Yves here. Across the globe, nations often engage in flattering myth-making, but the United States may stand out for the extent to which it glosses over its historical truths. This distortion has significant implications for contemporary American society.
By Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst, Institute for New Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website
In his latest work, Challenging the Myths of U.S. History, historian Marc Egnal critically examines the narratives that Americans—on both the right and left—tell themselves.
Egnal asserts that the trajectory of the United States has been influenced more by the economic and territorial ambitions of the elite than by lofty ideals. Racism, he contends, was not merely an unfortunate consequence but a core element of that drive for expansion. He scrutinizes the narratives from both ends of the political spectrum: challenging MAGA’s attempts to sanitize uncomfortable aspects of history while also critiquing the “liberal synthesis”—the common narrative that acknowledges past injustices but still depicts the U.S. as a nation committed to freedom and progress.
In a conversation with Institute for New Economic Thinking’s Lynn Parramore, Egnal delves into how historical patterns underpin the political turmoil, escalating violence, and economic pressures faced by the current Democratic Party.
Lynn Parramore: You argue that America’s development was driven less by abstract ideals like liberty and more by the economic interests of its elite—particularly their pursuit of growth and expansion. How does this challenge the narrative of American exceptionalism?
Marc Egnal: American exceptionalism complements the “liberal synthesis” that is commonly taught in schools. Like many nations, the U.S. has its own myths. These narratives, beginning with John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill,” suggest the country is unique and apart from others. U.S. history, as it’s typically understood, revolves around these myths.
Textbooks promote this perspective by highlighting a few significant documents as the foundation of America’s past. The Declaration of Independence is glorified, and the Gettysburg Address is venerated. These are interconnected to frame the United States as a nation led by high ideals, more so than many others. It is portrayed as the land of the Statue of Liberty.
While this portrayal contains elements of truth, it is ultimately a myth. It does not accurately reflect actual historical events.
LP: You emphasize that historians should base their work on evidence rather than political motivations. How does this principle apply to current discussions about how history is taught in schools, particularly regarding race, inequality, and national identity?
ME: The “liberal synthesis,” which emerged from the 1960s to the 1990s, posits that America has faced various challenges—such as racism, foreign policy issues, inequality, and gender inequality—but that progress has eventually prevailed. We’ve made strides thanks to movements like feminism and the Civil Rights Movement.
LP: So, the arc of the American story bends toward justice.
ME: Precisely. My critique offers a different perspective than MAGA, which resents the acknowledgment of aspects of America like racism and slavery—elements that some Southerners vigorously defended. Their demand to honor Confederate leaders and name military bases after them is a reaction to uncomfortable truths. Historians in professional organizations almost universally reject the MAGA/Trump interpretation as a misrepresentation of history.
However, I also argue that the liberal synthesis is flawed.
LP: Additionally, regarding the Civil War—how does the liberal synthesis frame its causes and the motivations of each side? Where is its analysis lacking?
ME: The liberal synthesis attributes the Civil War’s cause to a single word: slavery. It is mostly depicted as a moral conflict in which the North opposed slavery on ethical grounds, and the South defended it, presenting the war as a result of a basic moral disagreement.
This interpretation is widely accepted among historians, who largely reject the states’ rights argument. While I also dismiss that line of reasoning, the notion that the North went to war solely due to a moral revulsion against slavery does not hold up under scrutiny. Abolitionists were a small minority in the North, and when the war began in April 1861, Lincoln was willing to support a 13th Amendment that would constitutionally protect slavery in states where it already existed.
LP: Moreover, support for slavery wasn’t limited to the South. Many New Yorkers might be surprised to learn that the city’s mayor once supported secession due to the city’s financial ties to the South, particularly through cotton trade.
ME: Absolutely. This is a clear example of economic interests at play.
LP: You highlight that a major goal of the North during the Civil War was to create a robust, federally supported industrial state. Is this mission still influencing our political and economic landscape today?
ME: Definitely. Viewing the Civil War as primarily driven by economic motives rather than a deep commitment to abolishing slavery helps us understand how these priorities still permeate American politics and economics. While emancipation was strategically used during the war, the North was never seriously invested in advocating for Black rights. Despite 90% of free Black Americans residing in the North, most Northern states denied them the right to vote, with exceptions found primarily in parts of New England. This lack of commitment made it easier for the North to withdraw support during Reconstruction.
Racism was intricately linked to the North’s goals of economic and territorial expansion. Even the Constitution was a compromise with slave-holding states from the outset. During and after the Civil War, the North prioritized strengthening its industrial base over ensuring rights for Black Americans.
Following the war, Congress, directed by Northern interests, shifted its focus: federal troops withdrew from the South and were redeployed westward against Native Americans or into cities to suppress labor movements. While the income tax instituted to fund the war—one of the few progressive measures—was eliminated, substantial federal funding for railroads and infrastructure continued. Freed Blacks received virtually no land, while railroads obtained millions of acres.
Many historical accounts from African Americans at the time lamented the stark contrast between their lack of support and the resources allocated to the Union Pacific Railroad—an enduring legacy still resonant in our political and economic systems today.
LP: Are there any parallels between the historical deployment of federal troops to advance elite economic interests and what we are witnessing currently?
ME: The contemporary mobilization of troops in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago is driven by animosity towards specific groups rather than economic growth. There are both continuities and contradictions. During Reconstruction, federal troops protected freed people, while under Trump, federal forces are often deployed against immigrants who have lived in the country for years and are law-abiding taxpayers with American-born children.
LP: Could this animosity towards specific groups ultimately serve the interests of the wealthy today?
ME: That’s an insightful question. It’s worth noting that I view Trump as a departure from the economic paradigms of both Democrats and Republicans that preceded him. For decades, much of the political maneuvering—despite its shortcomings—still aimed at promoting economic growth. However, under Trump, that connection seems to break down.
For instance, his race and immigration policies do not necessarily foster growth. His tariffs have failed to benefit the economy, and his hardline stance on immigration has likely had a detrimental impact. Similarly, the direction of his tax policies does not align with economic interests. Unlike earlier periods where elite interests and economic expansion were closely tied, Trump’s era complicates that relationship.
LP: So, you believe the narrative of American growth and expansion is shifting?
ME: It is indeed changing. I often seek economic motives behind both foreign and domestic policies, and such motives can be found throughout American history. For example, FDR and TR’s actions frequently aligned with promoting economic growth and national influence.
However, under Trump, much of what he does runs counter to those aims. His policy decisions often contradict the very goals that would fortify America economically.
LP: What of initiatives that might harm the broader economy yet benefit a small, privileged group? Some cite cryptocurrency as an example.
ME: It does indeed favor the Trump family and encapsulates the growing rift between what is economically beneficial for the nation and what profits a small, affluent segment of the population.
Consider a conventional company like General Motors. As a Canadian, I can attest that auto parts and vehicles move back and forth across the border several times during production. Trump’s tariffs raise costs of aluminum and steel, disrupting this flow and harming manufacturers on both sides. A recent CNN series featuring small business owners revealed that nearly all were adversely affected by these tariffs—struggling to source materials affordably and grappling with the damage to their profits.
Trump embodies classic populism, garnering significant support from the working class and financially vulnerable Americans through racial and ethnic appeals. Yet his policies tend to harm these very groups while benefiting a small elite—an all-too-familiar aspect of populism.
The Trump family—like Kushner—isn’t just brokering peace deals in the Middle East; they are also safeguarding their own financial interests. This is emblematic of modern populism: wide support from the working class, but material advantages accruing to a select few.
LP: Is this truly a break from U.S. history? Cronyism is hardly new.
ME: Indeed, cronyism has a long history. In the 19th century, tariffs bolstered industrialists like Carnegie and promoted key sectors such as steel and railroads. There were indeed insider advantages.
However, Trump’s approach is distinct in that the beneficiaries are a much narrower group. It’s less about fostering a national industrial base and more about rewarding a close circle of personal allies. The guest list at his inauguration, his inner circle’s access, and those who gain benefits all point to a more insular arrangement rather than a cohesive national economic strategy.
LP: Let’s explore those whom America’s narrative has overlooked. You discuss the Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921—seen as a precursor to Social Security for women and children—which was deemed “socialist” and repealed by 1929. What does this illustrate about the boundaries of social programs in U.S. politics, especially regarding women and families?
ME: The downfall of this welfare measure highlights the strong resistance to federal intervention, particularly following the first Red Scare. Sheppard-Towner, which focused on maternal health, was groundbreaking for its time, yet it incited fears around “big government”—similar to the backlash we observe today, such as that seen during the current government shutdown.
Social programs consistently face opposition. We witnessed this with Truman’s universal healthcare proposal, the Affordable Care Act, and even now with ongoing debates surrounding Medicaid expansion. This resistance often intersects with issues of race and gender.
The divisions are profound and layered, affecting race, gender, and geography. Take the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote: Western states ratified it quickly, whereas many Southern states resisted. Today, many of the same states have yet to expand Medicaid, despite robust federal support.
LP: You assert that white Christian identity lies at the heart of MAGA. Why do you see this as the central element rather than focusing on economic challenges such as job loss or globalization, which others emphasize?
ME: In 2016, Trump distinguished himself not through economic policies but by appealing to voters with pronounced anti-Black and anti-immigrant sentiments. His base thrived on this rhetoric, which elicited stronger enthusiasm than the support for candidates like Cruz or Rubio.
Though economic issues were relevant, they didn’t unify the MAGA base. Many individuals who benefited from Obama’s economic policies were not attracted to Trump based on those grounds.
Instead, his message centered on constructing a wall, banning immigrants, and employing incendiary language. As we approach 2024, economic concerns may serve as the frosting on the cake, especially following inflation under Biden—an appealing narrative. By proposing straightforward solutions—cutting taxes, raising tariffs, and expelling immigrants—he has connected with individuals facing economic hardship. However, the failure of these policies may erode support from independent voters.
In contrast, Democrats have neglected to address the economic concerns shared by these individuals.
LP: Trump’s support among Black voters nearly doubled from 2016 to 2024. One survey indicated that 1 in 4 Black men under 50 supported him, with 9% of Obama voters switching allegiances. How do you account for this?
ME: The reasons are multifaceted, but a key factor is that Democrats have drifted away from working-class voters, including Black and Hispanic men. I recall an impactful interview I heard during the 2024 campaign featuring a Las Vegas hotel worker, who said, “What do Democrats offer me? I can’t afford groceries or a home, and I see no solutions.”
Even if Trump’s policies don’t hold water, he speaks to their economic distress—something Democrats have failed to address. For the first time, a majority of Hispanic men voted Republican, and more Black men made the switch, motivated by economic concerns.
LP: Why haven’t Democratic leaders engaged with these economic issues?
ME: Democrats have been stepping away from unions and working-class concerns since 1972. That year’s convention prioritized race and gender quotas but overlooked labor issues. Figures like Carter and Clinton ushered the party toward elitism. Today, it’s primarily a party of the affluent third—mostly college-educated individuals who often struggle to relate to working-class experiences. As Bernie Sanders aptly put it: “No wonder the working class abandoned us—we abandoned them.”
LP: There appears to be substantial public backing for Sanders-style economic principles, echoed in support for NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani’s affordability message. There’s also growing interest in Ezra Klein’s “abundance agenda,” which emphasizes economic growth and expanding opportunities for the middle class rather than solely focusing on affordability. How do you perceive these two Democratic strategies?
ME: I appreciate listening to Ezra Klein; however, his abundance agenda mainly resonates with middle and upper-middle-class Democrats. While it encourages them to shift away from NIMBYism and to facilitate the development of infrastructure and housing—worthy goals—it fails to address the deeper inequalities affecting society. The primary issues remain: escalating inequality, persistent racism in education and healthcare, and tax breaks for the wealthy. We require more than infrastructure projects to resolve these challenges.
LP: Are the affordability and abundance strategies mutually exclusive?
ME: Not necessarily, but affordability tackles the more fundamental issues. To regain the trust of working-class voters, Democrats must prioritize these concerns. Middle and upper-class progressives, like Ezra Klein, may be hesitant to challenge the wealthy, whereas progressives like Mamdani, who advocate for taxing billionaires, are willing to do so. It’s disappointing that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are not more supportive of Mamdani’s efforts, despite his broad appeal and potential to expand the Democratic electorate. I commend the emphasis these congressional leaders place on Medicare and Medicaid during this government shutdown; it’s a vital yet tentative first step.
LP: What might a more assertive approach look like?
ME: It would necessitate a united front behind issues of housing, healthcare, and other affordability topics that resonate with 90% of the American populace. Democrats must not be satisfied with a platform that solely states, “We are not Trump.” Notably, the U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any wealthy nation, yet yields poor outcomes.
LP: What are your thoughts on Trump’s current focus on drug pricing, such as the “most favored nation” rule and the TrumpX website? This message seems to resonate with many.
ME: Much of it is just talk. He made similar promises back in 2016 but never followed through. Politicians’ populist rhetoric often fades quickly.
LP: Do you think that downplaying the roles of economic power and wealth has obscured our understanding of how politics functions?
ME: Certainly. This tendency leads many historians to embrace an overly optimistic view of inevitable progress that neglects existing inequalities. While I strive to maintain optimism, such perspectives often overlook the current realities.
LP: There’s undoubtedly an emotional component to these myths—people want to take pride in their country and feel defensive when confronted with harsh truths. How do you address that?
ME: The U.S. has a proud tradition of resistance, shown by movements advocating for abolition, civil rights, feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, labor rights—all of which have achieved significant victories, though those gains are constantly under threat.
Oppressive structures and resistance exist in tandem. We continue to live in a racially biased society, rife with sexism. The toxic content proliferating on platforms like X and 4chan illustrates this reality.
Yet, we should not allow discouragement to stop our fight for progress. One perspective on American history—though one I could explore in a different work—would center on the long-standing struggles individuals have waged to improve conditions. In my analysis, one can witness the powerful forces that maintain oppressive structures. However, I remain optimistic because we have seen significant protests and movements. People have accomplished extraordinary feats. Coalitions have made strides toward inclusivity, providing a glimmer of hope.
That said, I’m keenly aware of the challenges in maintaining those victories and the depth of the entrenched opposition.
LP: Indeed. We must never take these victories for granted.
ME: Absolutely.
