Podcast appearances and mentions of David Sehat

The California gold rush enticed many Jewish merchants west in search of prosperity in the mid-19th century, but their success drew unwelcome attention from state legislators, who passed laws requiring all businesses to close on the Christian Sabbath. Meanwhile, in the early Jim Crow South, Jewish peddlers and landowners faced resentment and violence, sometimes lethal. Featuring: Jeremy Zeitlin, David Sehat, Rachel Kranson, Zev Eleff, Jonathan Sarna, and Patrick Mason Narrated by Mark Oppenheimer Written by John Turner and Lincoln Mullen  This series is made possible with support from the Henry Luce Foundation and the David Bruce Smith Foundation.  Antisemitism, U.S.A. is a production of R2 Studios at the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.

In this episode, Education Coordinator, John Ericson interviews Dr. David Sehat of Georgia State University concerning some of the myths of America's founding, especially in regard to issues of religious freedom. Dr. David Sehat is a Professor of Cultural and Intellectual History for Georgia State University. He is the author of "The Myth of American Religious Freedom" and "The Jefferson rule; How the Founding Fathers became Infallible and our Politics Inflexible." 

 In this episode, Education Coordinator, John Ericson interviews Dr. David Sehat of Georgia State University concerning some of the myths of America's founding, especially in regard to issues of religious freedom. Dr. David Sehat is a Professor of Cultural and Intellectual History for Georgia State University. He is the author of "The Myth of American Religious Freedom" and "The Jefferson rule; How the Founding Fathers became Infallible and our Politics Inflexible." 

Today we're talking about one of the biggest sensations in the history of American theatre: "Hamilton: An American Musical." Composer, lyrisict, and preformer Lin-Manuel Miranda was inspired to create "Hamilton" after reading Ron Chernow's 800-page biography of Alexander Hamilton. Fans of the mega-hit "Hamilton" have waited impatiently for a chance to see the show here in Georgia—and now that opportunity has arrived . The Tony-winning musical is now at the Fox Theatre through June 11. Our guests today are David Sehat , an Associate Professor of American History at Georgia State University, and Rick Lombardo , a seasoned theatrical director who is now the chairman of the Kennesaw State University theater department. Sehat tells us about Alexander Hamilton’s place in history and weighs the musical’s accuracy. Plus, Lombardo and Sehat discuss Miranda's decision to cast actors of color in roles as Founding Fathers. This is a music-packed coversation about the man, the myths, and the music

The 2018 Winant Lecture in American Government. David Sehat is a cultural and intellectual historian of the United States. He writes broadly on American intellectual, political, and cultural life. He is the author of The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and Our Politics Inflexible (Simon and Schuster, 2015) and The Myth of American Religious Freedom (Oxford, 2011; updated edn. 2015), which won the Frederick Jackson Turner Award from the Organization of American Historians.

The 2018 Winant Lecture in American Government. David Sehat is a cultural and intellectual historian of the United States. He writes broadly on American intellectual, political, and cultural life. He is the author of The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and Our Politics Inflexible (Simon and Schuster, 2015) and The Myth of American Religious Freedom (Oxford, 2011; updated edn. 2015), which won the Frederick Jackson Turner Award from the Organization of American Historians.

Pulitzer prize-winning historian Daniel Walker Howe talks about contemporary politics, the antebellum era, his disagreements with other historians (including his disagreements with MindPop host David Sehat), and why, in spite of Donald Trump, he still believes in progress.

David Sehat talks to Tisa Wenger, Associate Professor of Divinity at Yale University, about the meaning of religious freedom and the contemporary invocations of religious freedom by white, conservative Christians.

David Sehat talks to Melani McAlister, Associate Professor of American Studies and International Affairs at George Washington University, about evangelicalism, its meaning, and its place in American and global politics.

David Sehat talks to Marie Griffith, John C. Danforth Professor in the Humanities and Director of the Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis, about her work and how she sees this religious and political moment.

David Sehat talks to Besheer Mohamed, senior researcher at Pew Research Center, about the problem of objective knowledge in this partisan moment.

David Sehat talks to Peter Manseau, Lilly Endowment Curator of American Religious History at the National Museum of American History, about his own religious past and the way that he seeks to reflect the nation's religious past back to itself in a contested moment.

David Sehat takes a road trip with his friend Ben Wise, Associate Professor of History at the University of Florida, where they talk about ambition, midlife, and the puzzles of meaning.

David Sehat explains the problems of constitutional originalism as one component of the larger incoherence of the conservative movement.

David Sehat talks to Martha S. Jones, SOBA Presidential Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University, about whether common ground is possible or desirable in this political moment.

David Sehat talks to Christopher Cameron, Associate Professor of History at UNC-Charlotte, about what blackness means in this political moment.

David Sehat talks to Andrew Hartman, Professor of History at Illinois State University, about the state of the Left, its moral panic about Donald Trump, and the Left's tortured relationship to liberalism and the market.

In our last episode, you heard three writers and editors on the left debate and discuss with three writers and editors on the Right. In this episode, you’ll hear the second part of that panel conversation. We begin with the left’s response to the right’s remarks about the possibility of fusion, or of coalition building—both within the ranks of one’s political movement, and outside those ranks. In this episode, we first hear from Bhaskar Sunkara of Jacobin Magazine, then Sarah Leonard and David Marcus of THE NATION. Then, on the right, we hear Ingrid Gregg, then Winston Elliot of The Imaginative Conservative and Dan McCarthy of The American Conservative. We hear from these speakers, we also get some good questions from the audience, including one from David Sehat, past guest on the podcast and host of Mindpop.

David Sehat talks to Sarah Leonard, Features Editor at The Nation, about the state of the journalistic Left, the relationship of the Left to liberalism, and whether she thinks the Democratic Party is a potential vehicle for leftist politics.

David Sehat talks to Bhaskar Sunkara, publisher and editor of Jacobin magazine, about the state of the Left and his vision of the American political future.

David Sehat talks to Kevin den Dulk, Paul Henry Chair in Christianity and Politics at Calvin College, about evangelicals in the conservative movement, their surprising support for Donald Trump, and the risks of politicization to communities of faith.

David Sehat talks to Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor at UVA's Miller Center, about conservative media and whether the echo chamber causes conservative epistemic closure.

David Sehat talks to Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large for The American Conservative, about the state of conservatism today and why (oh why) he voted for Donald Trump.

David Sehat talks to Michael Todd Landis, Assistant Professor at Tarleton State University, about how political change occurred in the past and how it might be effected in the present.

In this episode, we hear from David Sehat, an intellectual and cultural historian of the United States at Georgia State University. I ask Sehat about one of his main skills as an historian: that is, his ability to identify certain myths about American history circulated—one might even say peddled—by politicians in order to prop up certain ideological or political agendas in the present. We also discuss Sehat’s excellent podcast MINDPOP, and the extent to which he brings his past experiences to bear on the questions he asks about American history.

David Sehat talks to Kim Cobb, Georgia Power Chair and College of Science ADVANCE professor at Georgia Tech, about threats to the planet and the state of American climate politics.

David Sehat explains the ascendancy of Donald Trump as a symptom and an extension of Republican intellectual failure.

David Sehat talks to Marni Davis, associate professor of history at Georgia State University, about American Zionism, its critics, and her own tortured feelings toward Israel as an American Jew.

David Sehat talks to Joshua Weitz, professor of biology at Georgia Tech, about the attack on science, the values of science, and why he is marching.

David Sehat talks to Jeff Young, Senior Lecturer in History and guru in digital instruction at Georgia State University, about the digital revolution in higher education and the media, economic, and political challenges to traditional teaching.

David Sehat talks to Ryan Rowberry, Associate Professor of Law at Georgia State University and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, about Mormons' tortured relationship to Donald Trump and their idea of constitutional faithfulness.

David Sehat talks to H. Robert Baker, Associate Professor of History at Georgia State University, about constitutional originalism as a mode of legal interpretation and as rhetoric to justify sweeping legal change.

David Sehat talks to Jake Selwood, Associate Professor of History at Georgia State University, about whether the stories of decline that explain contemporary politics have any legitimacy in this political moment or, in fact, in any political moment.

David Sehat talks to Mike O’Connor, author of A Commercial Republic: America’s Enduring Debate over Democratic Capitalism, about the place of racial and gender concerns within contemporary liberalism and about whether those concerns have led the Democratic Party into electoral exile.

David Sehat talks to Greg Mohler, Chief Scientist of the Quantum Systems Division at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, about big data and whether computers have supplanted the soul.

David Sehat talks to Joy Rohde, Assistant Professor of Public Policy and History at the University of Michigan, about the use of big data in military strategy and foreign policy and about the potential loss of individual agency, moral integrity, and justice in a big data regime.

David Sehat talks to Andrew Hartman, professor of history at Illinois State University, about the state of the Left today, about its relationship to the Democratic Party, and about the current vogue for Marx within and outside of the Leftist political tradition.

David Sehat talks with Christopher McKnight Nichols, Associate Professor of History at Oregon State University, about the dilemmas facing the United States in the world, the shortcomings of existing foreign policy approaches, and his attempted rehabilitation of an idealistic isolationism to guide the United States in the future.

David Sehat talks to Molly Worthen, Assistant Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and contributing opinion writer at the New York Times, about the state of evangelicalism, about its place in the Republican Party and in the wider American culture, and about its future prospects.

Georgia State history professor David Sehat joins the Steve Fast show to discuss the problems with modern politicians using the Founding Fathers to bolster 21st century views. #GeorgiaState #FoundingFathers

David Sehat is an associate professor of history at Georgia State University. His book The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and the Our Politics Inflexible (Simon and Schuster, 2015) is part narrative history, part political analysis. Beginning with George Washington's administration to the 2012 Congressional budgetary crisis, Sehat provides a long sweep of the continual conflicts over the meaning of the U.S. constitution and the intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton represented two different interpretations and set the course for subsequent debates over first principles that by Lincoln's time escalated into civil war. The differences revolved largely on the role of the federal government, states rights and the limits of economic freedom. After the Civil War and as America faced becoming a modern nation the founders as a standard of ideals went into eclipse. The oppositional rhetoric of the American Liberty League to Roosevelt's New Deal, and constitutional reinterpretation, once again turned to the founders. Modern political rivals have continued to call on the legacy of the founders to support their arguments and making them a test of political orthodoxy. Martin Luther King's civil rights campaign, the Reagan Revolution, and the Tea Party movement drew from the founders with radically different understandings of the past and the future. Liberals pointed to changing nature of constitutional governance arguing for context and adaptation. Conservatives held to a static and binding view of the constitution asserting original intent. Arguments that found their way to the Supreme Court. Sehat argues that conflict over the intent of the founders, and the meaning of the constitution, has kept the nation paralyzed in dealing with the present. By asking what the founder's would do, we foreclose productive debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Sehat is an associate professor of history at Georgia State University. His book The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and the Our Politics Inflexible (Simon and Schuster, 2015) is part narrative history, part political analysis. Beginning with George Washington’s administration to the 2012 Congressional budgetary crisis, Sehat provides a long sweep of the continual conflicts over the meaning of the U.S. constitution and the intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton represented two different interpretations and set the course for subsequent debates over first principles that by Lincoln’s time escalated into civil war. The differences revolved largely on the role of the federal government, states rights and the limits of economic freedom. After the Civil War and as America faced becoming a modern nation the founders as a standard of ideals went into eclipse. The oppositional rhetoric of the American Liberty League to Roosevelt’s New Deal, and constitutional reinterpretation, once again turned to the founders. Modern political rivals have continued to call on the legacy of the founders to support their arguments and making them a test of political orthodoxy. Martin Luther King’s civil rights campaign, the Reagan Revolution, and the Tea Party movement drew from the founders with radically different understandings of the past and the future. Liberals pointed to changing nature of constitutional governance arguing for context and adaptation. Conservatives held to a static and binding view of the constitution asserting original intent. Arguments that found their way to the Supreme Court. Sehat argues that conflict over the intent of the founders, and the meaning of the constitution, has kept the nation paralyzed in dealing with the present. By asking what the founder’s would do, we foreclose productive debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Sehat is an associate professor of history at Georgia State University. His book The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and the Our Politics Inflexible (Simon and Schuster, 2015) is part narrative history, part political analysis. Beginning with George Washington’s administration to the 2012 Congressional budgetary crisis, Sehat provides a long sweep of the continual conflicts over the meaning of the U.S. constitution and the intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton represented two different interpretations and set the course for subsequent debates over first principles that by Lincoln’s time escalated into civil war. The differences revolved largely on the role of the federal government, states rights and the limits of economic freedom. After the Civil War and as America faced becoming a modern nation the founders as a standard of ideals went into eclipse. The oppositional rhetoric of the American Liberty League to Roosevelt’s New Deal, and constitutional reinterpretation, once again turned to the founders. Modern political rivals have continued to call on the legacy of the founders to support their arguments and making them a test of political orthodoxy. Martin Luther King’s civil rights campaign, the Reagan Revolution, and the Tea Party movement drew from the founders with radically different understandings of the past and the future. Liberals pointed to changing nature of constitutional governance arguing for context and adaptation. Conservatives held to a static and binding view of the constitution asserting original intent. Arguments that found their way to the Supreme Court. Sehat argues that conflict over the intent of the founders, and the meaning of the constitution, has kept the nation paralyzed in dealing with the present. By asking what the founder’s would do, we foreclose productive debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Sehat is an associate professor of history at Georgia State University. His book The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and the Our Politics Inflexible (Simon and Schuster, 2015) is part narrative history, part political analysis. Beginning with George Washington’s administration to the 2012 Congressional budgetary crisis, Sehat provides a long sweep of the continual conflicts over the meaning of the U.S. constitution and the intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton represented two different interpretations and set the course for subsequent debates over first principles that by Lincoln’s time escalated into civil war. The differences revolved largely on the role of the federal government, states rights and the limits of economic freedom. After the Civil War and as America faced becoming a modern nation the founders as a standard of ideals went into eclipse. The oppositional rhetoric of the American Liberty League to Roosevelt’s New Deal, and constitutional reinterpretation, once again turned to the founders. Modern political rivals have continued to call on the legacy of the founders to support their arguments and making them a test of political orthodoxy. Martin Luther King’s civil rights campaign, the Reagan Revolution, and the Tea Party movement drew from the founders with radically different understandings of the past and the future. Liberals pointed to changing nature of constitutional governance arguing for context and adaptation. Conservatives held to a static and binding view of the constitution asserting original intent. Arguments that found their way to the Supreme Court. Sehat argues that conflict over the intent of the founders, and the meaning of the constitution, has kept the nation paralyzed in dealing with the present. By asking what the founder’s would do, we foreclose productive debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Sehat is an associate professor of history at Georgia State University. His book The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and the Our Politics Inflexible (Simon and Schuster, 2015) is part narrative history, part political analysis. Beginning with George Washington’s administration to the 2012 Congressional budgetary crisis, Sehat provides a long sweep of the continual conflicts over the meaning of the U.S. constitution and the intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton represented two different interpretations and set the course for subsequent debates over first principles that by Lincoln’s time escalated into civil war. The differences revolved largely on the role of the federal government, states rights and the limits of economic freedom. After the Civil War and as America faced becoming a modern nation the founders as a standard of ideals went into eclipse. The oppositional rhetoric of the American Liberty League to Roosevelt’s New Deal, and constitutional reinterpretation, once again turned to the founders. Modern political rivals have continued to call on the legacy of the founders to support their arguments and making them a test of political orthodoxy. Martin Luther King’s civil rights campaign, the Reagan Revolution, and the Tea Party movement drew from the founders with radically different understandings of the past and the future. Liberals pointed to changing nature of constitutional governance arguing for context and adaptation. Conservatives held to a static and binding view of the constitution asserting original intent. Arguments that found their way to the Supreme Court. Sehat argues that conflict over the intent of the founders, and the meaning of the constitution, has kept the nation paralyzed in dealing with the present. By asking what the founder’s would do, we foreclose productive debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In celebration of Independence Day, listen to an interview with David Sehat, a historian. He'll explain about The Jefferson Rule - the unspoken conviction that any proposal or policy must be associated with and justified by the Founding Fathers - is a fact of American politics. Liberals, conservatives, radicals, and libertarians alike look to the founding moment to justify their policies. Our debate over the Founding Fathers is flawed in one crucial way: The Founders were not united and did not speak with one voice. When contemporary politicians use phrases such as "what the Founders intended," they are calling on a querulous and divided group that did not and cannot offer the singular guidance that we might desire. Beginning with the early national debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, continuing through the Civil War, the fight over the New Deal, and the Reagan Revolution, up to the disputes between Barack Obama and the Tea Party, Sehat will show that political consideration of complex issues has been reduced to asking: What would the Founders do? That oversimplification obscures the real issues and has damaged American politics. Tune in to Beyond 50: America's Variety Talk Radio Show on the natural, holistic, green and sustainable lifestyle. Visit www.Beyond50Radio.com and sign up for our Exclusive Updates.

If we have problems in America, the solution is usually simple, check with the Founding Fathers.  Can’t figure out modern health care, check with the Founders.  Can’t deal with modern weaponry on America's streets, check in with the nation's Founders.  Need to improve education for our kids..maybe a trip to Mt. Rushmore will solve it?  Need to fix our airports, increase cancer and genetic research, or fund manned space travel..no problem. Just check in with Jefferson and Hamilton. Obviously a laughable idea.... but in fact this is exactly what we seem to do!! First of all our Founders, wise as they were, did not speak with a single voice, and they lived in a world that is barely recognizable from our own.  So why are they relevant to every debate in America?  Mostly because it’s a way for politicians to gain political traction, without having to marshall real debate or real solutions.This is the confusion that David Sehat explains in The Jefferson Rule: How the Founding Fathers Became Infallible and Our Politics Inflexible.My conversation with David Sehat: