Why are tariffs such a big political issue? What's the purpose of tariffs and, do they work? What does the Constitution say about tariffs?

Did you know that tariffs had a role in the onset of the American Revolution. How about the fact that they both protected the economy, and caused economic depressions. On more than once occasion, they influenced presidential elections. They also contributed to sectionalism and civil war.

This episode traces the American history with tariffs, their role in shaping the economy, and how they have impacted the politics of the United States.

Why do people have such conflicting views of American history? What is revisionist history, and why does it have such a bad reputation? And what do we make of this current idea of “patriotic history?”

This episode explores why American history is so hotly debated, contrasting descriptive history (facts of who, what, when, where, and how) with interpretive history (the why), and traces how perspectives—from the Southern Lost Cause to voices of marginalized communities—have shaped the nation's story.

With help from John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, the Enola Gay, and one of the best historical analogies you'll ever hear, this episode examines revisionism, patriotic history, and the ongoing struggle to balance pride, truth, and lessons from the past.

Has the United States always been so committed to foreign alliances, such as NATO? If not, then when and why did that change and can the U.S. really be neutral on the world stage?

This episode traces the United States' journey from neutrality and strategic economic partnerships to full-scale post–World War II alliances like NATO. Along the way, we confront several key moments you probably remember hearing about at some point, such as the Battle of Yorktown, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Truman Doctrine.

In tracing America's move from isolationist neutrality to the most allied nation in the world, we weigh the costs and benefits of U.S. engagement in alliances today and ask... should the U.S. return to its isolationist roots or is the risk too great?