Ep. 19A - Interview Special: Behind the Scenes of "From Boomers to Millennials"

In this episode, producer Erin Rogers interviews FBTM's host & writer, Logan, about the past and future of the podcast. Topics discussed include: what inspired Logan to start a history podcast; book recommendations for US history fans; how the perspective brought by troubling current events should or shouldn't affect our approach to the show; why Thomas Dewey may be an underrated mid-20th Century moderate Republican, and why Eisenhower is one who is often overrated; what Logan's favorite episodes to write have been; the challenges of covering the turbulent 1960s; a denial that the show has been unreasonably obsessed with the Kennedys; what we do and do not about our show's audience; why Logan is not publicly disclosing his favorite color at this time; and what the future of the rebooted podcast holds.

Transcript

Logan: 0:01

Welcome to the From Boomers to Millennials podcast, a modern US history podcast. This is episode 19A, a special interview episode behind the scenes of From Boomers to Millennials. This is going to be an interview conducted by my esteemed producer. She is my sister, Erin Rogers, who has been a huge help and helping to produce and do some proofreading on the show since the beginning. But we thought it might be a nice change to go behind the scenes a little bit, talk about where we are in the podcast and where we're going and just how we feel looking back. So Aaron, go ahead and take it away.

Erin: 0:50

Thanks for having me. It's fun to be on the other side of things. So excited to be here and to get some answers so that our listeners can get to know you a little bit better and how the podcast came to be. So I'll go ahead and ask you some questions. So it's been about five years since the start of the podcast. How do you feel about the state of the podcast so far?

Logan: 1:18

It feels like a blink of an eye. I don't feel great about it being five years already. Yikes. But I guess it has been, looking at the calendar. As far as the state of the podcast goes, I mean, the state of the podcast could be better. The show's kind of been on life support for a little while in terms of the frequency of the episodes, mostly due to my own situation, which has been unfortunate for our listeners. We really appreciate those who have stuck with us. The good news is, you know, I don't want to overpromise anything, but I definitely am in a position now to kind of reboot and revive the podcast due to a career change, which I'll kind of get into a bit more later, probably. So that's the negative, which is just how few episodes we've put out in the last couple of years. But the big picture is a lot brighter in terms of how I view what we've done and what we've accomplished. I mean, I recently after like taking a year break from going back and listening to old episodes, I've had a little more free time over the past few weeks, and I've re-listened to most of the podcast, not quite done with it. It's, you know, over 40 hours of material. And I would say I'm proud of 80% of it. I, you know, 75% 80 to 85, depending on, you know, the episode I'm listening to and maybe how I'm feeling that day.

Erin: 2:49

We're our own worst critics, I think.

Logan: 2:53

Yeah, no, that's, that's inevitable. I think anybody who wants to put out quality work is their own worst critic. I think what stands out about our podcast is just the careful writing and research and revision and editing and that went into it. That's what I chalk up to the reason. A lot of it holds up really well. The other 15% or whatever that I would change is just little things. We usually do a really good job of catching mistakes, but there have been a few really little things that have slipped by. Usually we try to correct those. I've had some mispronunciations that were not great, like when I called the Soviet General Georgi Zhukov, which makes him a lot more cuddly than I think he actually was. There has been some early episodes. I would say the early ones are the ones that I cringe a little more at parts just because maybe I was still learning the ropes. Some scripts were maybe a little too wordy or I would try too hard to be cute or clever. or a strange attempt at humor that fell flat. I think the writing has gotten better over time. We've kind of found our voice. The only thing that I regret is the audio issues. And unfortunately, that has to do with the fact that early on, I had a really good permanent place to record. And over the past two or three years, I've been bouncing around a lot and didn't have as good of a of a location to record in. I'm hoping we'll be able to improve on that and have things be a little more stable in the future. If I can work that out in the next place I'm living, we'll continue to strive to make improvements on that.

Erin: 4:50

Right, right. Yeah, the goal is always the best we can do and rolling with whatever complications come up. So I just want to echo thank you to our listeners for bearing with those. So let's switch gears a little bit. And I want to ask you, when did you first fall in love with history?

Logan: 5:10

Well, I would probably say I didn't really think about it because I feel like, you know, My interest in history goes back a long way. And it kind of was one of many interests, I think, when I was a kid and a teenager. And then it became a bigger part of my life as I went off to college. I would say, I would credit things like, I think it's fair to say we grew up in a family with a fair amount of enthusiasm for public television. There was some documentaries that I grew up with. Some classic old documentaries, but very good. Ken Burns, The Civil War is a great documentary. If you saw one of his more recent ones where he went on for like 80 hours on jazz or whatever, or whatever he's country music or whatever he's doing now. No shade to Ken Burns, but some of his work may be require an attention span that many younger people do not have now. But I would recommend the Civil War to anybody, even though there are dated elements to it. It's still pretty classic in terms of really grounding the emotional stakes of that conflict and what it meant to the people who were fighting in it, to the people who are suffering under slavery, the perspectives of North and South. So that really... brought the history to life and not had it be just names and dates in a book, but you really could see the human stakes. And then I was kind of interested in history, among other things, when I went off to college. I wasn't a big science and math guy, so I knew I'd probably do something in the humanities or social sciences, something involving writing. I probably thought I was going to major in poli sci, political science, but that didn't end up happening because I took some poli sci classes and some of them were really heavily statistical and pretty dry. And I also took some history classes and the history classes were the ones that really grabbed me and I felt the enthusiasm for. There was some professors I had in particular, one Professor Reed who really brought history to life And it so happens he did a lot of talking about the period we're talking about, kind of US history from the Civil War onward, including the period after World War II. He kind of specialized in military history, talked a lot about World War II and Vietnam, and had us read famous theorists like Carl von Clausewitz, which is a little unusual to read these days and probably a little bit dry military history for most people. But Clausewitz's famous thing that everyone should remember is war is a instrument of politics by other means. So basically, war should have some political goal. And if you lose track of that, then you're in trouble. Yeah. as a country. But Professor Reed also talked about things like labor history, the labor movement, the progressive era, the fight for better wages and working conditions. He talked about Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. So there were a lot of these things that he brought to life, a lot of these struggles that really grabbed me, probably even more so than the military history aspect. that really convinced me that I should be a history major. So I did that. I fell out of love for a time with history and grad school, I think, because, you know, it was kind of my job and it's easier to love a hobby than to try to achieve an academic career when the stakes are so high and you're caught in all these debates of between scholars and how do I side with this group or that group. It creates a lot of drama to the point where you can't really just enjoy yourself as much because it is your career. But I feel a lot better with the podcast because I'm free to do what I want with it pretty much. Luckily, I have some people, including yourself, I can bounce ideas off of and can pull me aside if I'm going in the wrong direction. But generally, I have a lot more controlled than I did as a grad student. I'm more like a tenured professor who relies on other advisors but can kind of do what I want. A tenured professor with no salary who makes no money off the history does. But still, at least I have the freedom. At least I have the freedom. And I actually would say expanding my horizons beyond just U.S. history has really revitalized my passion for history because having... done grad school, like, I knew the big themes of US history, the big events, obviously, you can always go into greater detail. But, you know, I felt like I had a pretty clear understanding of like, all the major events of US history. And I the comparison of other societies. I've been looking into a lot more European history, Latin American history, things like that. And it really helps you see your country through fresh eyes to see how other societies can be different. So mostly a lot of what I listen to now for history podcasts is actually not US history podcasts. And that actually helps me, I think, have a fresher perspective on the history I already kind of know.

Erin: 11:08

Yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense. And I'm so glad that you've been able to recapture that love of history. Also want to just shout out that influence of a good teacher, not to be underestimated, I think, for a lot of us that really helped with the love of history. Erin

Logan: 11:26

is a teacher herself, just for the record. So I think she of all people. I'm biased. Appreciate. The importance of teachers.

Erin: 11:36

Yeah, yeah.

Logan: 11:38

The underappreciated influence of teachers.

Erin: 11:41

The underappreciated influence, yes. So you refound your love of history. And what made you decide to go from a history lover to a history podcaster?

Logan: 11:52

Well, I'll try to keep this answer a little shorter than my last one. And I think it'll be easy because it's a pretty straightforward story. First of all, I started getting into... long-form chronological history podcasts that tell like one story in order from beginning to end about like an era for instance to pick a not random example the french revolution uh probably the first one like so many other history podcasters i was inspired by mike duncan's revolutions

Erin: 12:24

A

Logan: 12:25

podcast that you introduced to me, by the way, so I have to give you credit for that.

Erin: 12:30

You're welcome. A very, very

Logan: 12:32

good one. I think I was the only one of us who actually finished it all.

Erin: 12:37

There are many fascinating seasons. I need to listen to more of that.

Logan: 12:43

Yeah, well, you have... You have a much healthier balanced diet of podcasts about science and a variety of topics that I really should know more about. I'm a little obsessive when it comes to the history stuff.

Erin: 12:58

Probably makes you a good history podcaster.

Logan: 12:59

Yeah, I hope. Yeah, so there's other similar podcasts following that kind of chronological long form episode by episode approach. Mark Painter's History of the 20th Century, Age of Napoleon, History of the Great War. And those were the podcasts that I really loved. But I'd been thinking more about recent U.S. history. And I really wished that there was a podcast in that kind of format about post-1945 U.S. history, especially kind of up to the present that I could listen to to kind of think about like, How did we get here as a country? Whatever you think about the moment we're in now, I want something that's even more applicable to my own life and to the lives of people around me living in the United States. I thought it would be helpful to review the past 75 years here, kind of in order, or 50 years or whatever. And I just couldn't find it. I looked for it and I couldn't find it. And then I had the light bulb moment that if it isn't out there, maybe I should make it myself. I mean, as I thought about it, I realized it was one of the few things that I could use my historical training or my ability to research and my background knowledge and all my old notes from grad school that were sitting there gathering dust that I could actually repurpose them. and actually have other people hopefully appreciate the knowledge that I could bring to bear when I tell a story. So that's where the idea came from, and we've just gone forward from there.

Erin: 14:45

I love that. So who are some of your favorite historians?

Logan: 14:51

So there's many historians, both academic and more public. Many, many, as long as they... are true to their sources and are good storytellers and give an accurate picture of what happened, there's a ton that I have a lot of respect for. Particularly academic historians is a difficult path because sometimes the stuff they publish isn't read by a lot of people, but they're doing very important work. There's nobody I really fanboy out on. There's nobody I have like a parasocial relationship or who I'm like stalking on social media or anything like that. There's nobody I really put up on a huge pedestal. But I would say that if I had to tell you at least my favorite history book when it comes to US history, I would say a book I read in grad school called Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson was a tremendous achievement when I would recommend to people It is the definitive one-volume work on the U.S. Civil War. So if you see the Ken Burns' The Civil War and that isn't enough and you really want to do a deep dive, this is the book to get. I have to warn listeners that it's rather daunting in its length. I think it's got to be over 800 pages. It's part of the Oxford History of the United States series. that has published all these big volumes by prominent historians that provide the end-up story of a whole era. That's had a big impact on me. I haven't read all of those series, but a couple of books that will probably be familiar to listeners of our podcast include Grand Expectations by James T. Patterson and From Colony to Superpower by George C. Herring. These are sources we cite in most of our episodes. They're

Erin: 16:55

familiar names.

Logan: 16:56

Yeah, they're part of that same series. And I rely on those a lot. I rely also on, I usually have at least one presidential biography from the period I'm looking at. With Truman, it was the David McCullough one. With Eisenhower, it was one by a historian named Gene Edward Smith. or I think it's more of a biographer generally, not an academic historian. And then with JFK, it's been Robert Daleks that I've mostly relied on. And mostly I do tend to want to get these big picture sources because with any given year, there are entire books written on certain events, but we don't have time to get into a granular level of detail. So I want other books that kind of give insight 30,000 feet picture of what was going on rather than putting it under a microscope. Although we have cited more specific sources where needed, like with the Freedom Riders, there was a book I read in grad school that I was able to go back and use for that one specifically about the Freedom Riders of 1961. But these big sources like that are ones that I rely on a lot. Yeah, so sorry, that took us a little bit away from the original question about favorite historians. But those are some of my favorite historians to use in the podcast.

Erin: 18:22

Great. Yeah, there's a lot of excellent recommendations, places to go learn more if you're interested. One thing that I've been curious about is across these five years, how has the podcast changed how you think about US history? I

Logan: 18:40

I don't know if it's if just doing the podcast has changed the way I think about US history a ton, I'm sure on the margins it has, but maybe not as much as some other factors. I think actually probably the way I think about US history has been more shaped by current events than it has by doing the podcast. Probably current events is something that has driven me to do the podcast just because we're at a time in our country where I think there's a lot of debate over our identity and, you know, what America has been, what America should be, where are we going? And I also think there's a lot of feeling on both sides of the political fence that like something has gone off track, I guess.

Erin: 19:30

Yeah.

Logan: 19:31

And, and that really makes me want to go back and kind of like diagnose the origins of current attitudes of disillusionment, current problems we may have. This thing that maybe has changed for a lot of people who look at U.S. history is kind of a move away from American exceptionalism. American exceptionalism is kind of the idea that the U.S. has like a special path and for whatever reason, it is different than other countries. And maybe the same rules don't even apply. And there are people who are gonna point to things like destiny or divine providence or something like that. Serious historians are more likely to rely on things like the unique geographic location of the United States, the unique population as You know, it's comfort with different waves of immigration previously and being able to kind of assimilate those waves of immigration, our constitutional system, our separation of powers, our individual freedoms, the Bill of Rights. A lot of people would point to that and say, this is why the U.S. doesn't have the problems these other countries have. But the reality is like increasingly, you know, you look at issues like uh lower life expectancy than here than in other western nations over the past two or three decades you look at things like lack of a peaceful transfer of power after the last presidential election uh three or four years ago and uh these are things that are like showing that you know maybe we're not so special maybe we can fall into some of the problems that other countries also fall into i mean we we've been blessed by these two oceans that protect us We're not surrounded by countries with potential invading armies. I mean, no disrespect to our friends in Canada and Mexico, but they have smaller populations. They can't compete with us militarily. They're not going to be a threat to invade us militarily or overthrow our government. Obviously, I have to acknowledge that, yes, there are countries that have us within nuclear range during the Cold War and even now, countries like Russia and maybe China. So there are threats out there, but just like we haven't had to worry as much about our security and we've had rich natural resources that have led to prosperity. So we've had these certain advantages, but it doesn't mean that we're always gonna be the top superpower or the most powerful and most free. Like it's still where the law of gravity applies. And if we make bad decisions as a country, We can always go into a decline and some people think that's where we're heading and I don't wanna editorialize too much and the future is uncertain, but I do think without being too pessimistic about the whole thing, I think an appreciation for some of the problems we have is part of what motivates me to kind of go back and look at our past trajectory, especially over the past four or five decades.

Erin: 22:50

I think that makes a lot of sense. There's something very valuable about putting things in perspective and looking at where we're coming from and how things have been while you're thinking about all the things that are going on today. What is the most surprising thing that you have learned while doing the podcast? Are there any interesting historical characters you've learned about?

Logan: 23:13

Well, I always learn new details about events. Even when it's a topic I think I know well, even if I know like the Cliff Notes big picture story, there's always some new details that surprise me. And when I find them, I try to put them in because maybe they'll surprise other people. As far as interesting characters, pretty much anyone I've done a 10-minute profile episode about is somebody I find interesting. I added that format in part so we could talk about some fascinating people who wouldn't have time to spotlight otherwise, particularly people who aren't presidents or powerful politicians and business leaders, but are more like people who are maybe activists, writers, intellectuals, even notorious people at times. They don't always have to be people I admire, although sometimes they are, but just it allows me to put the spotlight on people that are giant, powerful historical figures of the period. Another couple more specific examples of things I've learned and opinions that I've come to. One person I find interesting is Thomas Dewey, who was the Republican presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948. I think he was a pretty impressive guy and he could have been a good president, even though he wasn't the greatest politician. He wasn't a great speech maker. from my research, but he had this track record of prosecuting corruption and organized crime. He was pretty moderate for a Republican. In 1948, he even did a debate with another Republican candidate, I think it was Harold Stassen, about whether it should be illegal to be a member of the Communist Party. And Thomas Dewey said it should be illegal to be a member. It's freedom of speech. more of like a civil liberties kind of mentality there than from a Republican like Joe McCarthy, obviously. So I think he's an interesting guy. I think it would have been interesting to see what direction he went in. He was fairly progressive on civil rights and some other things while still being kind of a fiscal conservative as a Republican. But I think he maybe could have brought the GOP in a different direction. The open question there, I mean, Anytime, if you want to go back and plug in a different person as president, it's very eager to be like, you know, it'd be better if such and such had won. But you don't know that. I mean, it could have been worse. Like, for instance, you know, I think it's very likely given the kind of advisors from the Republican Party that Dewey would have had, that he definitely, like Truman, would have gone into Korea had the North Koreans still invaded the South. And the question is, would Dewey have had the courage that Truman showed in being willing to fire Douglas MacArthur when he was becoming wildly insubordinate to the president and trying to escalate the war, would he have the guts to do that? Because I think it was one of Truman's finest hours that he was willing to do that, even though it was a wildly unpopular decision, at least at first. So who knows if Dewey would have stepped up to the plate on that. But I just think it's an interesting, like maybe the whole history of the Republican Party would be different had he become president in the 40s. So that's what I would say. To go a little tougher on another Republican, I'm going to talk about Dwight Eisenhower, who I think at first he was very underrated by historians. The first guy who published the presidential ranking list of historians, if I recall right, was Arthur Schlesinger Jr., I believe, and he rated Eisenhower very low and he rated John F. Kennedy very high and it should be noticed that Arthur Schlesinger like was good friends with Kennedy and would like hang out in the Kennedy White House so he was totally biased and of course because Kennedy replaced Eisenhower you know the idea was Eisenhower was this non-dynamic chamber of commerce old buddy-duddy stuck in his ways and the Kennedy people were the best and the brightest and they were going to go in and fix things. So a lot of historians like that for reasons of, you know, partisanship or ideology or what have you, we're a little down on Eisenhower. And I think a way that was a little unfair and he's really been reassessed and historians rank him a lot higher now. Certainly I think also the fact that compared to some, some recent, presidents like George W. Bush, for instance. He seemed a lot more moderate in his sort of conservative approach to foreign policy. He at least had more restraint and prudence, more like George H.W. Bush than George W. Bush. But having studied him myself, I think there were a lot of things to admire about Eisenhower. I think he was a good president in a lot of ways, particularly on domestic policy. But Just getting toward the end of his administration, I think he was starting to veer in more of a reckless, more of a George W. Bush direction that put JFK in a bad spot. I mean, he was the one that was kind of, after the Cuban Revolution, letting the CIA plan out the Bay of Pigs, which they kind of got handed to JFK, like, this is what we're going to do. You're going to sign off on this, right? And Eisenhower even personally took JFK aside and famously and said, hey, you may need to militarily intervene in the country of Laos, which he thankfully didn't end up doing. But I just feel like Eisenhower was getting a little more reckless. He had the Dulles brothers who were doing too many shady things in terms of like overthrowing or messing with other governments. It was creating some blowback. You can argue that in some cases that was necessary to check the advance of communism. Certainly their defenders will say that, but I just think the Eisenhower foreign policy got a little reckless. I mean, he was usually the one who would push back on the Dulles brothers when they wanted to be more aggressive, like after the fall of the French fortress that I can't pronounce in Vietnam. You know, they were talking about escalating militarily and Eisenhower was like, no, we're not ready for that. So he was kind of the voice of caution. But when you put all these hotheads around you in your administration, sometimes it's going to be hard to not listen to them at some point. So I would say that Eisenhower is a little overrated at this point, just because I think he ended on a dangerous note that kind of paved the path for the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is what we're finally going to talk about in our next full length episode, which was probably the single most dangerous moment of the Cold War, at least during the the period from the 50s to the 70s. So those are some things I've been reflecting about recently. Yeah,

Erin: 30:24

yeah, that's all really interesting. I love the additional context that all of this has been able to give to these moments and figures in history. Do you have a favorite episode?

Logan: 30:37

I would say that my favorite episodes, and I don't think these are necessarily the public's favorite episodes, because I They aren't the ones that have gotten the most downloads, but I would say 1955 and 1958, because they're both episodes where I didn't have to focus on just a couple of major events. And I was able to like jump around various topics in order to give examples of like a, to give a general feel for daily life and for the national mood at the time. I like to paint that picture when I can and just, take my eyes off, you know, whatever crisis the president is dealing with and getting into like, well, here's, here's what people were, this is when McDonald's started. And this is, you know, people started going to Disneyland and this is when this pop culture trend or this music started. And this is what the writers were saying. And you can kind of get a whole feel for what it felt like to live there. And when I can get away with doing that, sometimes there are so many big things I have to cover. It's hard when I can get away with doing that. I like to do that. I

Erin: 31:44

I think that's a helpful way of kind of grounding things for listeners. I know for me listening, it is helpful to be like, oh, that's around the same time this was happening, and I didn't realize. And so yeah, I do also enjoy when you get a chance to ground us in the moment in history. Yeah, I like that as well. Continue.

Logan: 32:03

I try to flag those years where it's like, oh, Good. Nothing big happened this year. I can catch up with the everyday life stuff and I don't have to cover a giant international crisis. So I look for those opportunities.

Erin: 32:16

Good. Yeah.

Logan: 32:17

Um, there's definitely episodes that I think were stronger than others. Some of the supplementals I think were maybe not as strong as the, uh, the main full length episodes like, uh, the OK Boomer episode. I think we were kind of just trying to comment on a trend, and it was fine for what it was, but maybe it's not the most evergreen content there. But generally, every topic I've done an episode on is something I'm at least interested in, and hopefully it connects with people. But I think the ones I'm most passionate about are where I'm really able to give a broad overview of what was going on in the country not just in the White House or whatever. Yeah,

Erin: 33:02

yeah. And I'm glad you mentioned in the previous question, some of those profiles, because I am glad to have learned about some of these specific figures, in addition to the generalized information about various time periods. So that is one of the delights and many things I have learned about while working on the podcast. So what topics do you think you are most looking forward to covering down the road?

Logan: 33:28

Well, it's interesting. I was excited about covering the late 1940s, particularly like the 1948 election has always fascinated me. And then, you know, the 50s, a little less exciting, but I knew there were some things that I could bring to attention that people maybe didn't know as much about. I think we both enjoyed the election. research went into the Sputnik episode and some of that. But I've kind of been dreading the 1960s, to be honest with you. I just, there's so much like reheated boomer nostalgia for that period. For a time, there were so many movies and TV shows that, oh, the, you know, the rice patties of Vietnam and they're playing the Creedence Clearwater revival music in the background or you know, Woodstock or whatever, like all the Forrest Gump type stereotypes of like the rehashed, this has been done to death. We've heard this a million times. We know the tropes of the tragic troops in Vietnam suffering and then the protests and the peace signs and the banners. And for a lot of people of certain generations, it felt like we're always getting this pushed on us that this was like the most important decade ever. And some of us kind of began to chafe at that a little bit, I guess.

Erin: 34:54

Yeah, it is understandable. I do feel like that has been highly saturated into pop culture.

Logan: 35:01

But I think maybe it's more so for older millennials and Gen X. I feel like maybe younger millennials haven't been as exposed to that, because I think pop culture is moved on a little bit more from the 60s. Of course, there's still stuff coming out about the 60s, but I see more historical things set in the 70s and 80s now than they're used to. And maybe we'll get to the 90s nostalgia movement eventually. True, true. Fingers crossed. But having started working on these episodes, I had to appreciate that the 60s are hugely eventful and important, whether you like it or not. They're much harder to cover than the 50s because there's just so much going on, which is why we've had to break some of these years into two parts. And I know now we've gotten bogged down in the Kennedy miniseries. I

Erin: 35:56

It's easy to have happen. Plenty of information about the Kennedys. t

Logan: 35:58

K And I know some people are probably like another Kennedy episode. Why is he so obsessed with the Kennedys? Because I'm not obsessed with the Kennedys. I want to know why everyone else is obsessed with the Kennedys. Everyone older than me is obsessed with the Kennedys. And the miniseries has been kind of easier to write than some other things because once I started covering like the 1960 election, I went out and got a biography. I founded a used bookstore, a copy of Dalek's biography, which a lot of people think is one of the best that's been written so far about John F. Kennedy. And then I got as a gift a biography of Robert F. Kennedy, somebody who knew I would be covering this era. So that makes it easy for me to just read about their lives and then write about it and do some additional research to make sure I'm bringing in some other sources as well. But what I'm trying to do with those, and if people are sick of them, please write and let me know and maybe we'll stop. But I want to understand the difference between the truth and the myth. I've been trying to kind of take them off the pedestal without doing an unfair hit job. There was one book that came out a couple decades ago, that really finally took like the hot take, because there's been so much pro Kennedy stuff. There was one that's like, actually, the Kennedy's were bad. And I think it was called like the dark side of Camelot. And it talked about all the bad things that Kennedy's did. And of course, there were some bad things. I mean, it talked about, you know, the the lobotomy of, uh, of Rosemary and a lot of issues like that and some of the scandals. So there certainly is some dirt to dig up there, but I don't want to just be, I kind of like try to be human about it in terms of like, yeah, they did some bad things, but I also want you to empathize with JFK's health struggles and things like that. And, uh, They were very privileged, but they also were human and had problems and weaknesses. And I want that to come across and to have that more fleshed out, richer view of them as humans. But there's so much we get even now that does put them on that pedestal. I was literally listening to a song that came out a couple of years ago. just came up on my Spotify by a band that I know is from outside the United States that had some lyric about, oh, the only good politicians that actually can make a difference always get murdered. Just look at what happened to the Kennedys. And it just goes to show, once again, there's that myth that

Erin: 38:35

the Kennedys,

Logan: 38:37

everything, if only they had lived, everything would have been perfect.

Logan and Erin: 38:40

And that's this overly idealized picture.

Erin: 38:44

Yeah.

Logan and Erin: 38:45

Yeah.

Logan: 38:45

And I'm trying to correct that. And even now, there is an election in Massachusetts, primary election just a few years ago, where Joseph Kennedy III, I don't know if he's a grandkid or I don't, I haven't looked at the family tree, but he is one of the direct descendants of the Kennedys. The same with Joseph Kennedy III. He was running in the Democratic primary against Ed Markey. Ed Mackey, as they say in Massachusetts. And Kennedy lost that primary. And this is the first time a Kennedy has ever lost a statewide election in Massachusetts. So I thought maybe the fever is broken. Maybe we're out of love with the Kennedys. We aren't going to necessarily vote for anybody with that last name. But then you have the QAnon stuff of JFK Jr. is still alive. And now you have RFK Jr. being a big public figure. I don't think this guy would be getting the same level of attention if his name was Robert F. Jones or whatever. I mean, he still gets a lot of attention despite the... The whale thing and the brain worm and the thing with the bear.

Erin: 40:04

That name can take you surprisingly far. It's

Logan: 40:07

impressive. And he looks kind of like his father. He has those Kennedy teeth and everything. And I think it just strikes a chord still with the legendary role that they have in our country. Even if I think it wouldn't be too controversial to say that his ideas are... farther out there than his famous ancestor, his dad's ideas were. And he's clearly more of a crank, but still having that name creates so much prestige even now. So we're still dealing with it. So I hope the Kennedy series is relevant. So that's a big part of 60 stuff we've been dealing with. I'm actually really looking forward, though, to being done with that, to talking more about Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society. Lyndon B. Johnson, who was another hugely complicated and flawed figure who's huge talents, a huge ego, huge hubris, and fascinating guy. So I'm looking forward to moving on to the LBJ administration when we get there. And I'm also really looking forward to the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Those are the ones I'm most excited about. And it's ridiculous to even talk about this because will we ever even get there? But if we did, I might stop at like 9-11 or maybe the 2008 financial crisis and election. But yeah, I would like to get at least through part of the 70s and 80s just because I think it's something that I was kind of taught toward the very end of history class. I would, at least in college, I would learn about the 60s. But the 80s were like in the window where I didn't really, wasn't conscious to remember what happened, but It was too recent to be viewed as history. So it took me a long time to actually learn about what Iran-Contra really was. And I think a lot of people don't know and should know. So hopefully we get there.

Erin: 42:03

Yeah, I feel like my knowledge of those periods could definitely be improved as well. What do you know about the audience of the podcast?

Logan: 42:13

I don't know a ton. I know a little bit. I do want to talk about this because... Listening to the early episodes, I think the very first one I talk about, the original premise was kind of this being geared more towards millennials. And I don't know if I still agree with that being the premise. I want to appeal to everybody. And I know of some like Gen X or Boomer friends and family who listen to the show and enjoy it. So I hope it's accessible to all. I guess in terms of talking about younger generations, It more goes in with it being kind of a fresh look that's not assuming a ton of background knowledge. And hopefully I'm still doing that because if I'm not bringing like a fresh perspective, I mean, you could read a book on the Kennedy administration that's 20 years old. And when I bring in things that are a little more contemporary, I think that is kind of a little bit of extra context that we add that hopefully makes us enjoyable to listen to. you know, who is our audience? Well, you all can write in and tell me who you are. I've had some members of the audience reach out. The stereotype is that most history podcasters and their listeners tend to skew male and certainly judging by the ads that appear in some other popular history podcasts, that appears to be the case. They're Definitely are exceptions. There are some really good female history podcasters out there. Look at the Partial Historians podcast on Roman history or the professors who appear on this day in esoteric political history talking about more recent US history. So there are some great female podcasters out there. I'm sure there's a lot of female history podcast listeners. I don't know how it breaks down with us. You know, it can be tough just because the most powerful figures in U.S. history, particularly prior to the 1970s, tend to be white males. So it's kind of difficult to avoid talking about them if you really want to cover things, including the big political stuff. But at the same time, I think like the 10 minute profile episodes are going to continue to try a little bit to be a corrective to that and look at some people, who are of different backgrounds, more marginalized, and show what they were doing and the significant things they were doing and the achievements they had. But yeah, I don't know a lot about, I don't have data on race, sex, gender, nationality, although what I do have from Buzzsprout, our podcast hosting platform, is just the data on where the podcasts are being downloaded.

Erin: 45:01

And

Logan: 45:03

I don't know if this surprises people or not, probably not, that like 80% of our downloads are in North America, vast majority of those in the United States. Outside the US tends to be a lot of Anglophone countries, you know, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, that kind of thing. I think Germany and Mexico are the countries that are not English speaking that we have the most downloads from. In particular, I want to give a shout out to Frankfurt, Germany. Had a lot of downloads in Frankfurt. So danke, Shane. Love you,

Erin: 45:38

Frankfurt.

Logan: 45:40

Yeah, sorry. I shouldn't even try to pronounce German because it's not one of the languages I've studied. I'll butcher it. So please forgive me, Frankfurt.

Erin: 45:49

And many thanks to all of our international listeners and national listeners, of course. So at this stage, I'm curious how you balance the hope of keeping the podcast relevant to contemporary events with having evergreen content.

Logan: 46:07

It's one of the most difficult things I deal with in making the show, I think, because, like I said, I think bringing that current perspective is part of what we bring to the table, but I worry about overdoing it. I mean, you already see that if you go back and listen to even pop culture podcasts from say 2020, you know, they'll be like, oh, this pandemic is crazy, you know? And, you know, so it very much dates it to a particular point in time and reminds you you're listening to an old podcast. So I'm sure we've had asides about like the current pandemic or even,

Erin: 46:44

but

Logan: 46:45

we kind of hinted at, wow, you know, no president would tweet anything crazy. Like, That would never happen except for last week. These little subtweets or little subtle references to current events we try to sneak in that maybe aren't always going to make as much sense if you're listening six years from now. So it's a balancing act. I'm open to suggestions as to how to get it right.

Erin: 47:12

And I guess that's certainly something listeners could share if they like the inclusion of contemporary information or if they prefer to stick to the events at the time in which they happened.

Logan: 47:24

Yeah, there are podcasts where they never mention anything going on in the world and they are more evergreen. But at the same time, I feel like I think that the past looks differently in the context of now. than it did through the context of 30 years ago. And that's one of the things I find most interesting about this. So that's why it's such a tough balance. I did want to add one thing real quick about my perspective. I want to emphasize, and I don't know to what extent I succeed, because I certainly have my own viewpoints. I try to avoid hitting you over the head with my views or telling listeners what to think and being willing to criticize people I might be sympathetic to in terms of their politics or what they were trying to achieve when I think they made mistakes or bad strategy or had personal character flaws. Certainly my own opinions sneak through it at times and I'm human and I don't want to pretend that I don't have a viewpoint. But most of the time I try to lay out the facts and let listeners make their own conclusions. I'm very willing to criticize people everybody and anybody, because I think there's a lot of blame to go around in our current problems. So it's a shame that something like January 6th has become like a partisan issue. I mean, even some polls said Democrats thought the media was giving too much attention to it. And certainly Republicans, there's conspiracy theories about who was behind it. And you can bring up certain events like the COVID pandemic and January 6th have been so politicized. And I really tried to say, hey, this isn't about me taking a side. It's about the fact that when there's a violent insurrection at the Capitol building, it's significant. The study of history of other countries shows that it can be a sign that the country is heading in a more politically unstable direction. But I hope I don't come across as preachy or partisan. Above all, what I'm saying is I hope that people with different beliefs than me can listen to our show and still get useful information. And even if they see that I have a perspective that isn't so blatant that it's driving them nuts.

Erin: 49:40

Yeah, absolutely. So we've got a lot of good information about the podcast itself. I would like to know a few things that your listeners might be interested to know about you. What do you do when you're not podcasting?

Logan: 49:56

Well, I received this question and I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that I don't know that people are really going to be interested in what my hobbies are. Personally, I'm not interested in like what musical instrument Mike Duncan plays or what Dan Carlin's favorite breakfast cereal is. I don't know if I have many hobbies that are all that unique or interesting and I kind of prefer a certain degree of privacy and I don't think the public cares that much. So I'll keep a little bit of an air of mystery about myself. If you really want to know more about me, feel free to write in. Our email is boomertomillennialatoutlook.com. Our Instagram is at boomers to millennials. If you have a question about me or about podcast, maybe I'll respond and tell you my favorite color or whatever you want to know.

Erin: 50:48

You heard it here. Send us questions about what Logan's favorite color might be. So that takes us at long last to our final big question, which is, what does the future of the podcast hold?

Logan: 51:04

Thanks, Erin. Before I answer that, let me throw a question back at you. Is there any episode that stands out to you or any aspect of the podcast that you want to share your opinion about? Do you just want to say anything about what it's been like to work on it? I kind of want to bring in your perspective since you've been involved since the beginning. My

Erin: 51:27

favorite color is green. A little bit about me. Now, in terms of history, It's been really valuable because, although I've always found history quite interesting, American history, U.S. history specifically, is an area in which I feel I have a bit of a gap of knowledge. And I have appreciated the opportunity to fill in some of that gap as I have worked on this podcast. So for me, it really has been about gaining that greater understanding of learning about these specific lesser-known figures. I mentioned some of the supplemental episodes, learning about the tensions of some of these moments in time. I have appreciated getting to know more about the impact of the Kennedys, why they were so famous, and the complexities of them, because they have had such a legendary status. And I wanted to better understand, yeah, why was that? Who were they really? Yeah, it's been definitely a fulfilling project. I've liked being able to work on the technical aspects and feel like my understanding of the past has been improved, which does help shape my understanding of the present. So I think that's the brief answer. So

Logan: 52:50

what does the future of the podcast hold? So I have to figure out what the future will be by deciding what I'm going to say next. OK, on a serious note, hopefully there'll be more interviews. This is kind of a trial run. We'll see how this goes. And I may reach out to some other podcasters and eventually maybe some other authors and whatnot in order to have similar conversations about history and history. and learn from people with a broader expertise than my own. I'm hoping to release episodes more regularly, certainly, than I have in the last couple of years. I don't want to give an exact timeline because I've over-promised once or twice before, and a lot of things are in flux for me personally. But all I will say is the podcasts should be more frequent in the future because I have left a demanding full-time job and I'm moving overseas to teach English part-time, so I'll have a lot more time to spend on the podcast. The downside is I may have less access to sources. So we'll have to kind of work with that. But that's what the future holds. I think we need to kind of try to build our audience back up. I can't really blame anyone who unsubscribed during the lean years, if it had been three or four months since an episode was out. You know, I understand that some people are going to assume that the podcast is essentially dead. They call this phenomenon pod fade podcasts. A lot of people start a podcast and lose interest and there are fewer and fewer episodes and longer and longer between and then eventually they die. But I want to reassure people, once again, that we will tell you if we ever decide to stop. So unless we tell you the podcast is over, please stay subscribed and we will keep you posted of future developments. We're gonna have to look into some different ways of promoting the podcast. There used to be a really good community of history podcasters over on Twitter. Things are different there now. Things are different there now, and I don't spend as much time there. But we continue to use Instagram. You can still email us. We may look into a Facebook page or a new website. I think interviews with guests could potentially help. lead us to more exposure to different audiences who tune in to hear somebody they know and maybe discover us. But at the end of the day, it isn't about having a huge audience. It's about having a loyal audience, one that's big enough to give support and enough people who enjoy it to make it worth doing for me. Because I genuinely do enjoy making these podcasts and sharing them with people. Otherwise, I wouldn't do this. And if you want to help out with how slow things have been, you know, you may want to hold off on a Patreon, although we really appreciate those who have given and continue to give. But you can always, it's painless and doesn't cost you anything to leave a rating or a review or to give a word of mouth recommendation. My deeply Scandinavian nature makes me very reticent about self-promotion in person and telling people, to listen to my podcast in person. So if you can maybe be my hype man a little bit, some people out there and just spread the word a little bit, I'd appreciate it. Do you have anything to add, Erin, about the future of the podcast or any thoughts?

Erin: 56:24

Yes, just much gratitude for those who have stuck around or even those who are just discovering us and who want to give us a chance. So yeah, spread the word. We appreciate it. Reviews, All that good stuff. So thank you so much for listening and being interested in history. Yeah. Anything

Logan: 56:45

else you want to add? Thank you, Erin, for the great questions. We're not going to do our normal outro except for the last sentence we always say, which is thank you for listening.

Erin: 56:56

Thank you for listening. Thank you.

Logan and Erin: 57:08

Bye.