Yves right here. Most international locations and peoples interact in flattering myth-making. However the distinctive US could also be distinctive right here within the diploma to which we whitewash our historical past and the results of acing on these nationwide myths.
By Lynn Parramore, Senior Analysis Analyst, Institute for New Financial Considering. Initially printed at the Institute for New Financial Considering web site
In his new e book Difficult the Myths of U.S. Historical past, historian Marc Egnal takes intention on the tales Individuals like to inform themselves — on each the suitable and the left.
He argues that America’s path has been formed much less by summary beliefs and extra by the financial and territorial ambitions of the higher class. Racism, he says, wasn’t an unlucky byproduct, however deeply woven into that drive for enlargement. Egnal takes intention at each ends of the political spectrum: he challenges MAGA efforts to whitewash the uglier elements of historical past, but additionally critiques the “liberal synthesis” — the acquainted story that admits previous wrongs however nonetheless frames the U.S. as steadily marching towards freedom and progress.
Egnal’s tackle U.S. historical past lays naked the roots of at this time’s chaos — political dysfunction, rising violence, Trump’s endurance, and the financial pressures Democrats hold lacking. In a dialog with the Institute for New Financial Considering’s Lynn Parramore, he breaks down how the previous nonetheless drives the battles shaping America now.
Lynn Parramore: You argue that America’s improvement was pushed much less by summary beliefs like liberty and extra by the financial pursuits of its elite — particularly their pursuit of progress and enlargement. How does this problem the narrative of American exceptionalism?
Marc Egnal: American exceptionalism meshes properly with the “liberal synthesis,” the story that individuals be taught in class. America, like many international locations, has its personal myths. The U.S. myths return to the “Metropolis on a Hill” and John Winthrop — the entire concept that it stands alone, other than different nations. The nation’s historical past, because it’s taught and understood, actually circulates round these myths.
Textbooks reinforce this outlook and level to some high-minded paperwork as the important thing to America’s previous. The Declaration of Independence is ennobled, the Gettysburg Tackle is widely known. These dots are linked to form the narrative of america as a rustic guided by excessive beliefs, extra so than different nations are. It’s the nation of the Statue of Liberty.
Whereas that’s not an absolute fabrication, it is a fable. It’s not the substance of what really went on.
LP: You stress that historians ought to floor their work in proof, not political agendas. How does that precept apply to at this time’s debates over how colleges educate historical past, particularly on race, inequality, and nationwide identification?
ME: Beginning within the Sixties and persevering with into the Nineteen Nineties, the liberal synthesis emerged. That’s the concept America has confronted issues in areas like race, international coverage, inequality, and the place of girls, however little by little, progress prevailed. We’ve addressed these points by two waves of feminism, the Civil Rights Motion, and so forth.
LP: The arc of the American story bends towards justice.
ME: Precisely. I provide a critique of that retelling from one perspective, whereas MAGA and Trump method it from a really totally different one. What angers MAGA is the uncomfortable proven fact that America had elements as nasty as racism and slavery, and that many Southerners (and others) actively defended it.
The demand that we settle for, and even honor, Accomplice leaders and identify army bases after them is their response to that historical past. They brush apart rebel and racism. However should you take a look at skilled historians — the members of the Group of American Historians or the American Historic Affiliation — nearly uniformly, they reject the MAGA/Trump perspective as a distortion of the previous.
On the similar time, I argue that the liberal synthesis has its shortcomings too.
LP: Let’s speak about these limits. Take the Civil Struggle — how does the liberal synthesis clarify its causes and what either side was combating for? The place does it fall brief?
ME: The liberal synthesis sums up the reason for the Civil Struggle in a single phrase: slavery. It’s primarily framed as an ethical battle. The North opposed slavery on moral grounds, whereas the South defended it. The battle is seen as the results of a elementary ethical disagreement between the 2 sides.
Overwhelmingly, skilled historians adhere to that view. They reject the state’s rights clarification. I don’t settle for the state’s rights view both, however the concept the North went to battle due to an ethical revulsion towards slavery doesn’t stand as much as the info. The abolitionists had been a small, reviled group within the North. And when the North went to battle in April 1861, Lincoln was prepared to just accept a thirteenth Modification — not the one we all know that ended slavery, however one that might have constitutionally protected slavery the place it already existed.
LP: And assist for slavery wasn’t confined to the South — many New Yorkers are shocked to be taught that the town’s mayor as soon as advocated secession, given the town’s deep monetary ties to the South, particularly by the cotton commerce.
ME: Sure. A very good instance of the play of financial pursuits.
LP: You level out {that a} key aim of the North within the Civil Struggle was to construct a robust, federally-backed industrial state. Is that mission remains to be shaping our politics and economic system at this time?
ME: Completely. Understanding the Civil Struggle as pushed extra by financial targets than by a dedication to ending slavery helps us see how these priorities nonetheless form American politics and the economic system at this time.
Whereas emancipation grew to become a wartime technique — by the preliminary and last Emancipation Proclamations — the North was by no means deeply dedicated to Black rights. Regardless that 90% of free Black individuals lived within the North, most northern states denied them the suitable to vote, besides in elements of New England. That lack of dedication made it straightforward for the North to desert Reconstruction.
Racism was intertwined with the North’s targets of financial and territorial enlargement. From the founding of the nation, the Structure was a compromise with slave states. And through and after the Civil Struggle, the North prioritized constructing a robust industrial nation over securing rights for Black Individuals.
After the battle, the northern-led Congress shifted focus: federal troops had been withdrawn from the South and redeployed westward towards Native Individuals, and later into cities to suppress labor actions. The revenue tax used to fund the battle, one of many few progressive measures, was repealed, however huge federal spending continued for railroads and infrastructure. Freed individuals acquired nearly no land, whereas railroads had been granted hundreds of thousands of acres.
There are placing quotes from African Individuals on the time, noting that there was nothing for them, however all the pieces for the Union Pacific Railroad. That legacy nonetheless echoes within the construction of our politics and economic system at this time.
LP: See any parallels between the historic use of federal troops to serve elite financial pursuits and what we’re witnessing at this time?
ME: Effectively, the motion of troops into Los Angeles or Portland or Chicago is just not there for financial progress. It’s there due to an animus in the direction of sure individuals. There are continuities and contradictions. Throughout Reconstruction federal troops protected the freedpeople. Underneath Trump, the federal presence is directed towards immigrants who don’t have full citizenship, even when they’ve been within the nation for many years, and are law-abiding, tax-payers with American-born youngsters.
LP: May that animus towards sure individuals finally serve the pursuits of the rich at this time?
ME: Good query. I really see Trump as a departure from the financial methods of each Democrats and Republicans earlier than him. For many years, you possibly can argue that a lot of what was taking place, regardless of the issues, nonetheless tied again to selling financial progress. However with Trump, that connection breaks down.
Take race, for instance. I don’t suppose Trump’s insurance policies on race or immigration really additional progress.
His tariffs, for example, haven’t helped the economic system. His aggressive stance on immigration has probably harm it. Similar with the path of his tax insurance policies. So not like earlier intervals, the place elite pursuits and financial enlargement had been clearly linked, underneath Trump that hyperlink turns into a lot more durable to see.
LP: So that you suppose that the story of American progress and enlargement is taking a flip?
ME: It has positively taken a flip. I’m normally one of many first to search for financial motives behind international and home coverage, and yow will discover them all through a lot of U.S. historical past. If we’re speaking about FDR, TR, or many different presidents, their actions typically aligned with selling financial progress and nationwide energy.
However with Trump, a lot of what he does runs counter to that. His insurance policies often contradict the very targets that might strengthen America economically.
LP: What about insurance policies which will harm the broader economic system however might profit a small, well-connected group? Some would possibly level to crypto for example.
ME: It definitely very a lot advantages the Trump household, and it’s a part of this rising divergence between what’s good for the nation economically and what advantages a small, rich section of society.
Take a conventional firm like Normal Motors. I’m in Canada, and as we Canadians know, auto elements and autos cross the border repeatedly — generally a dozen instances forwards and backwards throughout manufacturing. Trump’s insurance policies harm producers on each side of the border. When tariffs elevate the price of aluminum and metal, they disrupt that circulate and once more harm producers.
CNN lately ran a sequence interviewing small enterprise homeowners, and nearly all of them stated the tariffs are damaging. They will’t supply supplies affordably, and it’s hurting their backside line.
Trump is a traditional populist. He’s gained robust assist from a lot of the working class and fewer rich Individuals, by racial and ethnic appeals, however his precise insurance policies harm them and favor a slender slice of the elite — one other hallmark of populism.
Take a look at the Trump household — Kushner, for instance. He’s not simply over there engaged on Center East brokering diplomatic offers; he’s additionally looking for individuals just like the Witkoffs and the Kushners themselves. It’s traditional fashionable populism: broad working-class assist, however actual advantages flowing to a small group on the prime.
LP: Is that basically a break from U.S. historical past? Haven’t we seen cronyism earlier than?
ME: Now we have seen cronyism earlier than, no query. Within the nineteenth century, for instance, tariffs helped industrialists like Carnegie and supported the expansion of key sectors like metal and railroads. So sure, there have been favors and insider benefits.
However I believe what’s totally different with Trump is the narrowness of the circle that advantages. It’s not about constructing a nationwide industrial base — it’s about rewarding a small group of non-public allies. You see it in who reveals up at his inauguration, who will get entry, who advantages. It feels much less like nationwide financial technique and extra like a personal community of loyalists.
LP: Let’s discuss extra about who America’s story leaves behind, and what occurs once they attempt to push ahead. You focus on the Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921 — a type of precursor to Social Safety for girls and youngsters —that was labeled “socialist” and repealed by 1929. What does this reveal in regards to the limits of social packages in U.S. politics, particularly for girls and households?
ME: The demise of that welfare measure displays deep resistance to federal intervention, particularly after the primary Purple Scare. Sheppard-Towner, which supported maternal well being, was remarkably progressive for its time, nevertheless it triggered fears of “huge authorities” — just like the backlash we see at this time, backlash that’s enjoying out within the authorities shutdown.
Social packages at each stage face pushback. We noticed it with Truman’s push for common healthcare, with the ACA, and even now, in debates over Medicaid enlargement. And that resistance typically has a racial and gendered dimension.
The divisions are deep and interconnected, reducing throughout race, gender, and area. Take a look at the nineteenth Modification granting ladies the suitable to vote: Western states ratified it early, Southern states resisted. At present, lots of the similar states nonetheless haven’t expanded Medicaid, regardless of overwhelming federal assist.
LP: You argue that white Christian identification is central to MAGA. Why do you see that because the core, quite than financial points like job loss or globalization, which others emphasize?
ME: In 2016, Trump stood out, not for his financial insurance policies, however for interesting to voters with robust anti-Black and anti-immigrant views. His base was energized by that rhetoric, not like the tepid assist for Cruz or Rubio.
Financial points mattered, however they didn’t unify the MAGA base. Many who favored Obama’s financial insurance policies weren’t drawn to Trump for that cause.
His message targeted on constructing a wall, banning immigrants, and utilizing inflammatory language. In 2024, financial points had been the frosting on the cake, and within the wake of the Biden inflation, it was a really tasty, engaging frosting. He strengthened and enlarged his assist by providing easy options — reducing taxes, elevating tariffs, and expelling immigrants. These insurance policies don’t actually work, however they spoke to individuals in financial ache. Their failure is now resulting in a falling off within the assist from independents.
Democrats, against this, have failed to deal with financial ache.
LP: Trump’s assist amongst Black voters practically doubled from 2016 to 2024. One survey confirmed 1 in 4 Black males underneath 50 backing him, and 9% of Obama voters switching to Trump. How do you clarify that?
ME: It’s complicated, however a key cause is that Democrats deserted working-class voters, together with Black and Hispanic males. In a telling interview I listened to in the course of the 2024 marketing campaign I heard a Las Vegas lodge employee say, “What do Democrats provide me? I can’t afford groceries or a house, and I don’t hear options.”
Even when Trump’s insurance policies are BS, he spoke to their financial misery, one thing Democrats didn’t do. For the primary time, a majority of Hispanic males voted Republican, and extra Black males shifted too, interesting to financial issues.
LP: Why haven’t Democratic leaders linked with these financial points?
ME: Since 1972, Democrats moved away from unions and working-class focus. That yr’s conference set quotas for race and gender however ignored labor. Carter and Clinton pushed the occasion towards elites. Now, it’s a celebration of the wealthier third, principally college-educated of us who typically can’t relate to the working class. Bernie Sanders summed it up: “No surprise the working class deserted us — we deserted them.”
LP: There’s robust public assist for Sanders-style financial fundamentals, additionally mirrored in backing for NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani’s affordability message. There’s additionally curiosity in Ezra Klein’s “abundance agenda,” specializing in rising the economic system and increasing middle-class alternatives quite than simply affordability. How do you see these two approaches from Democrats?
ME: I take pleasure in listening to Ezra Klein, however his abundance agenda primarily speaks to center and upper-middle-class Democrats, counseling them to maneuver away from NIMBYism and facilitate the development of infrastructure and housing. To make sure, these are worthwhile targets. However they don’t handle the deep inequalities that burden society. The actual points are rising inequality, persistent racism in training and healthcare, and tax breaks for the rich. Extra infrastructure tasks gained’t remedy these.
LP: Are the affordability and abundance concepts mutually unique?
ME: No, however affordability tackles extra elementary issues. To win again working-class voters, Democrats must focus there. Center and upper-class progressives like Ezra Klein gained’t disturb the rich, however progressives like Mamdani, who push for taxing billionaires, do. It’s disgraceful that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries hold their distance from Mamdani, regardless of his broad enchantment and talent to enlarge the Democratic citizens. I applaud these congressional leaders’ emphasis on Medicare and Medicate on this shutdown. It’s an essential, however nonetheless a timid first step.
LP: What would going additional appear like?
ME: It will imply uniting behind housing, medical care, and different affordability points which are essential to 90% of the American inhabitants. It will imply not being content material to run on a platform that merely says, “We aren’t Trump.” Be aware that the U.S. spends extra per capita on well being than any rich nation however has worse outcomes.
LP: What do you make of Trump’s present deal with drug costs, just like the “most favored nation” rule and TrumpX web site? His discuss on this resonates with many individuals.
ME: It’s principally bluster. He stated related issues in 2016 and by no means adopted by. Occasional populist discuss from politicians disappears shortly.
LP: Do you suppose minimizing the function of financial energy and wealth has blinded us to how politics actually works?
ME: Completely. It causes many historian to embrace an optimistic, teleological view of progress that ignores ongoing inequalities. I need to be optimistic, nevertheless it overlooks current realities.
LP: There’s clearly an emotional element to myths— individuals need to take satisfaction of their nation and really feel defensive when confronted with harsh realities. How do you reply to that?
ME: There’s definitely a proud custom of resistance within the U.S.: abolitionists, civil rights, the ladies’s motion, LGBTQ+ rights, labor — all have made actual positive factors, although these positive factors face ongoing challenges.
Oppressive constructions and resistance coexist. We stay a racist society, and a society the place sexism is pervasive. Simply take a look at the sewer of content material that reveals up on X, 4chan, and different social media platforms.
Nonetheless, nobody ought to get so discouraged that they cease struggling. A method of American historical past — and this is able to be a special e book, however a believable one — is to deal with how lengthy and onerous individuals have fought to make issues higher. In my e book, you’ll be able to see how highly effective the forces are which have supported an oppressive established order. However I’m optimistic within the sense that we have had these protest actions. Folks have finished unimaginable issues. Coalitions have pushed society and the economic system towards extra inclusivity. That provides me hope.
However sure, I’m sensible about how onerous it’s to maintain on to these victories — how fierce and entrenched the opposition is.
LP: Sure. And we will by no means, ever take these victories with no consideration.
ME: We by no means can.
