Democracy Archives - Not Even Past

This is Democracy – Free Speech and Repression in Turkey

Content Warning: This episode contains discussions of political imprisonment, torture, threats of r*pe, and human rights abuses. Viewer discretion is advised.

Jeremi and Zachary speak with Kurdish journalist Nedim Türfent, who spent over 2,400 days in a Turkish prison after releasing footage of state forces mistreating Kurdish workers. He was denied a fair trial, convicted on coerced testimony, and silenced for speaking truth. In confinement, he turned to poetry—smuggling out verses that have since reached global audiences. His words remain a powerful testament to resistance, memory, and humanity.

This is Democracy – Israel-Palestine

This week, the discussion delves into the complex and deeply rooted suffering in the Middle East, focusing on the history of conflict, memory, trauma, and grief between Israelis and Palestinians. Jeremi and Zachary Suri are joined by acclaimed author Lawrence Wright, who has spent decades studying and documenting the region. Wright discusses his latest novel, ‘The Human Scale,’ which examines the motivations and personal stories behind the ongoing violence and suffering.

Zachary sets the scene with his poem, “In Jerusalem”.

Lawrence Wright is a staff writer for The New Yorker, a playwright, a screenwriter, and the author of ten books of nonfiction, including The Looming Tower, Going Clear, and God Save Texas, and three previous novels, Mr. Texas, The End of October, and God’s Favorite. His books have received many honors, including a Pulitzer Prize for The Looming Tower. His most recent book is a novel, The Human Scale.

This is Democracy – Broadcasting Democracy

Jeremi and Zachary have a conversation with Dr. Mark Pomar on the historical impact of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty’s critical role of radio communications during the Cold War, and the challenges they face today including the recent threats to their operation.

Zachary sets the scene with his poem, “Radio Liberty”.

Mark Pomar is a Senior Fellow at the Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas. From 1975 to 1982, Dr. Pomar taught Russian studies at the University of Vermont. From 1982 to 1993, he worked as Assistant Director of the Russian Service at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (Munich), Director of the USSR Division at the Voice of America, and the Executive Director of the Board for International Broadcasting, a federal agency that oversaw Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. From 1994 to 2008, Dr. Pomar was a senior executive and President of IREX, a large US international nonprofit organization. From 2008 to 2017, he was the founding CEO and President of the US – Russia Foundation (USRF), a private US foundation that supported educational programs and exchanges. Dr. Pomar is the author of two books, most recently: Cold War Radio: The Russian Broadcasts of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

This is Democracy – The Courts and the President

Jeremi and Zachary sit down with Jeffrey Toobin to discuss the critical relationship between the U.S. judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, and the executive branch. Discussion centers around the contentious and politically charged topic of presidential pardoning power. The episode covers historical instances, such as Lincoln’s and Johnson’s post-Civil War pardons, Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon, and more recent uses of the pardon power by Presidents Trump and Biden.

Zachary sets the scene with his poem, “It is a miracle the Earth can twist.”

Jeffrey Toobin is the chief legal analyst for CNN and a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times. He is the author of numerous books, including: The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court and Homegrown: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism. His most recent book is: The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy.

This is Democracy – Ending Wars

This week, Jeremi and Zachary talk with Michael Vorenberg about the difficulties of ending wars in democracies. Their discussion includes various perspectives on when the Civil War truly ended, the challenges of war termination, Lincoln’s approach toward reconciliation, and the lasting impacts of unresolved conflicts.

Zachary sets the scene with the poem “O Captain! My Captain!” by Walt Whitman.

Michael Vorenberg is an associate professor of history at Brown University. He is the author of Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment. This book was used for Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster film, Lincoln. Vorenberg’s exciting new book is Lincoln’s Peace: The Struggle to End the American Civil War.

This is Democracy – Free Speech

This week, Jeremi and Zachary talk with Donald Downs delve into the importance of free speech in democratic societies. They explore its historical significance, current threats, and what individuals can do to protect it. Their discussion includes insights on social media censorship, free speech on college campuses, and the legal perspectives surrounding free speech in government service.

Zachary sets the scene with his poem, “Ode to Blasphemy.”

Donald Downs is the Alexander Meiklejohn Professor of Political Science Emeritus at UW-Madison. Downs’ scholarship has dealt with a wide range of issues, including: freedom of speech; academic freedom; and civic education. His prize-winning books include: Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community and the First Amendment; Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus; and Arms and the University: Military Presence and the Civic Education of Non-Military Students. In 2013, Downs received the national Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award for his defense of academic freedom and freedom of thought.

This is Democracy – Reforming Democracy

This week, Jeremi and Zachary are joined by Michael Ignatieff to discuss the current state of the institutions of democracy, how they are being questioned by some political movements, and how they can be reformed and strengthened.

Zachary sets the scene with his poem entitled, “A Constitution of the Soul.”

Michael Ignatieff is a historian and the former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He has served as rector and president of Central European University and is the author, most recently, of On Consolation: Finding Solace in Dark Times. Ignatieff published an important article this summer in the Journal of Democracy, “When Democracy is on the Ballot:”

This is Democracy – European Democracies

This week, Jeremi and Zachary are joined by Isabel Cademartori to discuss the current state of European Democracy and how recent elections have been shaking things up.

Zachary sets the scene with his poem entitled, “Sighing.”

Isabel Cademartori was elected as a Member of the German Bundestag from Mannheim in 2021. She is a rising young leader in the German government. Cademartori served as a city councillor in Mannheim since 2019. She is a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which leads the current coalition government in Germany.

Americans Against the City, By Stephen Conn (2014)

By Emily Whalen

“Have you ever lived in the suburbs?” New York City Mayor Ed Koch asked in a 1982 interview for Playboy magazine. The interviewer had asked the famously witty Koch if he would ever consider a gubernatorial campaign for the state—if Koch won the race, it would mean a move away from the Big Apple and to the governor’s mansion in semi-rural Albany. “It’s sterile,” Koch continued, “It’s nothing. It’s wasting your life, and people do not wish to waste their lives once they’ve seen New York!”

Koch’s bluntness likely closed the door to a potential governorship, despite his popularity among urban constituents. During Koch’s long tenure as mayor (1978-1989) most Americans harbored distinctly anti-urban attitudes, preferring the serenity and monotony of suburban life over the clamor and chaos of the “greatest city in the world.” In fact, as Stephen Conn argues in Americans Against the City, the story of American anti-urbanism—a generalized distaste for the dirt, diversity, and disarray of the city—stretches across the nation’s history. According to Conn, since the end of the Civil War, the American political and physical landscapes have been deeply interrelated. Where and how we live shapes our political attitudes and expectations. Focusing on the material, social, and cultural elements of living habits inside and outside the city, Conn argues that the anti-urban strain in American culture—manifest in the growth of suburbs and decentralized cities—relates directly to a mistrust of centralized government. Progressives in the 1920s saw the dense cities of the Northeast as workshops where the problems of governance could be perfected. Yet by the end of the Second World War, that optimism had faded. Cold Warriors and their successors on both ends of the political spectrum tried to reclaim their independence from big government by rejecting urban life. Conn links the decline of “urbanity” (a sense of collective responsibility and tolerance) in modern politics to this national decentralization—the “hustle and bustle” of a true city provides “lessons in civility and diversity” that once enriched our political process. As Americans fled to suburbs, urbanity—and civility—plummeted.

new_york_city_aerial_view_1919 — New York City in 1919 epitomized the benefits and problems of urban life (via Wikimedia Commons).

Beginning with Frederick Jackson Turner (whose 1893 essay “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” Conn describes as “a Mid-Westerner’s revenge on…an overbearing East Coast.”), Americans have been skeptical of cities. Conn examines how a sense of exceptionalism convinced many Southerners and Westerners in the late 19th century that urban centers like New York City and Chicago posed a threat to American values, like ruggedness, self-sufficiency, and independence. Furthermore, city-dwellers at the turn of the century faced real problems, such as unsanitary living conditions, corrupt political machines, and overcrowding. Yet the solutions that urban-skeptical reformers offered didn’t address these issues; instead, most of these projects aimed to push people out of cities. The problems of the city, according to people like Benton MacKaye, arose from the density and variation of urban life and would not follow Americans into nature. MacKay designed the Appalachian Trail, the 2,200-mile hiking trail extending from Maine to Georgia, in 1921 in the hopes that city-dwellers would follow it out of the urbanized Northeast and, after finding a more wholesome existence, never return.

appalachian_trail_heading_to_double_springs_gap_from_clingmans_dome — The Appalachian Trail (via Wikimedia Commons).

As suburbs proliferated across the nation, Conn argues, they sustained “decentralized cities,” where whites and other privileged groups left urban centers at the end of the work day and returned to homogenous housing developments. “Most suburbs,” Conn explains, rather than developing a unique culture, “functioned to reject the city while simultaneously taking advantage of it.” Decentralized cities like Albuquerque, NM relied on federal government spending for growth, largely for maintaining and constructing roads, despite the anti-government attitudes of their citizens. Other decentralized cities in the Midwest, like Columbus, OH, embarked on “urban renewal” schemes in which the living history of the city fell victim to commercial development. In 1979, city leaders demolished Columbus’s historic train station to make way for a convention center and parking lot. “Beyond expressing their contempt for trains,” Conn argues, “those who ordered the building torn down expressed their contempt for Columbus’s past.” Dismissing the benefits of city dwelling, and the importance of a city’s history, anti-urban sentiments poisoned most urban renewal schemes of the late 19th century.

800px-union_station_mural_by_gregory_ackers_columbus_ohio_1987 — This 1987 mural by Gregory Ackers depicts Columbus’ historic Union Station. In 2014, new construction on the lot blocked the mural from public view (via Wikimedia Commons).

Conn looks at many cities across the country in his history of anti-urbanism, including a place familiar to Texans: Houston. Houston city leaders refused to accept federal zoning requirements throughout the 20th century, even when it meant passing on attractive funding opportunities that would enrich public governance and culture. During the Cold War, Houston’s elite saw nefarious designs behind the push for federal zoning laws. “Zoning was part of a transitive property that led straight to Moscow: zoning = planning = government interference = Stalinism,” Conn relates. Affluent, white residents believed that the free market, not public regulation, would solve Houston’s successive housing crises. Yet, because housing areas were largely segregated by color, privileged Houstonites ignored the problems their poor and marginalized neighbors faced, all while undermining public programs designed to improve general welfare. The elites “simply could not acknowledge that the ‘market’ does not function the same way for all Americans.”

Houston also serves as an example of how modern “gated communities” attempt–and fail–to cultivate the vibrant urbanity lacking in decentralized cities. Communities, Conn demonstrates, are just as much about exclusion as inclusion, and the gated oases of suburbia represent “exactly the opposite of city life.” The gated communities suggest “a society where social ties have frayed, where we simply do not trust each other and do not even want to make the attempt.” That exclusion—in Houston, as in Greenwich, CT—often follows racial and socioeconomic lines.

aerial_indian_creek_near_dallas_6039814731 — Sprawling suburbs, like Indian Creek outside of Dallas, characterize many cities of the American Southwest (via Wikimedia Commons).

Americans Against the City pays close attention to both liberal and conservative anti-urbanism throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Conn describes the “hippie” communes and environmental movements of the 1970s as “essentially different versions of white flight” from urban issues. Yet toward the end of the book, Martin Anderson (one of President Reagan’s most important economic advisors) and the New Right bear the brunt of Conn’s criticism. These men largely promoted policies based on the idea that the market is more democratic than public government, while simultaneously benefitting from federal access and funding. Fighting against public spending on services and entitlements, Anderson helped entrench the now-prevalent idea that the government has no “role to play in promoting the general welfare, except as it enhances private wealth.”

Americans Against The City stands as a well-researched and provocative history of the ideas and politics rooted in our physical environment. Conn’s easy writing style and fascinating evidence make the book a pleasure to read. His conclusions resonate with the contemporary moment and offer a new explanation for the fraying political consensus. Suburbs, Conn explains, disconnect us from our geography–disassociating our work lives from our personal lives, our futures from our histories. As a result, although Americans are more mobile than ever, we feel detached from our political geography. This disruption lies at the heart of a creeping polarization in our political discourse, canceling out opportunities for compromise and eroding a sense of collective responsibility. The values of democratic government, Conn reminds us, arose from urban milieux. It remains to be seen whether they will survive in the suburbs.

Review of The Anatomy of Fascism (2004), by Robert Paxton

When people think about fascism, two men come to mind: Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. However, as Robert Paxton shows in The Anatomy of Fascism, fascism was a practice that extended far beyond these two leaders. This is an original approach, as the majority of scholars focus on fascism as an ideology. Paxton instead examines fascism’s variations and focuses on fascists’ actions, and he compares them with other successful or unsuccessful versions of fascism. Paxton argues that fascism can be understood only through an examination at the local level. He builds his argument in stages by studying how these movements were created, how they were rooted in the political system, how they seized and exercised power, and if they were incorporated into the existing system.

Fascist propaganda in 1920s Italy. The text reads: "The misdeeds of Bolshesivm in 1919; the benefits of fascism in 1923." — Fascist propaganda in 1920s Italy. The text reads: “The misdeeds of Bolshesivm in 1919; the benefits of fascism in 1923.”
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Paxton argues that fascism is not like other political movements. It is not supported by any coherent philosophical system but is a product of mass politics invented only after the introduction of universal suffrage, the spread of nationalism, and the entry of socialist parties into coalition governments. Coalition politics disenchanted many workers and intellectuals, while many politicians did not have the skills mass politics required. After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the foundation of an anti-leftist movement that could adopt elements of the Left’s mass organization was necessary. The aftermath of the First World War and, later on, the Great Depression were critical for fascism’s spread.

As it was not based on any political program, fascism used rituals and ceremonies to appeal to emotions. Paxton demonstrates that fascists were preoccupied with community decline and victimhood. They sought unity, purity, and nationalist mobilization and wanted unquestioned devotion to the community and its leader. Many fascists played an active role during the First World War, and they adored violence and sought to materialize the final victory of their chosen race or nation over what they saw as its inferior opponents.

Benito Mussolini in 1917, as a soldier in World War I. In 1914, Mussolini founded the Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria that he led. Via Wikipedia — Benito Mussolini in 1917, as a soldier in World War I. In 1914, Mussolini founded the Fasci d’Azione Rivoluzionaria that he led.
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Explaining the anatomy of fascism, Paxton deconstructs the myth that fascist movements seized power by force. It was liberals and conservatives, frightened not by fascism but by the Left, who accepted fascists into their coalition governments and gave them the opportunity to govern. In Italy, despite the fact that the pan-Italian fascist march into Rome turned into a fiasco, the conservatives gave Mussolini the chance to enter into a coalition government. What the Italian fascists had proved was that they could successfully crush the Left, as they did in North Italy, for the sake of the local great landowners and with the help of the local state apparatus. Similarly, other European fascists tried to convince conservatives and businessmen that only they could handle the communists and protect the social and economic order. German fascists were successful in that task and came to power in the early 1930s with the help of German conservatives and businessmen. In Romania, where the Left was not an actual threat, conservatives not only did not need fascists, but they crushed their three coups.

German fascists created a structure parallel to the state apparatus, while the Italians relied mostly on the existing bureaucracy. The problem that both faced was their radical party members, who did not want the reestablishment of the old authoritarian regimes but a “permanent revolution” that would succeed in maintaining radicalization in the fascist regimes. However, Mussolini never succeeded in gaining absolute control over his party; he chose normalization rather than radicalization. Hitler, on the other hand, personally controlled his subordinates and promoted competition between them as to who would prove the most radical. Fascist radicalization reached its ultimate stage in Germany, and the Holocaust is an example of what that radicalization meant. Nazi policy on “inferiors” evolved from discrimination to expulsion and to extermination. Hitler’s subordinates in eastern occupied territories competed with each other in implementing the Final Solution and came up with even more extreme actions than the Nazi leadership required, which led to a chaotic situation during wartime. Ironically, although the war was promoted as a means to benefit the nation, it was a war that destroyed the fascist regimes.

*Munich Marienplatz during the failed Beer Hall Putsch, 9 November 1923. Source: Wikimedia Commons*

Paxton offers a thorough guide to fascism. In addition to earlier fascism, he also discusses the presence of fascism inside and outside of post-war and post-1989 Europe and argues that in all democratic countries, some citizens flirt with the idea of denying established freedoms to fellow citizens and social groups. He also reviews the various, but mostly short-lived, fascist or proto-fascist movements and parties in the United States and what he considers the paradox of not having a fascist movement against the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s.

Paxton’s study is crucial now, in an era of major freedom setbacks, massive xenophobia, and openly neo-fascist movements and parties gaining momentum and entering European parliaments and governments. As Paxton says, “[f]ascists are close to power when conservatives begin to borrow their techniques, appeal to their ‘mobilizing passions,’ and try to co-opt the fascist following.” That’s important to remember.

Charalampos Minasidis is a European Research Council Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Centre for War Studies at University College Dublin, working on “The Age of Civil Wars in Europe, c. 1914–1949” ERC Advanced Grant Project. His research explores Greek historical actors’ involvement in different European civil wars, the international influences on their thinking and actions, and their life trajectories from the early 20th century until the Greek Civil War. Charalampos completed his PhD in History at The University of Texas at Austin in 2023.

______________________________________________________________________________________

The views and opinions expressed in this article or video are those of the individual author(s) or presenter(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policy or views of the editors at Not Even Past, the UT Department of History, the University of Texas at Austin, or the UT System Board of Regents. Not Even Past is an online public history magazine rather than a peer-reviewed academic journal. While we make efforts to ensure that factual information in articles was obtained from reliable sources, Not Even Past is not responsible for any errors or omissions.

Recent Posts