Plus, what she makes of the criticism about her highly coveted Harris-Walz interview.
It’s a tale that might sound familiar: Two parties locked in a bitter electoral battle, leading to an attempted coup and devastating violence. While that could be a description of the deadly insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, it also applies to another real-life political drama from over a century and a half ago, which gets an in-depth examination in a new book from CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash.
America’s Deadliest Election centers on Louisiana’s 1872 gubernatorial race. Both political parties complained of corruption at the time, and the two candidates for the governor’s mansion both refused to concede. The conflict culminated in what’s known today as the Colfax Massacre, when an armed group of white supremacists attacked a local courthouse and killed more than 150 Black soldiers who stood in their way.
While the fallout is often glossed over in history books, Bash explores how it had much broader ramifications by ushering in Jim Crow in the South. The veteran journalist says she was only aware of this contentious election after NewsNation host Dan Abrams brought it to her attention, and she hopes her recounting of the conflict will raise awareness around an issue that remains “under-covered and under-taught” period in American history.
Bash has had her own rollercoaster election year in 2024, having been at the center of not one but two history-making events. First, she was a co-moderator of June’s presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, which led the commander-in-chief to end his campaign. Then, last month, she landed a highly coveted interview with Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz , Harris’ first sit-down after becoming the Democratic presidential nominee.
We caught up with Bash to talk about her book, what she learned from working on it, and what she makes of the reaction to her long-awaited sit-down with Harris and Walz.
Katie Couric Media: First, I want to discuss your new book, which centers on Louisiana’s 1872 election. Why did you choose to focus on this specific event?
Dana Bash: My co-author, David Fisher, approached me. He had written many books with Dan Abrams, and Dan Abrams contacted me. I believe that it was actually his idea. He was like, “This is your book—you should do this with David Fisher.”
I have never been a part of a book. I’ve thought about a lot of different books that I would want to write, but I hadn’t landed on anything. And I thought, “Okay, to collaborate with a veteran author and writer who knows what he’s doing, I’m in.” He’s just delightful. So while I was covering politics and doing my daily and Sunday shows, he was doing the research.
One of the core takeaways from this book is you have to learn from history. If you don’t learn from history, especially the bad things in history, you will repeat it. People think, “Oh my gosh, this never happened before” about 2020, particularly Jan. 6. And yes, the election of 1872 was statewide; it wasn’t federal, but there was violence in the streets and a coup attempt. There wasn’t just rancor, but absolute pandemonium over elections. In the unimaginable Colfax massacre, 150 men were absolutely murdered in cold blood when they were trying to protest their votes not being counted. This led to the Supreme Court decision that allowed Jim Crow to be ushered in the South.
Despite all of the violence, why weren’t these loopholes surrounding our electoral system fixed?
The lesson wasn’t really to fix the system: the lesson was to get through it and hope that our better angels deal with future elections in a more moral way. But there was an active debate about the vice president’s role and power in certifying the election results. At the time, it was decided that the vice president’s role was ceremonial.
It seems as though the precedent was there. I actually want to reach out to Mike Pence’s office. I didn’t even think of this until I was having this discussion with you. I wonder if this was one of the points in history that his attorneys found when they decided that he only has a ceremonial role, just like they decided back in 1876.
There seem to be some eerie parallels between this election and today’s polarized landscape, especially with certain larger-than-life figures, like Louisiana Governor Henry Clay Warmoth.
The newspapers were so partisan, and if you bought a certain newspaper, you knew exactly what position you were getting. It was like Fox and MSNBC on steroids.
For instance, take Warmoth — the way that he was described by newspapers that supported him was like he could walk on water, even though they knew that he had a lot of foibles. Frankly, in his case, he was just full-on corrupt, and he was a power grabber, but they still loved him. On the other hand, the newspapers that did not like him described him with the same passion.
History doesn’t just repeat itself with events. There are characters and figures in American history who are sometimes larger than life. We’re seeing an example of that currently, and it has happened before.
Speaking of contentious elections, your recent interview with Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, has been getting a lot of attention. What do you make of the reaction?
Welcome to 2024: The ecosystems where people, especially young people, get their information online are siloed. It’s a feedback loop: If you’re a Democrat and don’t think that Kamala Harris should be pushed on any issue, then you’re going to think that I was way too hard on her, which I have seen.
If you are conservative or even an ultraconservative, then you are going to say that I was way too soft on her, that I didn’t ask her tough enough questions, which I have seen. The way I take that as a journalist is not that everybody said I did a terrible job — it’s that if both sides are really mad at me, then I probably was where I need to be, which is somewhere in the middle.
Your interview brought up a question I often ask myself as a journalist: How do you go about getting a genuine reaction as opposed to just repeating talking points, particularly when it comes to ones from Republicans?
This particular interview was foundational because [Harris] had done no interviews, and this is such an unusual time because she was shot out of a cannon to be at the top of the ticket so late in the election cycle. I really wanted to do big issues to voters in the states who want to know where she stands on issues like abortion.
Just take fracking, for example: I saw people saying, “Why is she asking about fracking?” But that issue could decide the fate of Pennsylvania, which she needs to win, and her campaign knows that. I think her being able to explain why she has changed positions and where her position is now for voters in Pennsylvania is really important. Questions about the economy are front and center — not just about the economy, but also about how she’s going to really make things more affordable for people.
The only “Trump said this, what’s your reaction?” type question was on race. She has talked around what he has said about questioning her race, which was so incredibly unbelievable. But she hasn’t been asked about it, so because of the historic nature of her candidacy, I thought that’s one thing I will ask. And I actually think that her short, dismissive response spoke volumes, and it’s probably going to drive him more crazy than her actually responding to him.
It seems very much in line with her strategy when it comes to Trump.
If you go back to the beginning of Trump’s political career, you saw his rivals fall one by one in the Republican primaries in 2016 trying to beat him at his own game, and you can’t. President Biden tried the same thing, but it didn’t really work. Harris is trying a different tactic, particularly on the issue of questioning her race, which I can’t imagine being anything but a huge liability for Donald Trump.
While it’s impossible to predict what will happen between now and Election Day, what are you keeping an eye on?
In 2022, everybody underestimated the power of reproductive rights as an issue and how it was going to really blunt the Republican “red wave.” I’m looking at whether or not that issue is as potent as it was then. If you look at the way Donald Trump is sort of fumbling around on the issue, that suggests he thinks it is going to be big because he can’t figure out how to talk about it or what position to take, like on Florida’s referendum. And that’s a tell-tale sign that Republicans, not just Trump, are worried about it.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
