Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. With us now, Yale historian, Joanne Freeman. She was one of eight historians who got to take part in a history think session with President Biden earlier this year, as he tried to learn lessons from history relevant to decisions he has to make today.

Professor Freeman has since identified what she considers a Biden doctrine on foreign policy, that she compares to a period of tension between the United States and France in the 1790s, believe it or not, actions that President Theodore Roosevelt took around the turn of the 20th century.

Another example, imperialism abroad, even as he promoted progressivism at home in that case, and won the face the presidential presided over the Vietnam War, in the 1960s and '70s. She discusses this Biden doctrine in a new podcast that is launching today called Now and Then produced by Cafe, the company you may know best as the producer of Preet Bharara's podcast. Professor Freeman is the co host.

She is also known for several acclaimed books, including Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic, and one from 2018, with what to my eyes, an eerily poignant title, now that we've had January 6th, the insurrection, that 2018 book was called The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War. We'll touch on that too. As Yale history Professor Joanne Freeman joins us, Professor Freeman, congratulations on the new podcast, and welcome back to WNYC.

Joanne Freeman: Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.

Brian Lehrer: First, when was this meeting with President Biden and eight historians, and what was that like?

Joanne Freeman: I want to say it was about a little over a month ago. What was most striking about it, to me, to be totally honest, is that it happened. [laughs] The President met with a group of historians seeking historical context, not trying to pass an agenda, not trying to get confirmation for what he wanted to hear, but honestly, we all spoke about moments in the past that were moments, in one way or another, of crisis in American history, and he largely took notes. He asked some questions, but he largely listened.

That was someone who was obviously interested in really getting insight from historians. As a historian, someone who's willing to look to the past for insight into the present, that's a fine thing to do.

Brian Lehrer: I think another of the historians in that group, correct me if I'm wrong, was Annette Gordon Reed, who has a new book about Juneteenth. We're going to have her on the show, later in the month. Where did President Biden's curiosity seems to run? How specifically do you think he was trying to learn from you all about certain events in history, to inform certain decisions he has to make today? Was it that specific?

Joanne Freeman: No, it actually wasn't. The range of historians there, there were people like Matt and myself were early American historians, for the most part. There were 20th century historians, there are people who were wide ranging. He certainly didn't say tell me now explicitly about a crisis moment during the Vietnam War. He really, I think, just wanted to hear how presidents and how Congress had dealt with crisis moments in the past, and what worked, and what didn't work. It was really just a general insight kind of a meeting.

It went on, it was a few hours long. He was serious about listening. Again, as a historian, I just found the fact that it existed remarkable, but there really wasn't an agenda, and we will not ask specific questions in advance in any way.

Brian Lehrer: Last question in the meeting, and understanding that something's in a meeting like this are private and you want to protect the confidentiality of a meeting between you and the other historians and the president to a reasonable degree. Was there anything, though, that you can say where his reaction was interesting? You or one of your colleagues was talking about something, and you notice, his ears really perked up at that one?

Joanne Freeman: Well, I don't really think I can go into specifics on that. I can't say, he honestly was interested and perked up at most of what we were saying. I'm sure a lot of listeners out there can think about sitting for two or three hours with a bunch of historians and might not assume that they would be super perky about it, which is not to that we're boring because we're not. He really had an intense sense of interest, and that ranged over all kinds of subjects, and all kinds of time periods.

No, I don't think there was something he seemed supremely uninterested in.

Brian Lehrer: Well, either historians as a group are generally not boring, or I'm just a geek.

Joanne Freeman: [laughs] Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: The Biden doctrine, for people who don't know, by way of background, and put some more meat on these bones if you want, presidents are often associated with foreign policies built around what gets to be known as their foreign policy doctrines. The Monroe Doctrine, once upon a time, people learn about in school was about US interests in Latin America. The Truman Doctrine was about containing the Soviet Union.

For George W. Bush, after 9/11, people say it was something like promoting democracy in countries that anti US terrorists could spring up in as a way of protecting US national security. Let's say the Iraq War was not a wonderful example of that doctrine, but there it was. Are those good examples, and do presidents actually proclaim things to be their doctrines?

Joanne Freeman: Well, I would say sometimes they do, and probably more often they don't. To declare something a doctrine, is a useful way of categorizing it and summing it up. I would say that my co hosts in our new podcast now and then, Heather Cox Richardson, the two of us, I don't know if we explicitly declared it the Biden doctrine, but we definitely identified a way in which he was going with foreign policy that we found interesting, and that then we found the more we talked about it, and this is ultimately what ended up in the podcast, really interesting historical links to what President Biden was doing with foreign policy in the present.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get into some of these particular historical parallels, but can you describe briefly what it is that comes closest to looking like a Biden doctrine so far?

Joanne Freeman: Well, sure. One of the striking things about it, and he said this outright, at a very early point, was that there was no bright line between domestic and foreign policy. That's a strong statement to make.

Brian Lehrer: It is.

Joanne Freeman: A powerful statement to make.

Brian Lehrer: People won't understand it. Often people won't understand that statement.

Joanne Freeman: No, and that's exactly where Heather and I started in talking about this, we assumed, generally speaking, foreign affairs are their own distinct thing that exists in their own realm, and that experts and organizations and committees and councils, you're with them, and the public isn't really necessarily that involved in them. What President Biden said then, and continues to say, is that his foreign policy is totally bound up with his domestic policy in a variety of ways.

He's talked about a foreign policy that bolsters the working class or the middle class, that's a really striking thing to say. It's a seeing that, as strange as it sounds, and as you just noted that people might view that as a strange thing, it has a history. That was where we started with the podcast, was, we thought, wow, how striking domestic and foreign affairs, there's no bright line between them.

My response as an early American historian was, well, in early America, that was the case, too. Then the larger question became, okay, how generally have these things been related or not related, and in that sense, where does Biden's stance stand?

Brian Lehrer: I guess there are some things in the Biden context that would want obviously, be an intersection between domestic policy and foreign policy. One of them is the same one that Trump emphasized so much, which is countering China's economic power, expressed in ways to take jobs from Americans and the US government's policies on trade that might seem to enable that. That's an obvious one, where they would intersect other ones like withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, whether they call for a ceasefire between Israelis and Palestinians, what does that have to do with an infrastructure bill, but there's a range. Take us--

Joanne Freeman: Well, there's a more profound one too that's worth mentioning before we launch back in time, and that's, in a sense, the most fundamental one of all, which is that democracy is, in one way or another, in a state of crisis around the world. In a way, one of the most fundamental ways of supporting Americans of all kinds, is to bolster up democracy at home and abroad. In a sense, Biden has taken the presidency at a moment where there couldn't be a stronger link between foreign and domestic affairs. That boils right down to democracy, and how it is faring around the world.

Brian Lehrer: That's such a great point. Because one of the things that people most feared about Trump was that he was building this foreign policy of alliances with other dictators around the world who would support each other, rather than with our democratic allies, like in Western Europe, and that set of foreign policy alliances among the dictators would make it easier for Trump to subvert democracy at home. Very, very relevant, if I can put it in the Trump context.

All right, is the Vietnam War era a good one to start to make the case that you make in the podcast that there are parallels with today?

Joanne Freeman: Well, the founding era, in a sense, was the most striking one because partly, George Washington left of words that makes this point bluntly, but generally speaking. Obviously, the United States at that point, today we might call the United States a superpower. In 1789, 1790s, we were a brand new country with really very little power at all. One of the things that that generation of people in that first decade of government were really concerned about was foreign influence, was the ways in which either foreign nations might sweep in and actually take control in some way, or might try to influence culture or influence politics or change the outcomes of elections. The very first election that was a real election, which is the first one when Washington was not running, is the first election in which Americans began to fear foreign influence, in that case from France, that they were going to try to influence the election.

Foreign affairs, there was no separation between foreign affairs and domestic affairs. There was a profound assumption that whatever happened in foreign affairs, and in particular in that decade, France, and the French Revolution, that the French Revolution was going to contaminate the United States in all ways, and that people had to desperately try to keep foreign affairs foreign. When you look at something like George Washington's farewell address, he alerts Americans and stepping down to two things. Number one is, he says to basically avoid entangling alliances.

To avoid extreme bonds with foreign nations. Number two, is partisan politics. Particularly, those things together are a dangerous combination. Of course, that's just as true now as it was then.

Brian Lehrer: How far do you think Washington really went in his own mind or his own thinking at the time understanding that the context was very different, but we hear that line fairly frequently. People will follow the news that Washington said, "Avoid foreign entanglements." Yet, a lot of people today think, well, good international relations are a good thing and an important thing in some of the ways you were just describing in the contemporary context, promoting democracy abroad, because it helps preserve democracy at home, what trade policies, things like that.

What did Washington really have in mind? How much do you think it does get handed down to today without saying, "Oh, well, that was a quaint idea for the 1790s."

Joanne Freeman: No, that's a really good point. When you read the address, his farewell address, what you see is that he's not saying, just as you're suggesting here, he's not saying we should have nothing to do with foreign nations. What he's worried about is extreme, powerful links with one country over another, or being indebted to one country over another, or favoring one nation to an extreme degree over another.

He is worried about those entanglements, and not suggesting, you're right, in a quaint way, "Oh, let us not deal with foreign nations at all." I don't think even in those first 10 years, anyone thought that that was possible. The question is, or was at the time, what bonds and what links and with who should the United States have, and of course, the big problem at the time was England and France were constantly warring against each other. Each one tried to yank us into some favorite relationships with them. The United States was constantly basically ping ponging back and forth between those two countries. That's part of what they were talking about, was not the idea that somehow America could stay out of foreign affairs. Even then, they knew that we would have to deal with it. The question was how?

Brian Lehrer: All right, we'll continue in a minute with Yale historian, Joanne Freeman, co-host of the new podcast Now & Then. We'll get into her very interesting parallel between some questions that President Biden faces today and those that President Theodore Roosevelt faced at the turn of the 20th century. Also touch on her book that was about violence in Congress before the Civil War, which, by the way, was written before January 6th. How much she sees an echo and the potential for return of that devastating era. Stay with us.

Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Yale historian, Joanne Freeman, one of eight historians who got to meet with President Biden recently. She is now the co-host of a brand new history podcast, the first episode of which drops today, called Now & Then. We're talking about some ideas in the first episode of her new podcast that have to do with what might be leading up to a Biden doctrine on foreign policy, and some really interesting stories from past presidents that play into some of the decisions that Biden is facing today.

We can take a few phone calls for her if you have questions or thoughts about what we're talking about. 646-435-7280, or tweet @BrianLehrer. Tell us about President Theodore Roosevelt.

Professor Freeman, this one is really interesting. Then tell us how it relates to Biden today.

Joanne Freeman: Sure. Well, one of the things that Heather Cox Richardson and I found interesting, again, thinking about the link between foreign affairs and domestic affairs, was Teddy Roosevelt, who was very much looking at Cuba, and I suppose also, to a certain degree, the Philippines, as relations with those countries, or in those countries, or certainly imperialism in those countries as a way to bolster domestic reform, domestic policies.

There was a direct link for him in those ways in which he was hoping to use that foreign, "relations" as a way to push reform in the United States.

Brian Lehrer: Yet, it was something that we wouldn't consider. If TR was considered a sign of progressivism, in the economically populist sense in this country, supporting unions and things like that. We look back on him as being an imperialist in foreign policy, being willing to conquer foreign lands, in fact, which is not something we think of as progressive.

Joanne Freeman: No, not at all. He's thinking about domestic policy far more than he is thinking about the impact on these foreign nations. The other thing that needs to be woven in here, is that a moralistic or cultural dimension to what Roosevelt was doing, and that is, he also saw war as a way of bolstering American manhood, which, again, shows a concern with what's going on in the United States.

In relation to another country, having not a very good impact on that other country. He very much is thinking about the American character, American politics, what's going on in the United States, and warfare, in his mind, and in the minds of men who follow him. Certainly, they're thinking about what happens as a positive thing, because it's spreading American values around the world.

It really is more focused on the impact of those relations, foreign relations on what was happening in the United States.

Brian Lehrer: All right, while you're here, I can't resist but to ask you about your 2018 book, which I'm only passingly familiar with called the Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War, as I noted before the break, you mean the violence we saw in Congress on January 6th, had historical precedent?

Joanne Freeman: Indeed. As you suggested earlier, I started the book over 17 years ago, but also it is not as though I was brilliantly looking at something that I could foresee coming. I couldn't. The story or one of the stories that the book tells, it's about violence, physical violence in the US Congress between roughly 1830 in the Civil War. One of the stories that it tells is that you had a group of people in Congress, and in this case, it was slaveholding Southerners, who could see that the institution of slavery was under attack, who could see that with the expansion of the United States, it was possible that slavery was going to get bounded into the cells because there was competition. Every time it was in the state, there was a question about whether it would be free or enslaved.

The Southerners basically deployed threats and violence to intimidate or silent or threaten their opposition, and push them out of the way knowing that demographically and politically they might not be winning this fight. They deployed violence to bolster the odds that they would succeed. Honestly, if you're looking at what happened on 6th, there are all kinds of differences, but using violence to intimidate people into backing down is an interesting link.

Brian Lehrer: One of the differences we should acknowledge, I guess, is that the violence on January 6 was not carried out by members of Congress themselves against other members of Congress.

Joanne Freeman: Oh, absolutely correct. That's also an important dimension of things here that we haven't really talked about. That is, it's one of the reasons why relations between domestic and foreign affairs have always been seen as tricky and dangerous. That is as a Democratic Republic, public opinion rule in the United States. What that means is that it can be remarkably easy to sway the public into feeling one way or another, and being sometimes in very extreme ways based on things like extreme claims or-- Lies or propaganda can lead Americans to do things that as we saw on January 6, can be very extreme indeed.

Brian Lehrer: I saw that your earlier book was about how duels like the Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr famous duel were actually a fairly common way to solve political disputes early in the nation's history. There's a through-line here, actual government officials in a country founded theoretically on settling political issues through the peaceful lawmaking process. That violence between the government officials or prominent politicians running from the Hamilton-Burr era through Congress pre-Civil War?

Joanne Freeman: Oh absolutely. Obviously, there's a threat of violence in American politics. Generally, there's a threat of violence really being intermingled in high level politics as well. There's a tradition of these high-level officeholders, Vice President, Secretary of Treasury, and members of Congress, assuming that even though they were breaking the law, because dueling was illegal, that they were above the law because of the position that they served in, and that thus, they shouldn't be punished for doing things that would get other people arrested.

Brian Lehrer: Would you say that that practice of physical violence between government officials gradually disappeared or almost disappeared, but we risk it making a comeback today?

Joanne Freeman: Well, what happened before the Civil War, logically enough, is Southerners using violence to silence and intimidate Northerners. The civil war ends that dynamic because obviously the South comes back defeated and the North hold all the cards. There's a very early instance when the government is just beginning to start up in Southern states, or just beginning to come back into the government that a Southerner threatens violence and a Northerner stands up and basically says, "We saw this before, we know how this happens. Do we want to let them back in the Union?"

The odds, the cards are in the hands of Northerners. That violence in a sense shifts off the national stage as opposed to the South as we move into the reconstruction era. The violence ends in that way in that manner, North versus South violence. There are any number of ways in which you could talk about that tradition of violence continuing in one way, or another in different levels of American politics.

Brian Lehrer: This is WNYC-FM, HD, and AM New York, WNJT-FM 88.1 Trenton, WNJP 88.5 Sussex, WNJY 89.3 Netcong, and WNJO 90.3 Toms. However, we are New York and New Jersey public radio, few minutes left with Yale historian, Joanne Freeman. Now, the co-host of a new history podcast. The first episode of which is out today called Now and Then.

Deborah in Harlem, you’re on WNYC with Professor Freeman. Hi, Deborah.

Deborah: Yes. Good morning. Great program as always.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you.

Deborah: I seem to recall George Washington also warning against the standing army, and I wondered whether there was any discussion about that proper mix between spending domestically on armaments and other spending in terms of what really serves democracy.

Brian Lehrer: That actually plays into another news story that just broke in the last few days that we'll eventually do a segment on. Biden's first annual federal budget proposal. The federal fiscal year starts October 1st, and he's got his first budget out for the multi-trillion dollars that the federal government spends every year. When it comes to what percentage goes to the military, it's not very different from Trump's, so we'll get into that eventually.

To the premise of her question and the larger concept there, Professor Freeman, what would you say?

Joanne Freeman: Well, I would say that just as the caller suggests, at the time, there was a long-standing assumption that on the one hand, standing armies were threats. The tradition that the United States was born into was a standing army as a tool of tyranny because it can be deployed by in the case of the 18th century, a king to raise taxes to be a tool of force. Standing armies traditionally speaking was seen as a not very good thing. On the other hand, modern Nations were seen admitting to have some kind of a standing army.

This was a huge issue in the early years of the government, and people on one side, and actually Washington was on the side that sought some kind of a standing army was probably a good idea. Although, what kind was still to be debated. Hamilton was on that side as well. Jefferson on the other hand was someone who really believed the smaller scale militias were better that the people could rise up to defend the United States and then go back home when the need for defense was over.

It was a really contentious issue, but I think that Washington, as a former military commander, could see the realistic need the real question in a way just as the caller suggest, is how do you interweave that and still bolster and defend a democratic government.

Brian Lehrer: One call on your book about violence in Congress. Craig and Westchester, you're on WNYC. Hi, Craig.

Craig: Hi, great show as always. I was wondering Brian, if your guest can address a comment you made saying that around the insurrection, Congressman didn't really threaten each other. In reality, there were a number of instances, including representative Lauren Boebert declared she was going to carry a Glock gun into Congress, and she seemed to be very adamant about it, and aggressive.

How does this relate to the 1830s leading up to slavery? That was mentioned earlier when Congressman were threatening each other back then.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you. In fairness to congresswoman Boebert, she did back down once the rules of the House of Representatives became clear. She's not actually saying that she's going to carry a gun into the house Chambers anymore. It's interesting that even came up as an issue, Professor Freeman.

Joanne Freeman: Oh no absolutely. Every time something happens in the realm of January 6, that makes me think about the matters that I wrote about for my book. On the one hand, it's interesting, and on the other hand, it's horrifying. In this case, there was a practice particularly in the 1840s and really in the 1850s of Southern members of Congress wearing weapons into, particularly the house, a little bit in the Senate, but mostly the house. Not necessarily intending to give, but making it clear that they could if they wanted to, and the pure purpose of that was intimidation.

Particularly Bowie knives, they would be wearing Bowie knives or sometimes pistol. They would show. The point was, “I am here, I have this weapon, don't get me irritated. Don't say something I don't like because there's no telling what I might do.” Given that time period in the United States is really, really violent anyway. It wasn't as though you could say very clearly, "Oh well, but that's against the laws and this has never happened." There were a couple of moments, more than a couple ones when weapons were pulled when there were physical tussles, sometimes big group fights in the aisles, and people tossing over desks and stairs. A gun was shot off only once or twice, but still, the impact of saying I have a gun or I want a gun, that's a state with, it has a real impact, and it did then and it obviously does now.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Our last 30 seconds, would you like to promote your new podcast in general called Now and Then? Will it come out on a regular schedule or only Now and Then?

Joanne Freeman: No, it will come out now and now and now. It will come out every Tuesday, there will be a new episode, and the heterodox Richardson and I, and every episode, just as the title suggests, we'll look at something that's happening now. Then go to the past as historians to look for some historical context and insights to better explain and shed light on what we're experiencing at the present. It's making use of history in an interesting way. Obviously, Heather and I love talking about this stuff, but also in a topical way, because it's so important to have historical insight into what's going on right now.

Brian Lehrer: Our listeners love hearing you talk about it. Thank you for sharing all this with us today. Good luck with the podcast.

Joanne: Thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Historian Joanne Freeman.

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.