You are to ask why writing about liberty at this point but i want to get to a short piece of the book. You write the need for telling the story now is what i see around me this is the most confused historical time i have lived in with a haggard establishment, and Americas National ebola what else are you saying here . Guest i am just trying to direct our attention away, for a moment, from the political mania 363 has surrounded us for days this year so far and counting. We have two more to go. Wednesday we start all over again. I want to dig a break from that id have us look at 400 flash want to take a break from that and have us look at 400 years with the engagement of the idea of liberty. My argument is that is the essence of america, our nationalism. It is the exceptional american ideal. It is something americans have been talking about, writing about, fighting for 44 centuries. For book takes fighting four four centuries. All lay down principles that affect us and liberate us today, and i want us to be proud of that. I want us to think about it. I want us to be inspired by and so that we continue to maintain it. Richard brookhiser will be with us for 55 more minutes. He is in new york and will take calls in just a few minutes. Republicans can call host you mentioned the 13 documents you review to tell this story about liberty. We will show those we wanted you to pick and choose a few of those. And why you decided to choose them. You began with the jamestown papers. You begin with the jamestown papers. Talk about these documents if you can. The 13let me go through the first is the minutes of the first meeting of the General Assembly of jamestown in 1619. That establishes the principle of selfrule in british north america. The second is the flushing remonstrance, 1647. Villagers in the town of flushing rebuking director general peter stuyvesant, the governor of new amsterdam. Forbade quakers. Not obey you. Ill we want to do under all men as we would have men do want to us. 17 30 5 1735 the minutes of the trial of john peters anger in new york, a journalist tried for the crime of seditious libel. His lawyer got the jury to acquit him even though it was jerry nullification jury nullification. This established freedom of the press in britains American College colonies. The decoration of independence, the National Birth certificate. 1785, the minutes of the new york ammunition society. , aroup found in new york slave state in order to put the state on the road to abolition. This was to close one of the gaps in americas pursuit of liberty the most serious 1 the existence of channel slavery. It would take a civil war to end it. Some of the steps begin in new york in 1785. 1787 the constitution, written in that year ratified the following year. 1823, the Monroe Doctrine. This is a Foreign Policy document. It also has a political and ideological component. We were not only telling european powers they could not colonize further in the new world we were telling them they couldnt establish their political systems in the new world. No more kings in the western hemisphere. That is what president james monroe with telling congress and the world. The declaration of sentiments of the seneca falls womens rights convention. This was a call for womens rights, including the right to vote, which would not become a constitutional amendment for another three quarters of a century, but the call for it begins in 1848. , Franklin Roosevelt text firesidet chat. Firesiden roosevelts chat. This is 1948 year before we enter world war ii. Last one, 10 my down the wall speech in berlin says a commitment to liberty there he says a commitment to liberty requires us to tell the soviet union it cannot be a permanent landmark, scar on the face of central europe, that berlin and all of central and Eastern Europe will ultimately have to be free. Those are the 13 documents. There could be another set. The gettysburg address and the constitution to be in anyones list of 13 american liberty documents, but you can have other ones also. Cu could be a b team or a team i am not saying they are junior varsity, less important. These are the 13 i picked to tell the story of liberty in American History for 400 years. Those 400 years, when you look at those documents and as we enter the year 2020, what do those documents say to this country right now its citizens, elected officials, about how to conduct ourselves, our business . Guest two it says two things. It says look at our past, the men and women over 400 years some of them famous, some of them quite ordinary. Some of them, all we know is they were there at the time when we signed or ignore step endorsed those documents. Americans have stood up for the principle of liberty and have made it real in our national life. Thisecond thing it says is is great but we have to keep doing it. It is not something that automatically replicates itself. It is not a perpetual motion machine. It is in our natural character. It is good that it is. It is certainly can be proud of and something that can encourage us. In every generation who have to be aware of it and we have to continue to work for it. That is the method i hope people would take from this book. Host we do have calls coming in. Florida,rt st. Lucie, independent color. You are on the air with mr. Brookhiser, author of give me liberty. Caller good morning. I think the average american citizen has no idea of the power and wealth that is possessed by the aesthetic community. Hasidic community, your previous caller spoke about the schools was 100 percent correct. Whichewood, new jersey, is home to the largest, i believe, in the world, they decimated the Public School system. If you want to see real power you have to look to the pardoning by president clinton of muggeridge and pincus green. The average person cannot have any idea. Do i believe in just murdering these people . Absolutely not. Been ahat might have caller hanging on from a last segment. It sounded like it, and not a very intelligent one either. Host anything you want to say about what he had to say . Guest well, he could read chapter two of the book, the flushing remonstrance, 1657, almost 400 years ago. There were 30 men in flushing, a Little Village outside of what was then new amsterdam, and they were told by their governor, who they had no power over, there was nothing elected about him or around them around him. They were told no quakers in my colony. Anyone who host them in my home, that is a crime. They sent him a remonstrance an official town protest saying we cannot obey this directive because all religion teaches us not to. They were not quakers sticking up for themselves. Who pute ordinary men their names to a document that said our faith would have us do on two all men as we would have. Hem do unto us it is a milestone in americas religious history. I would want the last caller, everyone listening to this comment to be aware of this document and the moment. Six of them could not sign their own names. They made their marks on the letter to the director general, but they lay down a marker. Going to we are not obey you on this because our faith tells us not to. That is the beginning of a principle we continue to enjoy and we ought to remember these brave men, honor them for that for it. Host j. Independent caller for Richard Brookhiser. Caller two are for taking my call. You do, of course, recognize that all those documents do revert to connecting the human belief that ishe in an environment of domestic intouility that we advance the infinite capacity of Natural Science knowledge, but while Ronald Reagan was making that hadch in germany, he already initiated an Economic System in this country that was social darwinian in nature, and we are now at a point where the levels of animalistic competition in our society are so extreme that they almost reached a level of a flood of greed, jealousy, fear and anger, and i am not sure that can be stopped with all do i am just so distressed about it. Thank you. Mr. Brookhiser . 11, theook at chapter cross of gold speech. Given to winpeech the democratic president ial nomination in 1896. He was hoping to stampede the convention in his favor. He succeeded. This was a 20minute speech followed by a 30minute ovation. People who were in the hall after he finished they said the applause, they compared the noise to artillery or niagara falls. It is known as the cross of gold speech because his final line is you will not press down on the labor, this crown of thorns, crucify america on the cross of gold. The big issue is whether america should be on a Gold Standard or a free coinage of silver standard. He was sticking up for the letter, but he said the best paragraph in the speech was not the closer, the line that gives the speech its name, which he had used in speeches before, but he said the best paragraph was when he had written the night before specially for the occasion. The reason i put the speech in the book it is the opening sentence of that graph and it gets your attention. He is speaking to his rivals, enemies. He says you have defined businessman to narrowly. The man who works for wages who is as much a businessman as the man who pays him his wages. That is a principle and a point we always have to keep in mind. In our Economic System there are people who win a lot, people who win a very little, people who walked out. There are people who are born with advantages, people who are not. There are people who havent made, people that have to make it all. Have it made, people that have to make it all. They are all equal participants. This because bill gates, Saoirse Ronan are multimillionaires, sergei brin are multimillionaires, it does not make them more worthy of honor than the people who work for them with the people who temporarily are not working at all. The man who earns wages is as much a businessman as the man who pays him his wages William Jennings bryan, 1896. Host , mr. Brookhiser economic equality, that has been a topic in the democratic president ial debate to a certain extent. It makes me want to ask you about this years cycle. What your observations and the way we are doing politics in 20192020 . Guest i gave up predicting. We hadot see the result four years ago, three years ago 2016. I am not going to give you any predictions now. Interesting times. I will say people are wringing their hands and saying politics itself, which it is. I hear people saying we are in a cold civil war. About. That term bandied that distresses me because we had a real civil war in this country and 750,000 men were killed. We used to think it was 620,000, but the figure was up a few years ago. I met the historian who raised it. He is a demographic historian, and he did it by looking at census returns. He said we are missing 130,000 men. He realized that 130,000 more men had been killed in the real civil and we previously thought. When people say we are in a civil war now it shows a lack interest in history, knowledge of history. I am old enough to remember 1968. That was much worse than now. You had Martin Luther king jr. Assassinated, Robert Kennedy assassinated, riots in american cities. He had a terrible war that seemed to be going nowhere. You had a ride in the a right at the democratic convention. That was much shakier than anything we are having now. I wish people would get off their social devices, maybe even turn off cspan sorry, paul, for recommending this. Down, chill out not chill out. That back. I am not trying to turn you into californians. Dont be so frantic, despairing, so unreasonably excited by all the excitement and madness you, because it has been worse in American History, in my lifetime. , authorchard brookhiser of the book give me liberty a history of americas exceptional idea. Walk through the book and other issues. John. Independent caller. Guest national and caller you forgot the preamble to the bill of rights. Guest it is in there. The declaration of independence. The preamble to the declaration of independence. Chapter four. Caller my question is the Federal Reserve determines how and wealth i have and they are not even elected. They have so much power much mon my pocket. Host thank you for calling. Lets hear from brian. Somerville, pennsylvania. Republican. Good morning. Caller good morning, gentlemen. I have a copy of the patriot act in my library. I have not looked at it for several years. I seem to remember when i got the copy of it most of it was redacted. I am wondering what your guest thinks about the patriot act, how in my opinion it opened in a row of unsurpassed surveillance ip ofthe private citizensh our country nsa, monitoring phone calls. You mentioned about the civil war and comparing it with modernday stuff, and you mentioned 1968. I would like your opinion on the attacks nonreligious in this country on religious in this country. It seems to be on the uptake. I will hang up, thinking, and listen to your response. Host the people being attacked i caught the guest the people being attacked lastcaught the end of the muncie, sydni was before that, and of course this is terrible, awful. 1968 was worse, im not trying to say bad things that happen now are not bad. Goes, as the patriot act in wartime in times of war, rights get clipped. Passed. Laws get is rate of habeas corpus suspended. Yes, that is in the american record. That is something that always has to be washed. Watched. Lincoln himself compared it to a man taking medics during the disease. When the disease is over when the man continued to take them because he likes them . Of course not. We will stop it once the disease , but it is something that always has to be watched. The comparison is a very good one. It is ludicrous, painful. It is something we dont like. Happenedhor for what is very on point. Yes, this is something that has happened and something we have to be mindful of. Host we have a little bit more than a half hour left with Richard Brookhiser who is in new york. Dont talk about the connection between liberty and nationalism. I will read again from the book. Nationalism is a given in human society. Host tell us why you write about nationalism . All theationalism is rage. Everyone is talking about it sometimes in worried tones, sometimes in excellent reason. The Trump Presidency is thought up anderms of an nationalism. There are maligned examples of it all around the world. Im not going to spin the globe, but just think about it well, let me take one example burma, myanmar and the expulsion of the rohingya by a nobel prize she turns out to be a genocidal monster. Nationalism is out there and can take bad forms. My argument in this book is that the essence of Americas Nationalism, what makes it distinct from other nationalism, our neighbors nationalism, is our concern with liberty. This is something we have had before we were a country. Three of the four instances that i cover were before american independence. Let me just tell a story that. Nds the book this involves a meeting that Ulysses Grant had after he was president. He left office after two terms in 1877. Then he took a tour of the world. Reporter of the New York Herald accompanied him and wrote up the things he saw, said, and did. He met the chance to the chancellor. He had Ulysses Grant, who crushed a rebellion in the Worlds Largest republic, and bismarck, who had created a new a new german nation. They have a little chat in berlin. Grant calls on bismark. Bismarck knows english. And, they do not have a lot to say to each other because they have never met before. So they talk about current events, they talk about people that they know in common. Then bismarck says, a terrible thing about your civil war is you are fighting your own people. That is always the worst thing to do. Grant said, yes, but it had to be done. Bismarck said, of course, to save the union. Grant said, to save the union and to end slavery. Bismarck said, but of course saving the union was the main thing. Grant replied, we thought so at first. But as soon as the flag was fired upon, we realized the union could not be saved without ending slavery. That men and women could no longer be bought and sold like cattle. Then bismarck says, it was a great victory and im sure it will be a great peace. Here you have these two figures, and it is almost like a railyard or a subway yard where you have two train tracks going along together, then they are starting to split. Bismarck is saying what nationalism means is unity. What grant is telling him, american nationalism means unity, but it also had to mean ending slavery, because it also means liberty. We finally realized it. We had to make this right, we had to rectify this. It cost 750,000 lives, but it had to be done. That is an important moment. That is the one i chose to end this book on. I think it is food for thought. Host next call. It is ed. Independent caller. Thank you for waiting period thank you for waiting. Go ahead, please. Caller i would like to ask mr. Brookhiser, according to me, history is according to the man that writes it. Is that true . Guest well, yes, the short answer is yes. But, you know, if you write something that is so offthewall that no one will believe it, then the answer is no. Your account has to match what your readers know. What your readers may know to be true. Of course, that leaves a lot of wiggle room. People know a lot that isnt so and writers can confirm them in their mistaken notions. But over time, you have to stick to the record. You are not the only one writing. There are going to be other people coming along, theyre going to be looking at your judgments, theyre going to be correcting your judgments. History is always being modified. We hope it is always being made more clear, better understood. It is a process. We write about dead people, they are not going to do anything new anymore. In a way they do, because we understand them better later. We learn more things about them. We discover more about their motives, or their blind spots. So, i am talking about what i do, what my books are about. That process is, it is a restless one. We have to do our best and try to get it as true as we can. Host ed, was there a person or episode that led you to ask that question . Ed, are you still with us . Caller he was talking about new amsterdam. These people, the guy in charge didnt want to let the quakers in. My little bit of history, which i liked in school, the pilgrims allowed no other religion except their religion. Am i correct or am i incorrect . Guest well, the puritans, not the pilgrims. The pilgrims come in 1620, and then the puritans, the great migration is 10 years later. It is the puritans who end up setting the tone of the Massachusetts Bay colony. They could be very harsh on people who were not puritans. Particularly quakers. If you were a quaker, they expelled you. If you came back, they hanged you. They did hang four men and women in the 17th century. There is that blood on their hands. I am trying to focus on the positive story of people being aware of liberty and trying to achieve it. Peter syverson, the man who said no more quakers, it wasnt just quakers he disliked. He also tried to crack down on lutherans and jews. He got his chain yanked when he did that by his employers. He worked for a thing called the Dutch West Indies company, which literally owned new amsterdam. They had directors and investors who were jews and lutheran. When syverson is leaning on those two religions, he gets word from his bosses in holland, cut it out. He probably thought he could get away with this when the victims were quakers, because quakers were a new religion. There were a countercultural religion. Quakers did things like, they would not take their hat off in the presence of their social superiors. They let women preach as well as men. That seemed very shocking in the 17th century. Quakers were very out there and stuyvesants dislike of them was not peculiar to himself. He had, ultimately thanks to the resistance of people like the men of flushing, he had to back off from quakers. Host moving on. Democratic caller. Caller the title of your book, give me liberty a history of americas exceptional idea, in light of todays political climate, the rhetoric, in particular im talking about the Monroe Doctrine. The fact that in america we do not want the foreign way of governing to infiltrate into the new america. Now, i am concerned about our democracy and our republic with the person we have, currently have in the white house. It seems to me, that we are heading for an autocracy, kingship. Please, may i have your response, thank you. Host thank you for calling. Before you respond, in general what you think of president , trump and how he is running his office . Guest im not going to answer that question and i will tell you why. It is related to a question i have gotten a lot. What document would you pick after 1987 . Ronald reagans tear down the wall speech. 1987 is a while ago. What would you pick after that . And i say, i deliberately stop it 1987. I do not want anybody to not read this book, to not think about this issue, because of a current political controversy that i might inadvertently offend them. These are principles that all americans, republican callers, democratic callers, independent callers, all americans should be mindful of these episodes and these documents. These instances in our past, and the importance of liberty to the history of this country. I want to direct their attention to that. You know, you can go back to the 24 7 politics we have had in 363 days this year. And take it up again after the segment ends in a few minutes. But i want to get peopless attention for a moment and directed to something bigger and i would say more important. Host what about the last callers concern about the Monroe Doctrine . Guest also be fear of autocracy. Fortunately, we can vote and we can vote in meaningful elections. It is not like russia. Right . Well, turkey just had a meaningful election. It was kind of surprising. The wouldbe dictator there got rebuked, his party lost the race for the mayor of istanbul. That is a problem for dictators is that they let elections keep going, sometimes they will lose them. China is seeing this in hong kong also. Recently. But yes, if they are problems out there, do something about it. You can. You can organize, you can donate money to candidates. You can vote for them in caucuses and primaries. And in elections. We have these freedoms and these opportunities and they were won for us by americans going back centuries. Host just under 20 minutes left with our guest. Jeff an independent caller from logan, utah. Caller i appreciate your time. I have a quote, liberty is not a perpetual motion machine. It has to be maintained, it has to be understood, and to be upheld and the more i have listened, the more curious i have become. You have been answering my questions, all the ones i have had as i have been listening so my only question now is, because you both have done such a good job, is if you would expound upon, he mentioned things people could do, he said it stopped after reagan. What can we do to maintain liberty and uphold it . Guest think about it first. Think about it, understand it. Understand what we have, how we got it. Understand why we have it. Let me take up one point. Liberty is not some thing we create. That is part of the american understanding of it. It is not something that Thomas Jefferson dreamed up and slipped into the decoration of independence. It is not something that the Continental Congress voted on and the majority of them liked it so therefore we had it. Our understanding of liberty is that it is something that people have because we are people. Because we are men and women, therefore we have it. We are entitled to it. The source of liberty is extrahuman. It goes beyond people, beyond the decisions of people. Jeffersons words were of the laws of nature and natures god. Thats a pretty broad definition of the source. You can be an atheist and sign off on that. Jefferson was not an atheist. He was not an Orthodox Christian either. But certainly, he was a theist of some sort. The point is, liberty is ours because it is our nature. It is not something that is given to us by some other people. Or even by our own choice. It is something that we are entitled to because of who we are. Because we are men and women. And that is why it is worth fighting for. That is why its worth trying to achieve, and trying to maintain. And anyone who comes along and says, well, because of the course of history or because of the decisions of popular will or because i am smarter than you are and i figured things out better than you have, therefore i can take your liberty way, that person is telling you a lie. Do not listen to that person. Youre entitled to liberty because you are you. Because you are who you are. Host Richard Brookhiser is in new york city, Senior Editor at the national review. He has freelanced for several magazines, including the new yorker, cosmopolitan, and vanity fair, and is author of this book called, give me liberty. We have been working our way through the documents over 400 years of history that mr. Brookhiser has put into his book. You mentioned you can do a b list and c list, idealist and a list of documents. Is there another document not in this book you would like to turn our attention to is a think about the country right now . Guest the mayflower compact, 1620, a year are after jamestown. Obviously very important. The pilgrims were trying to get to virginia, by the way. That was their destination, but they ended up in what we now call massachusetts. So they were originally part of the same project. The federalist papers. George washingtons letter to the hebrew congregation at newport. This is, washington made a trip to rhode island. And in newport, among other places, he was greeted by a Jewish Synagogue that existed there. And they sent him a letter congratulating him. On being president and thanking him for religious toleration. Thanking him in america for religious toleration. He wrote them back and responded graciously to their letter. He said, we do not have toleration in this country because toleration implies one who tolerates. He says, it is not toleration that we have, we have a recognition of the exercise of mens rights. That was the point i was making earlier. It is not something that one person gives you another, it is something that people have by definition, by virtue of who they are. That is an important one. Frederick douglasss speech, what is the fourth of july to a slave . Martin luther kings i have a dream speech. Ones that weer could pick. Bige i will write another another book. The line from california, a republican. Caller thank you so much. First of all, i qualified my statement by saying i am ignorant of your writing and i would love to get a hold of a copy of your book. I have a few comments if you do not mind regarding your next book. What i am thinking you might consider if you had not considered this already in your current book the trail of tears that Andrew Jackson came up with and changed americas flight forever. The mexican war and a spanishamerican war at all these wars of attrition, manifest destiny for the United States, all of these things took away someones rights and gave rights to somebody else. Behrens ofthe robin the 1900s and the spanishamerican war, we colonial eyes. There are so many things that related to liberty and the taking of liberty of other peoples property that we have done in this country. I would hope you would broach those in your next book. Thank you so much for what you do. It is really important. Host what do you think . Guest i do address this point in give me liberty. We are human. The heart of man is wicked. Shortfalls,een there have been contradictions. The worst is slavery. Although, the treatment of native americans is i would say a close second. Some of the colors examples, i have to take issue with. Was theishamerican war primary cause of it was revulsion at spains treatment of its colony, cuba. The cubans were fighting for their liberty against spain. They had been engaged in a rebellion. An american battleship blew up in havana harbor. We thought the spaniards had done it. Apparently, it was an accidental explosion on the ship itself. This plunged us into war. Up acquiringd cuba. There was an amendment which specifically congress forbade the United States from acquiring cuba after the war. We did acquire the philippines, but we freed the philippines after world war ii. Not hold up the spanishamerican war as an example of restricting liberties. I would not hold up the mexican war as an example either. Ultimately, the territories that we took from mexico as a result of thati would not hold up the n war ended up being more free than they had been before. It is a complicated history, mexico had gotten rid of slavery before we had, there was a step back. Arizona andle in new mexico and california are better off than their neighbors south of the border. Some of theble with colors instances there. Host jim is in ohio, republican caller. Caller thank you so much. Much for writing this book. I have seen you on cspan before king about it and a ride and i read a review in the wall street journal. Yesterday, i was going to buy this book, i was not able to. I am going to. Guest please do. Caller i do have a question. One of the things about the declaration of independence, in most coverage of that, they never mentioned the fact that in jeffersons first draft he the third about slavery, he spoke about the evil of slavery. Do you mention that in your book . Guest yes. Fact aboutellknown the drafting of the declaration, ferson had a long passage this is part of his indictment of britain and george the third. He said to the king has prostituted his negative by refusing to ban the slave trade. That is a complicated sentence, but what he is saying is that virginia had asked as a colony that the slave trade be ended and britain had refused to do that. This got stuck out of the declaration, partly because some of the colonies, georgia and south carolina, were still engaged in the slave trade. ,here may have been a feeling this is getting close to the bone, britain was maintaining the slave trade, but weaver willing buyers we were willing buyers. Are we risking the charge of hypocrisy by highlighting this in our declaration of independence . Enemies who made this charge. Samuel johnson, the english , sat in 1775, how is it libertyest yelps for are heard from the drivers of negros . S drivers of that stunned and it should have us done. It took us a long time to rectify that. Jefferson intended to attack the slave trade, his colleagues in the Congress Took that out. Host we have time for a couple more calls. Here is a text from one of you are. Is there a place where your liberty and because mine begins . What you think about people who discriminate against gay americans, claiming religious freedom . Well, in what way are they impinging on the freedom of gay americans . That is the question that has to be answered. Jeremy and wisconsin, independent caller. Caller is a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you for cspan. Took a question, which i appreciated, and your answer. Just a statement before a second. Read, when we hear sounds, we take and learn significance. I understand, it seems to up here your chance to deal with american documents, american writings i am looking at your title and thinking about what it is you are trying to say. Why not talk about Ornette Coleman . Isorry, but your title appreciate your time. Good point. Is a why cant this be approached artistically . Documents which are political. There is a poem there, the new , it has is a sonnet been attached to the pedestal of the statue of liberty. That is an art piece. But yes, go to americas commitment to liberty looked at do the work of american artists . Yes it good. Yes it could. That would be on way to slice it. Host john from illinois. Good morning. Caller good morning. You mentioned the tolerance a while ago. I am all for nationalist service. I amd tolerance still learning tolerance. Believer what is your opinion of National Service . , everybodyn america in the galaxy, have a happy new year. Guest i endorse the wish for a happy new year. National service, this gets us into a pragmatic question. It is also an issue of liberty. I tend to be skeptical of it. We can have a draft during wartime because that is a special occasion. Do we want to have National Service for wars, poverty, ignorance, whatever . A line that is crossing we probably do not want to cross. Host one last call, we learned in maryland. William in maryland. First on the civil war, i know you say look back in history, where we come from, i would just say, if you look at where we stand now, it appears we are in a civil war. I think it is a social civil war. History people tell us that in 10 or 15 years. To shift 15,000 veterans committing to suicide, children committed suicide. My friend does steel drum lessons. He painted them red and blue. He had kids aside, i am not sitting next to a republican playing this drum. He had to repaint his drums. War,e in some sort of whether it is civil or not. It seems to be a war. It needs to be sick it seems to be social. The second question is on the patriot act. You have written quite a bit on liberty documents. If there is anything that takes away our liberties, it is the patriot act. Approvedison beds were directly after the patriot act and instituted a rise in the prison industrial complex. While we have great liberty documents, i think we have some things to look at in our own government and i would urge the left and right i am calling the independent line. I would urge the left and right do not get emerald on their side and fight this social civil war. Take a look at the other side and their points. The gun rights is one of the points i think both sides have slightly wrong. When our government greeted a machine good microwave human beings from two miles away, we have a to radical government. I used to be on the left. I used to say we should give up our guns. Now we are in a different spot at we need to look across the aisle, look at what the other says, understand it, and find a way back to this middle. Where we sit now is disheartening for me. I have three kids. Host time for a final thought on that caller or on the book in general or both. I agree we need to listen to the other side, understand what the other side is saying, and not demonize the other side. We are all americans. Book can encourage us, all of us, to look back on on thetory, to look back better chapters in it, and try to replicate those chapters today and tomorrow. Author of this book, give me literally give me liberty. He is also a Senior Editor at the national review. Thank you for joining us this morning and taking comments and questions from our viewers. Guest thank you. Washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Friday morning, we talk about efforts to raise the minimum wage with the National Employment law project. And then a discussion of the skills gap and the future of work with richard wang. Watch cspans washington journal, live at 7 00 eastern friday morning. Join the discussion. Cspan, 2020 president ial candidate cory booker campaigns in concorde, new hampshire. Houseremarks by white Economic Council director larry kudlow. Later, a look at the legacy of former president george h. W. Bush and first lady barbara bush. [inaudible]