Critics worry that President Trump has threatened a federal takeover of voting activities throughout the USA. That is a significant danger, but another risk is getting much less attention. Americans stirred by false charges about voter fraud might try to take matters into their own hands and try to shape the outcome of an election.

That behavior was evident in a small but significant case of hijinks during the 2000 presidential election.

The story of that intervention by angry citizens and party officials has a name: The Brooks Brothers’ Riot. An examination of the event shows how aggressive action by ordinary citizens in tandem with political agents can undermine American democracy. The Brooks Brothers Riot could serve as a model for efforts to sway the 2026 and 2018 elections.

There have been many shocking news stories recently about aggression by uniformed, masked, and armed ICE agents, but none excited as much public outrage as the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. That tragedy was sadly predictable. When armed paramilitary agents confront protesters complaining about injustices, there is potential for bloodshed.

One of the most notable examples of that combustible situation occurred 56 years ago when a governor sent armed national guardsmen to deal with protests on a university campus. Soldiers fired into a crowd, killing four students and injuring others. The history of that event contains lessons for our times.

Why has socialism, which failed to attract many voters throughout American history, gained popularity in recent years? How did a Democratic Socialist, Zohran Mamdani, manage to win a mayoral election in New York City, the hub of American capitalism?

This podcast identifies the sources of Mamdani’s popularity and examines the historical record of socialism in the USA. It also highlights the ideas of Louis Brandeis, an influential justice of the Supreme Court who defended local political experimentation. Brandeis gave those trial-and-error approaches a name: “Laboratories of Democracy.”

One of the current best-selling books is about excessive risk-taking that preceded the meltdown on Wall Street in 1929 and the Great Depression that followed in the 1930s. The author warns that similar practices are putting economies at risk today. He notes that financiers are encouraging the public to invest in private equity, crypto, and other chancy products. They are hawking dangerous investments that resemble the kind that crashed in 1929.

Could a financial catastrophe be on the horizon, one that turns the recent market boom into a bust? Obviously, there are no easy answers. Yet an examination of history illuminates how irrational exuberance and financial deregulation sometimes triggers an economic crisis.

In the 1850s stories about desperate runaway slaves trying to evade capture in the northern states aroused sympathy for the fugitives and stoked anti-slavery sentiment. A related impact seems to be taking shape in our times. Videos showing the tragic experiences of undocumented immigrants grabbed by ICE agents are provoking negative responses from the American public. Polls register growing criticism of the Trump Administration’s efforts to arrest, detain, and deport thousands of people that have lived and worked in the United States for many years.

The situations involving fugitive slaves and fugitive immigrants are different, yet a comparison is intriguing. Reactions to tragic cases involving fugitive slaves affected national politics in the 1850s. Outrage over the aggressive treatment of immigrants might shake up current politics.

When a refugee from Afghanistan allegedly shot two National Guardsmen in Washington D.C., discussions about the tragedy invoked memories of America’s chaotic exit from Afghanistan in 2021. Partisans invoked different lessons when describing that crisis. Republicans blamed President Joe Biden. They said he failed to plan an orderly withdrawal. Democrats blamed President Donald Trump. They pointed out that he arranged a pact with the Taliban that established a deadline for removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

These sharply critical judgments about the American-led evacuation from Kabul, Afghanistan are short-sighted and essentially wrong.

No military withdrawal from Afghanistan was easily workable after twenty years of vast U.S. involvement in that country. In view of many challenges, the removal of U.S. troops and U.S. citizens along with 124,000 Afghans in August 2021 was a relative success.

American Society is now deeply split along ideological and cultural lines. When did this polarization intensify?

One among several key turning points occurred in 1987 when President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for a seat on the Supreme Court. Bork’s controversial statements about American society and the law provoked intense opposition. Senators rejected the nomination.

Many of the issues raised in that Senate hearing are familiar to us today. Robert Bork was an influential promoter of culture wars over identities,, values, and ideologies, and he championed the Unitary Executive Theory that justifies enormous presidential power.

Can Netflix’s recent film, The House of Dynamite and other movies like it influence public opinion regarding nuclear warfare? The historical record from the 1950s until recent times shows that sometimes this cinema does have an impact. The films also reflect public concerns at the time they were produced.

This discussion begins with an examination of two movies that influenced Ronald Reagan’s thinking about nuclear warfare, The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Day After. The podcast then explores the influence of other films produced during the Cold War, including On the Beach, The Mouse That Roared, Fail Safe, and Dr. Strangelove. Finally, explains why films about nuclear onflict have made a comeback in recent years.