarto listeners of our podcast
include Grand Expectations byJames T.
Patterson and From Colony toSuperpower by George C.
(16:49):
Herring.
These are sources we cite inmost of our episodes.
They're
Erin (16:55):
familiar names.
Logan (16:56):
Yeah, they're part of that same series.
And I rely on those a lot.
I rely also on, I usually haveat least one presidential
biography from the period I'mlooking at.
With Truman, it was the DavidMcCullough one.
With Eisenhower, it was one bya historian named Gene Edward
(17:17):
Smith.
or I think it's more of abiographer generally, not an
academic historian.
And then with JFK, it's beenRobert Daleks that I've mostly
relied on.
And mostly I do tend to want toget these big picture sources
because with any given year,there are entire books written
(17:38):
on certain events, but we don'thave time to get into a granular
level of detail.
So I want other books that kindof give insight 30,000 feet
picture of what was going onrather than putting it under a
microscope.
Although we have cited morespecific sources where needed,
like with the Freedom Riders,there was a book I read in grad
(18:00):
school that I was able to goback and use for that one
specifically about the FreedomRiders of 1961.
But these big sources like thatare ones that I rely on a lot.
Yeah, so sorry, that took us alittle bit away from the
original question about favoritehistorians.
But those are some of myfavorite historians to use in
(18:21):
the podcast.
Erin (18:22):
Great.
Yeah, there's a lot ofexcellent recommendations,
places to go learn more ifyou're interested.
One thing that I've beencurious about is across these
five years, how has the podcastchanged how you think about US
history?
I
Logan (18:40):
I don't know if it's if just doing the podcast has
changed the way I think about UShistory a ton, I'm sure on the
margins it has, but maybe not asmuch as some other factors.
I think actually probably theway I think about US history has
been more shaped by currentevents than it has by doing the
(19:02):
podcast.
Probably current events issomething that has driven me to
do the podcast just becausewe're at a time in our country
where I think there's a lot ofdebate over our identity and,
you know, what America has been,what America should be, where
are we going?
And I also think there's a lotof feeling on both sides of the
(19:25):
political fence that likesomething has gone off track, I
guess.
Erin (19:30):
Yeah.
Logan (19:31):
And, and that really makes me want to go back and
kind of like diagnose theorigins of current attitudes of
disillusionment, currentproblems we may have.
This thing that maybe haschanged for a lot of people who
look at U.S.
history is kind of a move awayfrom American exceptionalism.
(19:53):
American exceptionalism is kindof the idea that the U.S.
has like a special path and forwhatever reason, it is
different than other countries.
And maybe the same rules don'teven apply.
And there are people who aregonna point to things like
(20:14):
destiny or divine providence orsomething like that.
Serious historians are morelikely to rely on things like
the unique geographic locationof the United States, the unique
population as You know, it'scomfort with different waves of
immigration previously and beingable to kind of assimilate
(20:34):
those waves of immigration, ourconstitutional system, our
separation of powers, ourindividual freedoms, the Bill of
Rights.
A lot of people would point tothat and say, this is why the
U.S.
doesn't have the problems theseother countries have.
But the reality is likeincreasingly, you know, you look
at issues like uh lower lifeexpectancy than here than in
(20:58):
other western nations over thepast two or three decades you
look at things like lack of apeaceful transfer of power after
the last presidential electionuh three or four years ago and
uh these are things that arelike showing that you know maybe
we're not so special maybe wecan fall into some of the
problems that other countriesalso fall into i mean we we've
(21:20):
been blessed by these two oceansthat protect us We're not
surrounded by countries withpotential invading armies.
I mean, no disrespect to ourfriends in Canada and Mexico,
but they have smallerpopulations.
They can't compete with usmilitarily.
They're not going to be athreat to invade us militarily
or overthrow our government.
(21:41):
Obviously, I have toacknowledge that, yes, there are
countries that have us withinnuclear range during the Cold
War and even now, countries likeRussia and maybe China.
So there are threats out there,but just like we haven't had to
worry as much about oursecurity and we've had rich
(22:02):
natural resources that have ledto prosperity.
So we've had these certainadvantages, but it doesn't mean
that we're always gonna be thetop superpower or the most
powerful and most free.
Like it's still where the lawof gravity applies.
And if we make bad decisions asa country, We can always go
(22:23):
into a decline and some peoplethink that's where we're heading
and I don't wanna editorializetoo much and the future is
uncertain, but I do thinkwithout being too pessimistic
about the whole thing, I thinkan appreciation for some of the
problems we have is part of whatmotivates me to kind of go back
(22:43):
and look at our pasttrajectory, especially over the
past four or five decades.
Erin (22:50):
I think that makes a lot of sense.
There's something very valuableabout putting things in
perspective and looking at wherewe're coming from and how
things have been while you'rethinking about all the things
that are going on today.
What is the most surprisingthing that you have learned
while doing the podcast?
Are there any interestinghistorical characters you've
(23:12):
learned about?
Logan (23:13):
Well, I always learn new details about events.
Even when it's a topic I thinkI know well, even if I know like
the Cliff Notes big picturestory, there's always some new
details that surprise me.
And when I find them, I try toput them in because maybe
they'll surprise other people.
As far as interestingcharacters, pretty much anyone
(23:35):
I've done a 10-minute profileepisode about is somebody I find
interesting.
I added that format in part sowe could talk about some
fascinating people who wouldn'thave time to spotlight
otherwise, particularly peoplewho aren't presidents or
powerful politicians andbusiness leaders, but are more
like people who are maybeactivists, writers,
(23:58):
intellectuals, even notoriouspeople at times.
They don't always have to bepeople I admire, although
sometimes they are, but just itallows me to put the spotlight
on people that are giant,powerful historical figures of
the period.
Another couple more specificexamples of things I've learned
and opinions that I've come to.
(24:20):
One person I find interestingis Thomas Dewey, who was the
Republican presidential nomineein 1944 and 1948.
I think he was a prettyimpressive guy and he could have
been a good president, eventhough he wasn't the greatest
politician.
He wasn't a great speech maker.
from my research, but he hadthis track record of prosecuting
(24:45):
corruption and organized crime.
He was pretty moderate for aRepublican.
In 1948, he even did a debatewith another Republican
candidate, I think it was HaroldStassen, about whether it
should be illegal to be a memberof the Communist Party.
And Thomas Dewey said it shouldbe illegal to be a member.
(25:06):
It's freedom of speech.
more of like a civil libertieskind of mentality there than
from a Republican like JoeMcCarthy, obviously.
So I think he's an interestingguy.
I think it would have beeninteresting to see what
direction he went in.
He was fairly progressive oncivil rights and some other
things while still being kind ofa fiscal conservative as a
(25:29):
Republican.
But I think he maybe could havebrought the GOP in a different
direction.
The open question there, Imean, Anytime, if you want to go
back and plug in a differentperson as president, it's very
eager to be like, you know, it'dbe better if such and such had
won.
But you don't know that.
I mean, it could have beenworse.
(25:49):
Like, for instance, you know, Ithink it's very likely given
the kind of advisors from theRepublican Party that Dewey
would have had, that hedefinitely, like Truman, would
have gone into Korea had theNorth Koreans still invaded the
South.
And the question is, wouldDewey have had the courage that
Truman showed in being willingto fire Douglas MacArthur when
(26:11):
he was becoming wildlyinsubordinate to the president
and trying to escalate the war,would he have the guts to do
that?
Because I think it was one ofTruman's finest hours that he
was willing to do that, eventhough it was a wildly unpopular
decision, at least at first.
So who knows if Dewey wouldhave stepped up to the plate on
(26:32):
that.
But I just think it's aninteresting, like maybe the
whole history of the RepublicanParty would be different had he
become president in the 40s.
So that's what I would say.
To go a little tougher onanother Republican, I'm going to
talk about Dwight Eisenhower,who I think at first he was very
(26:53):
underrated by historians.
The first guy who published thepresidential ranking list of
historians, if I recall right,was Arthur Schlesinger Jr., I
believe, and he rated Eisenhowervery low and he rated John F.
Kennedy very high and it shouldbe noticed that Arthur
(27:13):
Schlesinger like was goodfriends with Kennedy and would
like hang out in the KennedyWhite House so he was totally
biased and of course becauseKennedy replaced Eisenhower you
know the idea was Eisenhower wasthis non-dynamic chamber of
commerce old buddy-duddy stuckin his ways and the Kennedy
(27:36):
people were the best and thebrightest and they were going to
go in and fix things.
So a lot of historians likethat for reasons of, you know,
partisanship or ideology or whathave you, we're a little down
on Eisenhower.
And I think a way that was alittle unfair and he's really
been reassessed and historiansrank him a lot higher now.
Certainly I think also the factthat compared to some, some
(28:02):
recent, presidents like GeorgeW.
Bush, for instance.
He seemed a lot more moderatein his sort of conservative
approach to foreign policy.
He at least had more restraintand prudence, more like George
H.W.
Bush than George W.
Bush.
But having studied him myself,I think there were a lot of
(28:24):
things to admire aboutEisenhower.
I think he was a good presidentin a lot of ways, particularly
on domestic policy.
But Just getting toward the endof his administration, I think
he was starting to veer in moreof a reckless, more of a George
W.
Bush direction that put JFK ina bad spot.
I mean, he was the one that waskind of, after the Cuban
(28:46):
Revolution, letting the CIA planout the Bay of Pigs, which they
kind of got handed to JFK,like, this is what we're going
to do.
You're going to sign off onthis, right?
And Eisenhower even personallytook JFK aside and famously and
said, hey, you may need tomilitarily intervene in the
country of Laos, which hethankfully didn't end up doing.
But I just feel like Eisenhowerwas getting a little more
(29:09):
reckless.
He had the Dulles brothers whowere doing too many shady things
in terms of like overthrowingor messing with other
governments.
It was creating some blowback.
You can argue that in somecases that was necessary to
check the advance of communism.
Certainly their defenders willsay that, but I just think the
Eisenhower foreign policy got alittle reckless.
(29:30):
I mean, he was usually the onewho would push back on the
Dulles brothers when they wantedto be more aggressive, like
after the fall of the Frenchfortress that I can't pronounce
in Vietnam.
You know, they were talkingabout escalating militarily and
Eisenhower was like, no, we'renot ready for that.
So he was kind of the voice ofcaution.
(29:50):
But when you put all thesehotheads around you in your
administration, sometimes it'sgoing to be hard to not listen
to them at some point.
So I would say that Eisenhoweris a little overrated at this
point, just because I think heended on a dangerous note that
kind of paved the path for theCuban Missile Crisis, which is
what we're finally going to talkabout in our next full length
(30:11):
episode, which was probably thesingle most dangerous moment of
the Cold War, at least duringthe the period from the 50s to
the 70s.
So those are some things I'vebeen reflecting about recently.
Yeah,
Erin (30:24):
yeah, that's all really interesting.
I love the additional contextthat all of this has been able
to give to these moments andfigures in history.
Do you have a favorite episode?
Logan (30:37):
I would say that my favorite episodes, and I don't
think these are necessarily thepublic's favorite episodes,
because I They aren't the onesthat have gotten the most
downloads, but I would say 1955and 1958, because they're both
episodes where I didn't have tofocus on just a couple of major
events.
And I was able to like jumparound various topics in order
(31:00):
to give examples of like a, togive a general feel for daily
life and for the national moodat the time.
I like to paint that picturewhen I can and just, take my
eyes off, you know, whatevercrisis the president is dealing
with and getting into like,well, here's, here's what people
were, this is when McDonald'sstarted.
(31:21):
And this is, you know, peoplestarted going to Disneyland and
this is when this pop culturetrend or this music started.
And this is what the writerswere saying.
And you can kind of get a wholefeel for what it felt like to
live there.
And when I can get away withdoing that, sometimes there are
so many big things I have tocover.
It's hard when I can get awaywith doing that.
I like to do that.
(31:42):
I
Erin (31:44):
I think that's a helpful way of kind of grounding things
for listeners.
I know for me listening, it ishelpful to be like, oh, that's
around the same time this washappening, and I didn't realize.
And so yeah, I do also enjoywhen you get a chance to ground
us in the moment in history.
Yeah, I like that as well.
Continue.
Logan (32:03):
I try to flag those years where it's like, oh, Good.
Nothing big happened this year.
I can catch up with theeveryday life stuff and I don't
have to cover a giantinternational crisis.
So I look for thoseopportunities.
Erin (32:16):
Good.
Yeah.
Logan (32:17):
Um, there's definitely episodes that I think were
stronger than others.
Some of the supplementals Ithink were maybe not as strong
as the, uh, the main full lengthepisodes like, uh, the OK
Boomer episode.
I think we were kind of justtrying to comment on a trend,
and it was fine for what it was,but maybe it's not the most
(32:37):
evergreen content there.
But generally, every topic I'vedone an episode on is something
I'm at least interested in, andhopefully it connects with
people.
But I think the ones I'm mostpassionate about are where I'm
really able to give a broadoverview of what was going on in
(32:57):
the country not just in theWhite House or whatever.
Yeah,
Erin (33:02):
yeah.
And I'm glad you mentioned inthe previous question, some of
those profiles, because I amglad to have learned about some
of these specific figures, inaddition to the generalized
information about various timeperiods.
So that is one of the delightsand many things I have learned
about while working on thepodcast.
(33:23):
So what topics do you think youare most looking forward to
covering down the road?
Logan (33:28):
Well, it's interesting.
I was excited about coveringthe late 1940s, particularly
like the 1948 election hasalways fascinated me.
And then, you know, the 50s, alittle less exciting, but I knew
there were some things that Icould bring to attention that
people maybe didn't know as muchabout.
I think we both enjoyed theelection.
(33:51):
research went into the Sputnikepisode and some of that.
But I've kind of been dreadingthe 1960s, to be honest with
you.
I just, there's so much likereheated boomer nostalgia for
that period.
For a time, there were so manymovies and TV shows that, oh,
the, you know, the rice pattiesof Vietnam and they're playing
(34:15):
the Creedence Clearwater revivalmusic in the background or you
know, Woodstock or whatever,like all the Forrest Gump type
stereotypes of like therehashed, this has been done to
death.
We've heard this a milliontimes.
We know the tropes of thetragic troops in Vietnam
suffering and then the protestsand the peace signs and the
(34:40):
banners.
And for a lot of people ofcertain generations, it felt
like we're always getting thispushed on us that this was like
the most important decade ever.
And some of us kind of began tochafe at that a little bit, I
guess.
Erin (34:54):
Yeah, it is understandable.
I do feel like that has beenhighly saturated into pop
culture.
Logan (35:01):
But I think maybe it's more so for older millennials
and Gen X.
I feel like maybe youngermillennials haven't been as
exposed to that, because I thinkpop culture is moved on a
little bit more from the 60s.
Of course, there's still stuffcoming out about the 60s, but I
see more historical things setin the 70s and 80s now than
(35:22):
they're used to.
And maybe we'll get to the 90snostalgia movement eventually.
True, true.
Fingers crossed.
But having started working onthese episodes, I had to
appreciate that the 60s arehugely eventful and important,
whether you like it or not.
They're much harder to coverthan the 50s because there's
(35:45):
just so much going on, which iswhy we've had to break some of
these years into two parts.
And I know now we've gottenbogged down in the Kennedy
miniseries.
I
Erin (35:56):
It's easy to have happen.
Plenty of information aboutthe Kennedys.
t
Logan (35:58):
K And I know some people are probably like another
Kennedy episode.
Why is he so obsessed with theKennedys?
Because I'm not obsessed withthe Kennedys.
I want to know why everyoneelse is obsessed with the
Kennedys.
Everyone older than me isobsessed with the Kennedys.
And the miniseries has beenkind of easier to write than
some other things because once Istarted covering like the 1960
(36:23):
election, I went out and got abiography.
I founded a used bookstore, acopy of Dalek's biography, which
a lot of people think is one ofthe best that's been written so
far about John F.
Kennedy.
And then I got as a gift abiography of Robert F.
Kennedy, somebody who knew Iwould be covering this era.
(36:43):
So that makes it easy for me tojust read about their lives and
then write about it and do someadditional research to make
sure I'm bringing in some othersources as well.
But what I'm trying to do withthose, and if people are sick of
them, please write and let meknow and maybe we'll stop.
But I want to understand thedifference between the truth and
(37:04):
the myth.
I've been trying to kind oftake them off the pedestal
without doing an unfair hit job.
There was one book that cameout a couple decades ago, that
really finally took like the hottake, because there's been so
much pro Kennedy stuff.
There was one that's like,actually, the Kennedy's were
bad.
And I think it was called likethe dark side of Camelot.
(37:25):
And it talked about all the badthings that Kennedy's did.
And of course, there were somebad things.
I mean, it talked about, youknow, the the lobotomy of, uh,
of Rosemary and a lot of issueslike that and some of the
scandals.
So there certainly is some dirtto dig up there, but I don't
want to just be, I kind of liketry to be human about it in
terms of like, yeah, they didsome bad things, but I also want
(37:48):
you to empathize with JFK'shealth struggles and things like
that.
And, uh, They were veryprivileged, but they also were
human and had problems andweaknesses.
And I want that to come acrossand to have that more fleshed
out, richer view of them ashumans.
But there's so much we get evennow that does put them on that
(38:11):
pedestal.
I was literally listening to asong that came out a couple of
years ago.
just came up on my Spotify by aband that I know is from
outside the United States thathad some lyric about, oh, the
only good politicians thatactually can make a difference
always get murdered.
Just look at what happened tothe Kennedys.
And it just goes to show, onceagain, there's that myth that
Erin (38:35):
the Kennedys,
Logan (38:37):
everything, if only they had lived, everything would have
been perfect.
Logan and Erin (38:40):
And that's this overly idealized picture.
Erin (38:44):
Yeah.
Logan and Erin (38:45):
Yeah.
Logan (38:45):
And I'm trying to correct that.
And even now, there is anelection in Massachusetts,
primary election just a fewyears ago, where Joseph Kennedy
III, I don't know if he's agrandkid or I don't, I haven't
looked at the family tree, buthe is one of the direct
(39:07):
descendants of the Kennedys.
The same with Joseph KennedyIII.
He was running in theDemocratic primary against Ed
Markey.
Ed Mackey, as they say inMassachusetts.
And Kennedy lost that primary.
And this is the first time aKennedy has ever lost a
statewide election inMassachusetts.
(39:27):
So I thought maybe the fever isbroken.
Maybe we're out of love withthe Kennedys.
We aren't going to necessarilyvote for anybody with that last
name.
But then you have the QAnonstuff of JFK Jr.
is still alive.
And now you have RFK Jr.
being a big public figure.
I don't think this guy would begetting the same level of
(39:50):
attention if his name was RobertF.
Jones or whatever.
I mean, he still gets a lot ofattention despite the...
The whale thing and the brainworm and the thing with the
bear.
Erin (40:04):
That name can take you surprisingly far.
It's
Logan (40:07):
impressive.
And he looks kind of like hisfather.
He has those Kennedy teeth andeverything.
And I think it just strikes achord still with the legendary
role that they have in ourcountry.
Even if I think it wouldn't betoo controversial to say that
his ideas are...
farther out there than hisfamous ancestor, his dad's ideas
(40:29):
were.
And he's clearly more of acrank, but still having that
name creates so much prestigeeven now.
So we're still dealing with it.
So I hope the Kennedy series isrelevant.
So that's a big part of 60stuff we've been dealing with.
I'm actually really lookingforward, though, to being done
with that, to talking more aboutLyndon B.
(40:50):
Johnson and the Great Society.
Lyndon B.
Johnson, who was another hugelycomplicated and flawed figure
who's huge talents, a huge ego,huge hubris, and fascinating
guy.
So I'm looking forward tomoving on to the LBJ
administration when we getthere.
And I'm also really lookingforward to the 70s, 80s, and
(41:12):
90s.
Those are the ones I'm mostexcited about.
And it's ridiculous to eventalk about this because will we
ever even get there?
But if we did, I might stop atlike 9-11 or maybe the 2008
financial crisis and election.
But yeah, I would like to getat least through part of the 70s
and 80s just because I thinkit's something that I was kind
(41:36):
of taught toward the very end ofhistory class.
I would, at least in college, Iwould learn about the 60s.
But the 80s were like in thewindow where I didn't really,
wasn't conscious to rememberwhat happened, but It was too
recent to be viewed as history.
So it took me a long time toactually learn about what
(41:56):
Iran-Contra really was.
And I think a lot of peopledon't know and should know.
So hopefully we get there.
Erin (42:03):
Yeah, I feel like my knowledge of those periods could
definitely be improved as well.
What do you know about theaudience of the podcast?
Logan (42:13):
I don't know a ton.
I know a little bit.
I do want to talk about thisbecause...
Listening to the earlyepisodes, I think the very first
one I talk about, the originalpremise was kind of this being
geared more towards millennials.
And I don't know if I stillagree with that being the
premise.
I want to appeal to everybody.
And I know of some like Gen Xor Boomer friends and family who
(42:38):
listen to the show and enjoyit.
So I hope it's accessible toall.
I guess in terms of talkingabout younger generations, It
more goes in with it being kindof a fresh look that's not
assuming a ton of backgroundknowledge.
And hopefully I'm still doingthat because if I'm not bringing
like a fresh perspective, Imean, you could read a book on
(43:01):
the Kennedy administrationthat's 20 years old.
And when I bring in things thatare a little more contemporary,
I think that is kind of alittle bit of extra context that
we add that hopefully makes usenjoyable to listen to.
you know, who is our audience?
Well, you all can write in andtell me who you are.
(43:23):
I've had some members of theaudience reach out.
The stereotype is that mosthistory podcasters and their
listeners tend to skew male andcertainly judging by the ads
that appear in some otherpopular history podcasts, that
appears to be the case.
They're Definitely areexceptions.
There are some really goodfemale history podcasters out
(43:46):
there.
Look at the Partial Historianspodcast on Roman history or the
professors who appear on thisday in esoteric political
history talking about morerecent US history.
So there are some great femalepodcasters out there.
I'm sure there's a lot offemale history podcast
listeners.
I don't know how it breaks downwith us.
(44:07):
You know, it can be tough justbecause the most powerful
figures in U.S.
history, particularly prior tothe 1970s, tend to be white
males.
So it's kind of difficult toavoid talking about them if you
really want to cover things,including the big political
stuff.
But at the same time, I thinklike the 10 minute profile
(44:28):
episodes are going to continueto try a little bit to be a
corrective to that and look atsome people, who are of
different backgrounds, moremarginalized, and show what they
were doing and the significantthings they were doing and the
achievements they had.
But yeah, I don't know a lotabout, I don't have data on
(44:48):
race, sex, gender, nationality,although what I do have from
Buzzsprout, our podcast hostingplatform, is just the data on
where the podcasts are beingdownloaded.
Erin (45:01):
And
Logan (45:03):
I don't know if this surprises people or not,
probably not, that like 80% ofour downloads are in North
America, vast majority of thosein the United States.
Outside the US tends to be alot of Anglophone countries, you
know, Canada, UK, Ireland,Australia, that kind of thing.
I think Germany and Mexico arethe countries that are not
(45:26):
English speaking that we havethe most downloads from.
In particular, I want to give ashout out to Frankfurt,
Germany.
Had a lot of downloads inFrankfurt.
So danke, Shane.
Love you,
Erin (45:38):
Frankfurt.
Logan (45:40):
Yeah, sorry.
I shouldn't even try topronounce German because it's
not one of the languages I'vestudied.
I'll butcher it.
So please forgive me,Frankfurt.
Erin (45:49):
And many thanks to all of our international listeners and
national listeners, of course.
So at this stage, I'm curioushow you balance the hope of
keeping the podcast relevant tocontemporary events with having
evergreen content.
Logan (46:07):
It's one of the most difficult things I deal with in
making the show, I think,because, like I said, I think
bringing that currentperspective is part of what we
bring to the table, but I worryabout overdoing it.
I mean, you already see that ifyou go back and listen to even
pop culture podcasts from say2020, you know, they'll be like,
(46:30):
oh, this pandemic is crazy, youknow?
And, you know, so it very muchdates it to a particular point
in time and reminds you you'relistening to an old podcast.
So I'm sure we've had asidesabout like the current pandemic
or even,
Erin (46:44):
but
Logan (46:45):
we kind of hinted at, wow, you know, no president
would tweet anything crazy.
Like, That would never happenexcept for last week.
These little subtweets orlittle subtle references to
current events we try to sneakin that maybe aren't always
going to make as much sense ifyou're listening six years from
(47:06):
now.
So it's a balancing act.
I'm open to suggestions as tohow to get it right.
Erin (47:12):
And I guess that's certainly something listeners
could share if they like theinclusion of contemporary
information or if they prefer tostick to the events at the time
in which they happened.
Logan (47:24):
Yeah, there are podcasts where they never mention
anything going on in the worldand they are more evergreen.
But at the same time, I feellike I think that the past looks
differently in the context ofnow.
than it did through the contextof 30 years ago.
And that's one of the things Ifind most interesting about
this.
So that's why it's such a toughbalance.
(47:46):
I did want to add one thingreal quick about my perspective.
I want to emphasize, and Idon't know to what extent I
succeed, because I certainlyhave my own viewpoints.
I try to avoid hitting you overthe head with my views or
telling listeners what to thinkand being willing to criticize
(48:06):
people I might be sympathetic toin terms of their politics or
what they were trying to achievewhen I think they made mistakes
or bad strategy or had personalcharacter flaws.
Certainly my own opinions sneakthrough it at times and I'm
human and I don't want topretend that I don't have a
viewpoint.
But most of the time I try tolay out the facts and let
(48:31):
listeners make their ownconclusions.
I'm very willing to criticizepeople everybody and anybody,
because I think there's a lot ofblame to go around in our
current problems.
So it's a shame that somethinglike January 6th has become like
a partisan issue.
I mean, even some polls saidDemocrats thought the media was
giving too much attention to it.
(48:51):
And certainly Republicans,there's conspiracy theories
about who was behind it.
And you can bring up certainevents like the COVID pandemic
and January 6th have been sopoliticized.
And I really tried to say, hey,this isn't about me taking a
side.
It's about the fact that whenthere's a violent insurrection
(49:12):
at the Capitol building, it'ssignificant.
The study of history of othercountries shows that it can be a
sign that the country isheading in a more politically
unstable direction.
But I hope I don't come acrossas preachy or partisan.
Above all, what I'm saying is Ihope that people with different
beliefs than me can listen toour show and still get useful
(49:33):
information.
And even if they see that Ihave a perspective that isn't so
blatant that it's driving themnuts.
Erin (49:40):
Yeah, absolutely.
So we've got a lot of goodinformation about the podcast
itself.
I would like to know a fewthings that your listeners might
be interested to know aboutyou.
What do you do when you're notpodcasting?
Logan (49:56):
Well, I received this question and I thought about it
and I came to the conclusionthat I don't know that people
are really going to beinterested in what my hobbies
are.
Personally, I'm not interestedin like what musical instrument
Mike Duncan plays or what DanCarlin's favorite breakfast
cereal is.
I don't know if I have manyhobbies that are all that unique
(50:17):
or interesting and I kind ofprefer a certain degree of
privacy and I don't think thepublic cares that much.
So I'll keep a little bit of anair of mystery about myself.
If you really want to know moreabout me, feel free to write
in.
Our email isboomertomillennialatoutlook.com.
Our Instagram is at boomers tomillennials.
(50:38):
If you have a question about meor about podcast, maybe I'll
respond and tell you my favoritecolor or whatever you want to
know.
Erin (50:48):
You heard it here.
Send us questions about whatLogan's favorite color might be.
So that takes us at long lastto our final big question, which
is, what does the future of thepodcast hold?
Logan (51:04):
Thanks, Erin.
Before I answer that, let methrow a question back at you.
Is there any episode thatstands out to you or any aspect
of the podcast that you want toshare your opinion about?
Do you just want to sayanything about what it's been
like to work on it?
I kind of want to bring in yourperspective since you've been
(51:25):
involved since the beginning.
My
Erin (51:27):
favorite color is green.
A little bit about me.
Now, in terms of history, It'sbeen really valuable because,
although I've always foundhistory quite interesting,
American history, U.S.
history specifically, is anarea in which I feel I have a
bit of a gap of knowledge.
And I have appreciated theopportunity to fill in some of
(51:51):
that gap as I have worked onthis podcast.
So for me, it really has beenabout gaining that greater
understanding of learning aboutthese specific lesser-known
figures.
I mentioned some of thesupplemental episodes, learning
about the tensions of some ofthese moments in time.
I have appreciated getting toknow more about the impact of
(52:13):
the Kennedys, why they were sofamous, and the complexities of
them, because they have had sucha legendary status.
And I wanted to betterunderstand, yeah, why was that?
Who were they really?
Yeah, it's been definitely afulfilling project.
(52:33):
I've liked being able to workon the technical aspects and
feel like my understanding ofthe past has been improved,
which does help shape myunderstanding of the present.
So I think that's the briefanswer.
So
Logan (52:50):
what does the future of the podcast hold?
So I have to figure out whatthe future will be by deciding
what I'm going to say next.
OK, on a serious note,hopefully there'll be more
interviews.
This is kind of a trial run.
We'll see how this goes.
And I may reach out to someother podcasters and eventually
(53:15):
maybe some other authors andwhatnot in order to have similar
conversations about history andhistory.
and learn from people with abroader expertise than my own.
I'm hoping to release episodesmore regularly, certainly, than
I have in the last couple ofyears.
I don't want to give an exacttimeline because I've
(53:35):
over-promised once or twicebefore, and a lot of things are
in flux for me personally.
But all I will say is thepodcasts should be more frequent
in the future because I haveleft a demanding full-time job
and I'm moving overseas to teachEnglish part-time, so I'll have
a lot more time to spend on thepodcast.
The downside is I may have lessaccess to sources.
(53:58):
So we'll have to kind of workwith that.
But that's what the futureholds.
I think we need to kind of tryto build our audience back up.
I can't really blame anyone whounsubscribed during the lean
years, if it had been three orfour months since an episode was
out.
You know, I understand thatsome people are going to assume
that the podcast is essentiallydead.
(54:19):
They call this phenomenon podfade podcasts.
A lot of people start a podcastand lose interest and there are
fewer and fewer episodes andlonger and longer between and
then eventually they die.
But I want to reassure people,once again, that we will tell
you if we ever decide to stop.
So unless we tell you thepodcast is over, please stay
(54:40):
subscribed and we will keep youposted of future developments.
We're gonna have to look intosome different ways of promoting
the podcast.
There used to be a really goodcommunity of history podcasters
over on Twitter.
Things are different there now.
Things are different there now,and I don't spend as much time
there.
But we continue to useInstagram.
(55:02):
You can still email us.
We may look into a Facebookpage or a new website.
I think interviews with guestscould potentially help.
lead us to more exposure todifferent audiences who tune in
to hear somebody they know andmaybe discover us.
But at the end of the day, itisn't about having a huge
(55:22):
audience.
It's about having a loyalaudience, one that's big enough
to give support and enoughpeople who enjoy it to make it
worth doing for me.
Because I genuinely do enjoymaking these podcasts and
sharing them with people.
Otherwise, I wouldn't do this.
And if you want to help outwith how slow things have been,
(55:44):
you know, you may want to holdoff on a Patreon, although we
really appreciate those who havegiven and continue to give.
But you can always, it'spainless and doesn't cost you
anything to leave a rating or areview or to give a word of
mouth recommendation.
My deeply Scandinavian naturemakes me very reticent about
(56:05):
self-promotion in person andtelling people, to listen to my
podcast in person.
So if you can maybe be my hypeman a little bit, some people
out there and just spread theword a little bit, I'd
appreciate it.
Do you have anything to add,Erin, about the future of the
podcast or any thoughts?
Erin (56:24):
Yes, just much gratitude for those who have stuck around
or even those who are justdiscovering us and who want to
give us a chance.
So yeah, spread the word.
We appreciate it.
Reviews, All that good stuff.
So thank you so much forlistening and being interested
in history.
Yeah.
(56:44):
Anything
Logan (56:45):
else you want to add?
Thank you, Erin, for the greatquestions.
We're not going to do ournormal outro except for the last
sentence we always say, whichis thank you for listening.
Erin (56:56):
Thank you for listening.
Thank you.
Logan and Erin (57:08):
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.