How the Hell Did We Get Here?

America Never Had a “Golden Age” of Journalism

Note: An earlier upload accidentally contained an unedited audio export. This version contains the finalized episode audio. 🎧 Full episodes available wherever you get podcasts. From the partisan newspapers of the Founding Era to yellow journalism, wartime propaganda, cable news, and the algorithm-driven chaos of social media, the American media has never been as objective or neutral as many people imagine. In this episode of Past Is Prologue, I trace the long history of misinformation, propaganda, and partisan media in the United States. We’ll examine how newspapers helped shape the political battles of the early republic, how sensationalist journalism pushed the country toward war in 1898, how the federal government coordinated propaganda during the world wars, and how modern media ecosystems evolved through talk radio, Fox News, social media, and the internet age. The point here is not that journalism is useless or inherently corrupt. Some of the most important reforms in American history happened because journalists exposed abuses of power. But media systems are always shaped by incentives — political incentives, economic incentives, and technological incentives — and those pressures often reward outrage, simplification, fear, and spectacle over nuance or accuracy. Topics discussed include: Partisan newspapers in the 1790s Andrew Jackson and political media networks Yellow journalism and the Spanish-American War The USS Maine World War I propaganda and the Committee on Public Information McCarthyism and television Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine Rush Limbaugh and talk radio Roger Ailes and Fox News Trump, social media, and algorithm-driven information ecosystems The fragmentation of shared reality in modern America This episode is ultimately about the relationship between media, money, power, and democracy — and why the problems Americans associate with “fake news” are much older than Facebook or Twitter. Chapters 00:00 — Cold open: the myth of “objective media” 02:05 — Welcome + today’s guiding question 03:00 — The partisan press of the Founding Era 05:20 — Newspapers as political weapons in the 1790s 07:35 — Andrew Jackson and mass political media 09:15 — The penny press and sensational journalism 11:20 — Yellow journalism and the Spanish-American War 13:50 — “Remember the Maine!” and manufactured outrage 15:40 — World War I propaganda and the CPI 18:20 — Selling war to the public 20:05 — Radio, mass communication, and emotional politics 22:10 — McCarthyism and the power of television 24:15 — Vietnam, credibility collapse, and the Pentagon Papers 26:30 — Watergate and distrust of institutions 27:40 — The Fairness Doctrine and its repeal 29:00 — Rush Limbaugh and partisan talk radio 30:15 — Cable news and the rise of Fox News 31:00 — Roger Ailes and conservative media strategy 33:05 — Fragmentation and separate media realities 34:30 — The internet changes everything 36:20 — Algorithms, outrage, and attention economics 38:00 — Social media and the collapse of shared reality 39:40 — Trump and modern populist media politics 42:00 — Why misinformation thrives 43:30 — Final takeaway: the media was never neutral 44:40 — Closing 📌 Subscribe for long-form historical analysis that connects past and present without the mythology. #USHistory #FakeNews #HistoryPodcast #AmericanHistory #MediaHistory #Politics #Propaganda #FoxNews #Trump #Journalism #PoliticalHistory #PastIsPrologue

How the Hell Did Religion Help Americans Cope with Capitalism?

If you want to understand what the Market Revolution did to Americans—not just how they worked or what they earned, but how they understood the world—you have to look at religion. In the 1820s and 1830s, Americans weren’t just reacting to capitalism politically. They were reacting to it spiritually. As markets expanded, communities fractured, and economic life became more unstable and impersonal, millions of Americans turned toward religion to make sense of it. This episode explores the Second Great Awakening not just as a religious movement, but as a response to capitalism—and, ultimately, as something that helped reshape Americans to live within it. Some religious movements resisted the moral logic of the market, emphasizing selflessness, emotional connection, and spiritual transformation. Others aligned more closely with capitalism, translating discipline, self-control, and success into moral virtues. And over time, those strands didn’t just compete—they merged. Religion didn’t simply oppose the Market Revolution. In many ways, it helped stabilize it. In this episode, we cover: • Why religion expanded alongside capitalism—not despite it • Charles Sellers’ argument about the Market Revolution and spiritual life • Unitarianism and the moral language of capitalist success • The New Light tradition and its critique of self-interest • Jonathan Edwards and post-millennial belief • The role of women in sustaining religious communities • How revivalism was reshaped and institutionalized • Lyman Beecher, Timothy Dwight, and the “moderate light” shift • Temperance, moral reform, and behavioral discipline • Evangelical businessmen and the rise of organized religious networks • Print culture and the mass distribution of religious ideas • The “burned-over district” and the chaos of frontier religion • Joseph Smith, folk religion, and the rise of Mormonism • Charles Grandison Finney and the transformation of revivalism • The Benevolent Empire and the fusion of religion and capitalism • Slavery as the breaking point in the system • How religion helped create the American middle class mindset Guiding question: In what ways did religion help Americans cope with the Market Revolution—and in what ways did it reshape their behavior to make capitalism function more effectively? 📌 Subscribe → https://www.youtube.com/@HowtheHellDidWeGetHerePodcast/videos?sub_confirmation=1 🎧 Listen on Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-the-hell-did-we-get-here/id1765781522 ⏱️ Chapters 00:00 — Cold open: why religion matters to understanding capitalism 02:05 — Welcome + sources + guiding question 04:01 — Sellers’ argument: capitalism didn’t weaken religion 05:27 — Unitarianism and elite alignment with the market 06:44 — Moralizing success: discipline as virtue 07:40 — The limits of rational religion 08:08 — The New Light tradition and emotional faith 09:16 — Jonathan Edwards and post-millennialism 10:29 — Disinterested benevolence vs self-interest 11:32 — Religion as community resistance 12:04 — Religion doing two things at once 12:14 — From resistance to absorption 12:49 — Beecher, Dwight, and moderating revivalism 14:04 — Moral reform and behavioral discipline 15:00 — Why alcohol became a target 17:30 — Voluntary associations and social control 18:31 — Evangelical businessmen and scaling religion 19:12 — Print culture and mass religious distribution 20:35 — Religion and capitalism converge 22:05 — Reform movements and moral responsibility 23:00 — The burned-over district 24:00 — Joseph Smith and folk religion 26:20 — Mormonism as structured response to instability 29:00 — Conflict, migration, and western settlement 30:56 — Charles Finney and market-compatible revivalism 32:00 — Conversion as decision and action 33:10 — Finney vs traditional clergy 34:05 — Religion as discipline for capitalism 35:10 — Slavery and the breaking point 36:30 — Oberlin and radical reform 37:20 — The emerging middle-class mindset 38:20 — Closing: living with contradiction #ushistory #americanhistory #marketrevolution #secondgreatawakening #religionandcapitalism #charlessellers #finney #josephsmith #mormonhistory #temperancemovement #antebellumamerica #earlyrepublic #historypodcast #education

Why “The Founding Fathers Would Have…” Is Almost Always Wrong

If you’ve ever heard someone say “the Founding Fathers would have…” — there’s a good chance what follows is wrong. The Founders didn’t agree with each other. Not even close. This isn’t a typical scripted episode. It’s something a little different—and something I plan to do more often. If you’ve spent any time in American political discourse, you’ve heard some version of this argument: “The Founding Fathers would have wanted this.” “The Founders would have opposed that.” There’s just one problem: that idea makes no sense. The men we call the Founding Fathers were not a monolith. They weren’t unified in their beliefs, their priorities, or even their vision for what the United States should become. They argued constantly—about the structure of government, the balance of power, the role of the states, and the future of the republic itself. In this episode, I break down why invoking “the Founders” as a single, unified authority is historically inaccurate—and why understanding their disagreements matters far more than pretending they spoke with one voice. We look at: The deep divisions at the Constitutional Convention The messy and uncertain ratification process The split between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans The intellectual and political conflict between figures like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton This isn’t about dismissing the Founders. It’s about taking them seriously—on their own terms. Guiding idea: Why is it historically inaccurate to treat the Founding Fathers as a unified voice—and what do their disagreements reveal about the origins of American political conflict? 📌 Subscribe → https://www.youtube.com/@HowtheHellDidWeGetHerePodcast/videos?sub_confirmation=1 🎧 Listen on Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-the-hell-did-we-get-here/id1765781522 00:00 — This isn’t a typical episode 00:45 — Why I’m doing this kind of content 02:00 — The problem with “the Founders would have…” 03:15 — The Founders were not a monolith 04:30 — Disagreements at the Constitutional Convention 06:00 — Ratification: messy, contested, uncertain 07:30 — Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans 08:45 — Jefferson vs Hamilton 10:00 — Why this misunderstanding matters 11:00 — Closing #ushistory #americanhistory #foundingfathers #constitution #civics #politics #historypodcast #education #earlyrepublic #federalists

Why the Hell Did Utopian Societies Proliferate in 19th century America?

In the early decades of the 19th century, Americans did something extraordinary: they tried to build perfect societies. Not metaphorically. Not just politically. Literally. Across the young republic, groups of men and women abandoned ordinary life and set out to construct entirely new communities — places where property would be shared, labor would be organized cooperatively, religion would purify society, and the chaos of the modern world would be replaced by harmony. This episode tells the story of the explosion of utopian communities in the first half of the 19th century not as a historical curiosity, but as a revealing response to a country being transformed. As the Market Revolution disrupted older ways of life, as westward expansion opened new physical space, and as the Second Great Awakening convinced many Americans that society itself could be remade, utopian experiments sprang up across the landscape. In this episode, we cover: • Why utopian communities proliferated in the early 19th century • The role of westward expansion and land availability in making social experimentation possible • The Market Revolution, the Panic of 1819, and why capitalism felt destabilizing and morally corrosive to many Americans • The Second Great Awakening, millennial belief, and the conviction that society itself could be transformed • William Miller and the failed prediction of Christ’s return in 1844 • Robert Owen and New Harmony: cooperative economics, secular idealism, and fast-moving collapse • Charles Fourier, Albert Brisbane, and the rise of associationist communities • The Shakers: celibacy, communal property, spiritual purity, and long-term decline • The Harmony Society, Amana colonies, and other religious communal experiments • Mordecai Manuel Noah’s proposed Jewish refuge at Ararat • John Humphrey Noyes and the Oneida community’s radical experiment with “complex marriage” • Joseph Smith, Mormonism, and the creation of a communal religious movement that actually endured • Why most utopian communities failed — and why they still matter historically • The larger question these movements raise: what kind of society did Americans think they were building? Guiding question: Why did utopian communities proliferate in the United States in the first half of the 19th century — and what does their rise reveal about American culture, politics, and society? Sources referenced: American Pageant Give Me Liberty Charles Sellers, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846 Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought 00:00 — Cold open: Americans try to build perfect societies 02:09 — Welcome + sources + guiding question 04:05 — Why utopian communities suddenly proliferate 04:49 — Westward expansion and the freedom to start over 05:25 — The Market Revolution and social dislocation 06:15 — Why capitalism felt unstable, impersonal, and morally suspect 07:45 — Utopianism as an answer to market society 08:00 — The Second Great Awakening and millennial hope 09:35 — William Miller and the failed prophecy of 1844 11:11 — From Millerism to Seventh-day Adventism 12:04 — Why all the conditions were right for utopian experiments 12:36 — Robert Owen and the dream of rational cooperation 14:08 — New Harmony: idealism meets reality 16:18 — Fourierism, Albert Brisbane, and associationist communities 17:49 — Religious perfectionism and communal living 18:06 — The Shakers: celibacy, discipline, and decline 20:16 — Other communal religious experiments 21:10 — Oneida and the controversy of “complex marriage” 22:54 — From communism to silverware: Oneida’s transformation 23:09 — Joseph Smith, treasure seeking, and Mormon origins 25:30 — Mormonism as utopian community-building 26:15 — Violence, migration, and Brigham Young’s western Zion 27:17 — Why these communities mattered even when they failed 28:24 — Anxiety, optimism, and the belief society could be remade 29:15 — Closing: the early republic as a laboratory of social possibility 📌 Subscribe → https://www.youtube.com/@HowtheHellDidWeGetHerePodcast/videos?sub_confirmation=1 🎧 Listen on Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-the-hell-did-we-get-here/id1765781522

Populism in America: When “The People” Become a Weapon

When politicians rail against elites, corrupt institutions, rigged systems, and the betrayal of ordinary people, it can feel like a uniquely modern style of politics. It isn’t. In this episode of Past Is Prologue, I trace the long history of populism in the United States — from Andrew Jackson and the expansion of white male democracy, to the Know-Nothings, the Populist Party, Huey Long, George Wallace, the Tea Party, and Donald Trump. The pattern is complicated because the grievances are often real. Economic inequality, political corruption, institutional arrogance, and elite indifference have repeatedly created fertile ground for populist anger in American life. But that anger has not always produced democratic reform. Again and again, it has also created openings for demagogues — leaders who claim to speak for “the people” while redirecting public fury toward scapegoats, weakening institutions, and consolidating power for themselves. This episode asks a harder question than whether populism is “good” or “bad.” It asks why movements rooted in legitimate frustration so often end up empowering figures more interested in domination than reform. In this episode, we cover: Andrew Jackson, the Panic of 1819, the expansion of suffrage, and the birth of mass democratic politics The “corrupt bargain” of 1824 and how Jackson turned elite distrust into a political identity Indian removal, the Bank War, and Jackson’s attacks on institutional constraints The Know-Nothings and the shift from anti-elite populism to immigrant scapegoating The late-19th-century Populist Party as a rare example of populist energy aimed at real structural reform Why the Populists succeeded intellectually even though they failed electorally Huey Long and the danger of economic populism fused with personalist power George Wallace and the transformation of populist rhetoric into racialized cultural backlash The 2008 financial crisis, Occupy Wall Street, and the Tea Party as rival populist responses to the same collapse Donald Trump as the latest — and most familiar — expression of a very old American pattern The central lesson: real grievances do not automatically produce constructive politics Guiding question: When populist movements claim to speak for “the people,” what determines whether they produce democratic reform — or simply elevate another demagogue? 📌 Subscribe → https://www.youtube.com/@HowtheHellDidWeGetHerePodcast/videos?sub_confirmation=1 🎧 Listen on Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-the-hell-did-we-get-here/id1765781522 Chapters 00:00 — Cold open: is populism really something new? 02:47 — Past Is Prologue intro + today’s argument 03:28 — Why Andrew Jackson is the place to start 04:14 — Expanded suffrage, the Panic of 1819, and mass resentment 06:05 — The election of 1824 and the “corrupt bargain” 07:10 — Jackson in power: populism, personal authority, and intimidation 08:02 — Indian removal and contempt for constitutional limits 10:30 — The Bank War: real grievance, reckless response 13:03 — The core populist pattern takes shape 13:42 — The Know-Nothings and immigrant scapegoating 16:03 — Why slavery pushed nativism off center stage 17:23 — The Gilded Age and the rise of the Populist Party 19:20 — A different kind of populism: reform instead of scapegoating 21:08 — 1896, free silver, and the movement’s fatal weakness 23:06 — What the Populists got right 23:52 — Huey Long: economic justice meets personalist rule 26:08 — FDR vs. Huey Long 27:50 — The lesson of Long: anger can empower authoritarians 28:24 — George Wallace and racialized populism 31:00 — Wallace’s afterlife in modern conservative politics 32:33 — 2008 and the return of mass anti-elite anger 33:24 — Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party 35:11 — Sarah Palin as a preview 36:13 — Trump and the modern populist formula 38:16 — Scapegoating, grievance, and redirected anger 39:16 — The demagogue pattern in full 40:46 — Real grievances, bad outcomes 41:42 — The historical pattern: populism’s recurring trap 42:53 — Closing