Transcripts For CSPAN2 Richard Aldous Schlesinger 20171210

Im lauren finch, acting director of the museum. On behalf of all of my Library Foundation colleagues i thank you for coming this evening. And id like to extend a warm welcome to those who are joining us online as well. I would also like to acknowledge the deer support of our underwriters for the Kennedy Library for moms, bank of america, the Lowell Institute and our media sponsors, boxing glove, xfinity and wbr. Richard aldous agreed to sign books, our bookstore has copies of his books available for purchase. This year marks the centennial of the john f. Kennedys birth. As we honor his life and legacy during this centennial year, we cannot be more pleased to explore the life and the birth of our dear schlesinger junior in more detail tonight. I am delighted to introduce theparticipants in tonights program. We are pleased to welcome richard aldous, author of the new biography schlesinger, imperial historian. He is a professor of history at bard college and the author of 11 books including mcmillan, eisenhower and the cold war and reagan and thatcher, the difficult relationship. I am also delighted to introduce our moderator for the evening, an old colleague, timothy naftali. Professor at new york university. He is an awardwinning author, a president ial historian and also served as director of the injured nixon president ial library and museum. Join me in welcoming richard andtimothy. [applause] thank you warren and thank all of you. Youve written a wonderful book , which we all have the opportunity of purchasing. Why did you decide to write about Arthur Schlesinger . Can i say what a pleasure it is to be here at the library and im grateful for the invitation and also its wonderful to be interviewed by such a fine historian. The answer to that question may be the real answer lies in my childhood that arthurs lessons was one of the first historians, proper historians that i read. And i can still see the gold spine of the tradition of 1000 days when my fathers bookshelf and i didnt realize that very recently that when i look back and researching these papers, they quoted schlesinger and the Research Academic articles that i wrote quoting schlesinger and i think for me, more recently i realized that he is the very epitome of the historian and if you like the action intellectual, public intellectual and im fascinated by the way in which he traversed those two different worlds. Excelling in both but also controversial in both. What will were the surprises for you as you did your research . In some ways my first surprise was as a historian that thisis a man who kept everything. He knew every historian and biographer, what People Like Us would do with the material but im fairly sure that through the paper that he doesnt destroy any of the material. There were some very personal things in the archive that he kept. One of the slightly disconcerting things is that very often because he wrote a great memoir, you can actually see him having already read the papers by the biographer is reading too. But i think that the real surprise for in some ways the best quality about Arthur Schlesinger the man is that quite clearly he is the same in private as he is in public. Hes not saying things in his private correspondence that he isnt prepared to go on the record and say so theres a kind of integrity about him that he really does say what he believes and often that means speaking truth to power to. We are at the Kennedy Library and tell us how you understand now, having written this fine book, arthurs relationship, Arthur Schlesingers relationship with john f. Kennedy. Its a fascinating relationship as he said in his introduction. This is the centenary of john f. Kennedy and the centenary of Arthur Schlesinger, both born in 1917 but in a curious way, they dont seem like contemporaries and in many ways they work. Because solicitor was fast tracked through school, it means that although he was at harvard, he wasnt in the same year as john f. Kennedy, he was in the same year as kennedys older brother. And i think that that relationship always has a about it a kind of a curious quality of both being an insider but not part of the kennedy circle. And ultimately i think the same thing brings them together is not some of the usual things, throwing the football at hyannisport and so on. It is actually the relationship as a historian that kennedy loved his history, was a writer. Thought of himself as a historian so where they really bonded was over history. We are going to talk a bit about this and i hope over the course of our conversation and during the q and a to what extent do you think president kennedy was comfortable sharing his thinking with Arthur Schlesinger . Thats a interesting question. I think he was very comfortable in the company of Arthur Schlesinger, that schlesinger is somebody who inside the white house, he would quite often drop by at the end of the day. Kennedy would beckon him into the oval, whoever was in there and invite him to join those conversations. He often liked ruminating with schlesinger about, what was this like with, in the days of Grover Cleveland or pulled or truman or whoever . He liked those aspects but you know as well as i do that kennedy was interesting in that he was never really close to anyone. William dahmer makes this point in his book that he uses people where they are useful. He enjoys People Company but even the kind of characters like dave powers , theyre not really, nobody gets close to him. This is something that ive come to realize over a number of president s that i look at and worked on, reagan was similar that hes almost a characteristic of those, is very distinction in the oval office because theres hes something unknowableabout him. You used the entirety of arthurs diaries, theres an edited version but a lot of the most interesting materials are not in the edited published version. You use the whole version. To what extent do you think Arthur Schlesinger felt he got the elusive candidate, that he understood this to . To the extent that he believed he actually understood the president . In some ways as you say, he understands the elusive quality as well and one of the things that he faces, once you start writing 1000 days is how to reconcile his own relationship with kennedy. Lets not forget that in 1959 and 1960, he was unsure about kennedy. Ultimately he thinks well, stevenson is close to probably doesnt deserve another shot but he kind of flirts with the idea that maybe stevenson should have another go. Hes not part of the innercircle and one of the reasons why and what he has to confront again after kennedys assassination is that in his heart of hearts he knows that kennedy is not a liberal in the sense that he understands it. That kennedy in many ways is a conservative president with a small fee so part of the intellectual job that he does for kennedy is almost reconfiguring him as a more progressive figure, trying to reconcile him not being a liberal with his conservative instincts and instead recasting him as a progressive kind of a president. Lets step back because this might be surprising to some of the people listening, how would arthur have described a liberal . What does it mean to be a liberal in arthurs era . In some ways thats an interesting question and difficult question to answer cause schlesinger himself is constantly parsing what it means to be a liberal and i think in particular, he has this kind of sense of politics as an educational process. He likes the educational president , most particularly roosevelt who sees politics as a way of kind of identifying things which are in the public good, not just things that can be improved. Thats one of the things he has to deal with with kennedy. Kennedy is more of an efficient, technocratic president and schlesinger would have liked. What we say four people what kind of decisions would fit in this category of being technocratic rather than liberal . For example, when kennedy dealt with the whole question of civil rights, its not something that he comes into office seeing as a burning desire to address an injustice, instead, is when he sees for example the events of birmingham and he recognizes that within a kind of democratic society, a key is an ill that needs to be addressed but this is something which is, yes its wrong but he comes to that realization not necessarily through a kind of a as i said, a billowing desire to correct things or a burning kind of inner belief, its because its inefficient within society and thats what where he moves in parentally. Are you saying for Arthur Schlesinger, a liberal had to be passionate . I think thats right and also, a sense that politics is more than about efficiency. That its about this kind of sense of looking at society, kind of understanding how you fit within this progressive art that runs through as he would conceive it, through character like Andrew Jackson and president roosevelt, fdr and someone like Adlai Stevenson who he did see as a more progressive liberal character although interestingly, when hes working, in the 1960s he had many of the same reservations about stevensons liberalism. We do say that arthur had this idea of this predictability of america, that it was always Getting Better . Absolutely and theres an underlying notion tos lessons or history, something that he gets from his father. Arthur schlesinger, his genius father is somebody who develops this kind of notion of progressive history, hes somebody who looks at history through the idea of a cycle that america is going to go through. This progressive, conservative cycle and thats something which arthur junior then subsequently picked up and write a book about. What does he think the role of the individual is in creating a more perfect america . Certainly for himself, this is one of the reasons why he thinks that historians should participate in that process. Thats not enough for Arthur Schlesinger to be writing books. That the historian have to apply the lessons of history in a direct way by participating so even in his own individual case, yes he does believe in individual and then you look at his books, the age of roosevelt, the age of jackson. Its very much looking at the role of the individual but also just think of the title of those books. The age of. There is a sense of a generation grappling with these kind of problems and a generation as a cohort kind of moving forward also. So you could make an argument, in fact, i do in the book, that actually almost its entire frame of reference is governed by one individual, one president and, of course, thats fdr. In the age of jackson in many ways its a book about roosevelt as much as it is one about the 19th century and then the age of roosevelt itself the child to take those lessons and to apply them in the specific context to stephenson and to kennedy. He believed, to use a churchillian phrase, the the president is the person who sets the weather, the person who sets the tone for policy but also one of the lessons he learned from roosevelt is that its not enough simply to be the weather maker, that roosevelt takes his experience from the First World War when his assistant secretary for the navy and he understands that you, the president has to dig right out into his administration, has two final decisions through, has to not just talk somebody from state department, state department issue, he might have to bring agriculture in and ask him about some matter that you are constantly driving your agenda by making sure that at every level of government its something thats being understood. This book is also about people as well as ideas. And one of those people of course is arthur. Why dont you share, the book has a number of examples. Arthurs struggles. We think of them, those who knew him and those of read about them, success, and men who enjoyed success after success after success but in your book its clear that wasnt the case. Tell us a a bit about that very human side. Its actually, its one of the things that he outlines in his own memoir that he does tend to smooth over the struggles which hes had. On one level its also very smooth the like, a surprise when he still in his 20s, harvard professorship, special assistant to the president. Another Pulitzer Prize. He has a record of success that is enviable, but hes in a very Nice Public School doing very nicely when hes a boy, but his parents are very ambitious and they shift him up two years and he goes from being somebody who plays baseball and sports and is one of a normal kind of boy to suddenly being the kind of a little squirt. He talks about how thats the age were start wearing glasses and is not very sporty. And he struggles school. It goes to his parents put them out, under the school, send him off where again he struggles matches because of his size and age but because he is surrounded by people who are much, much wealthier than him. That kind of struggle he goes off with oss, the forerunner of the cia during the second world war, and again he finds it very, very difficult. Hes unable to really make close friendships. He makes some very important enemies to a very large degree persecute him while hes there. But the one thing, one thing that always post in fact, the constant in his life, some of a local kind of here is harvard. Subways at school he realizes that the person he wants to become is his father, a harvard professor. So much so that he changes his name from to Arthur Schlesinger junior. Because a limited to be, his father. When hes in oss hes able to pull at various times contacts to provide favors to smooth things over for him. Even the way in which arthur senior is able to maneuver things to make sure that it gets his fellowship at the society for fellows or that offer from harvard is forthcoming, even on kind of berries prizes his father is very influential. Theres a sense in which these both an outsider and an insider, but ultimately the harvard connection even with jfk, the harvard connection is some things that is kind of an unmoving part of his life, very often rescues him. Someone coming to your book who hasnt spent a lot of time at the Library Might be surprised at how Arthur Schlesinger was not in the inner circle of the Kennedy Administration. And from the book i get the sense that he was frustrated by that. He was frustrated on one level because i think once he goes to the white house he doesnt feel that is able to influence events as much as he would want to. Theres a kind of sense of frustration that is personal but in some ways that frustration is born of realizing as a special assistant with a special responsibility, for example, one stage it leads perhaps he will become the National Security adviser. Thats something that wouldve had real kind of authority in the staff that went with it but hes a gadfly, and so on days that kennedy wants to see them or he is amused by him, or he is taking seriously he can have an impact but other times youre right, he feels frustrated because hes not able to make that kind of influence, have that kind of influence with thee president. On occasion his impact so lets talk about those occasions when he does have an impact on policy. So i think in many ways its a learning curve for him because he thinks that youve written about and demonstrate this, during the debate of pigs hes right about the bay of pigs. Hes one of the few people in the lead up to the bay of pigs who says you shouldnt do this. The first of all doesnt, he doesnt say this facetoface to kennedy, and then he curses himself when he goes back to his office and he writes a memo saying to the president quite clearly dont do this, and then he tells kennedy this. He then goes to see than ruskin and eventual Bobby Kennedy says enough, stop. And so at that point yesterday that. The lesson you learned from that is if not enough to be right. You have to be heard. And so on the things covered in one hell of a gamble, he wants to get to berlin, hes able to be heard and have an influence that someone like dean acheson is taking a very hawkish line on this. Schlesinger the security he has to learn the lesson of the bay of pigs. You have to widen kogut get all kinds of opinions so for example, he brings Henry Kissinger as a consultant to the white house and he writes a series of memos to kennedy making clear what his policy should be. Hes able to be heard and influences kennedy. You could make an argument in doing that he establishes the kind of the wing which kennedy in deals with the cuban missile crisis. So on the outside, the actual, the wing which kennedy a successful with berlin using schlesinger model has kind of longstanding ramification. Talk about a a troll of shag policy towards italy. Italy is a good example of one of his major frustrations, the state department, and in a thousand days its one of the few things that he does where he stabs at somebody, dean rusk, is sliced and diced in the book. But youre right, that he believes in something called, hes written in the 1940s about the vital center, the need to encourage at the noncommunist left. When he sees this emergent italy come something called the opening to the left, he wants kennedy to encourage a Broad Coalition that takes in the noncommunist left and pushes the comments out in italy. So yeah, thats a good example of something that he takes an interest in and he pursues in this gadfly kind of way. And in essence to a followoo the vital center. Its a building exactly. Its not being afraid of social democrats knowing full well they are anticommunists as conservatives. In the way its all part of the context of the younger schlesinger. Its one of the things we have to remember is that he grew up in the 1930s. To some extent he has this worldview that sees the rise of fascism, nazism on one side, stalinism on the other side and kind of roosevelt democracy as a beacon in the middle. By the time he gets to 47 work in recess, seen penetration by people like morris who he worked with, he was a soviet agent, he recognizes that you have to find a way for the noncommunist left and the nonfascist right to Work Together in a way that excludes extreme. I think its one of the reasons that theres been a lot more interest in that book, the vital center, recently because theres a sense in which it resonates because it speaks so strongly about the democratic projects. When you get the sense of his white house, arthurs days, what was the toast with most people would not know about ted sorenson . And ted sorenson strain during the thousand days, strained relationship with arthur. Ted sorenson is one of the greatest speechwriters, president ial speechwriters of all time. And actually schlesinger in sorenson towards the end of elected become much better friends but theres no sense in which they were not rivals during this time. It didnt start interesting enough with profiles in courage that came to the sins the draft to schlesinger who goes through it with his red pen, or maybe his blue pencil, kind making suggestions. He speaks in a way that is entirely appropriate to speak to senator kennedy, but its sorenson was written so much of the initial draft. Sorenson feels very resentful and effectively being humiliated in front of center kennedy, his boss at that stage. That follows through right into the white house. Sorenson would do almost anything to stop sauce into getting his hands on speeches. So very often kennedy will slip a speech to schlesinger, dont tell ted and so schlesinger a make these changes and then kennedy were kind of may be right about a make sure that, but then sometimes kennedy would put the two of them into direct competition, sages work it out. The interesting thing is something happened immediately after the assassination, because during the white house years theres no question sorensen is more important and more influential than schlesinger. He is the president after the assassination its schlesinger it becomes more important to the kennedy project because he is the one whos going to define the legacy. So is more important for the family, more important for Robert Kennedy. He is more important even before the current president , lbj. Sorensen is a brilliant speechwriter, he writes a very good book on kennedy and hes up against schlesinger, Pulitzer Prize winner, harvard professor, you know, somebody who is much more experienced in process of actually writing and producing a book. So sorensen really struggles with the process, and that inevitably depressed, focus on the rivalry, even with the let the white house within weeks of each other the white house staff through a party, and they produced a cake with sorensen and in kennedy kind of on the cake racing towards a big pot of gold and it said on the cake may the best man win. So this kind of sense of which this rivalry is stoked between the two. They felt it very intensely. I think its about five years ago the library released schlesinger is interviews with jackson kennedy. Jackson kennedy on those tapes, you should listen if you havent already, very at ease, and your book explained why. What was the origin of his close relationship and partnership in the kennedy project . Youre quite right. I think this is a good example of, thats available in kind of book format but also in a cd or through an audible, something that is really worth listening to them because the fact you can cure the clink of ice, the drinks are being poured and kind of solon. As a think its well known Natalie Portman listen to those interviews when she prepared for her role as kind of playing jackie kennedy. But i think the relationship comes about kind of initially in the 1950s because partly its the thing were talking about before, that schlesinger is outside of the circle, kennedy has his own team and one of the things he says to schlesinger, if you want to get things, go through jackie. They kind of become almost like a Political Partnership right from the very beginning, and they do enjoy each others company. He suffers the humiliation being moved from the west wing to the east wing, which he is quite kind of cross about but the advantage of that is that is in the east wing with jackie. They are always sitting there kind of talking, and you know, if you have the ear of jackie you have the ear of the president. They had this very close relationship. They work on projects together like for example, if the establishment of the white house library. But then why that also pays dividends immediately after the assassination where she doesnt like sorensen. She encourages schlesinger in the project. They work very closely together, but but i think its only that relationship that means, and it shows kind of what i was talking about before, how schlesinger relentlessly says what he thinks, that on the night that kennedy is assassinated, he writes to Jacqueline Kennedy a very moving letter about the president and his legacy. The day after, the day after, the day of the 23rd to write again to Jacqueline Kennedy and says immediately you have to start thinking about the papers, you have to start thinking about the president s legacy. Thats a very hard letter for somebody to write but it shows i think the closest of the relationship but also the sense, which understood in the relationship that he is the historian whos going to be involved in that legacy for all of the advantages and disadvantages that will be involved in a. Ive heard from a number of people, what was the last inner circle, the last 15 years, who would describe Arthur Schlesinger as not jfks friend but hobbies ran, that it is bobby who brought into the white house. You argue that bobby is the one who ultimately helped him but his job at to what extent did the relationship between Robert Kennedy and Arthur Schlesinger matter in the white house . We will talk about how it mattered afterwards. To what extent did it matter then . I think youre right to certain express what i sense is the ambivalence of the relationship, that Robert Kennedy is all been the Stevenson Campaign and the Second Time Around in 56. Schlesinger finds him slightly a cold fish in many ways. The sense in which particularly in the early. , Robert Kennedy is both a volcanic and distant at the same time, and schlesinger visibly quite know what to make of him. Theres a a sense of pragmatisn the relationship as things move on. He is the president , the president s brother. Marion kennedy who as been a few although sadly died although i did spectacularly great age, wonderful character, she was not enamored of Robert Kennedy and when she accompanied Robert Kennedy with arthur to berlin and italy was not impressed with his behavior. But as you say its after the white house that the relationship blossoms and becomes important. So theres a pragmatism to it that later turns into something much closer. To what extent is a thousand days, in your estimation as a historian, a history of the kennedy presidency . Or is it an imagining, a beautiful imagining available presidency that arthur hoped would of happened . I think its both. Its really important to say, and its something that are often gets forgotten and certainly brushed aside by schlesingers critics, is that he says right at the very beginning, the first sentence, that this is a personal memoir that is written in the heat of the moment, that documents will be released at the jfk library he said, and other historians will, and it will write a more balanced account. But what he says in the introduction is that what i can give is that sense of what it was like to be in the realm and inevitably this wont be battles because i wont have room for everything. He says that explicitly, that i will inevitably give more emphasis to things that i was involved in. Thats inevitable. I think there is that, and there is the word that you use, theres a romantic imagining kind of behind his book. Because its still written i suppose today, we would say theres an elephant of posttraumatic shock about it. Theres an element of trauma to the book, that this is a man who kind of the year previously had resigned. Hes harvard professor chip, had fully expected he would serve at the first term, Barry Goldwater was already likely to be the candidate the kennedy people were confident they could be goldwater. So he was expecting to be in the white house for the full eight years, and then almost as quite a retirement project but this would have been kind of 1968, still 69th in fact, by the time he wouldve gone, so it would of been his last big book. It wouldve been the aged kennedy, maybe multivolume with the book becomes very different. He runs off his rolodex, his contacts and memory and is written in the heat of the moment and kind of rival so it has to be done quickly. You describe the physical toll that it takes on arthur. He writes it in a year, right . Just over a year. We can say this, he is basically putting the rest of us to shame. He describes how he writes, hes writing 3000 words a day. Hes hes getting up at 7 00 in the morning, finishing at 9 00 at night, basically all hes doing is writing, drinking whiskey and smoking cigars. You quoted someone writing that he writes directly to galley. Thats john bloom. Which means he doesnt need editing. Thats what that means. So john bloom says, he tells his graduate students this, a very good friend and colleague of mine, mark, he says john used to say the only people he knew of who could write almost directly for galley is churchill and Arthur Schlesinger. So hes a wonderfully fluent writer. Hes banging out 3000 words a day and that was something that made them very politically useful. When they were speechwriters, to stevenson, again schlesinger was the person, when he would walk into the elks club as they were called come he would take off his jacket. He would sit at his desk, light a cigar and he would just bang out a speech and pull it out of the typewriter and he was ready to go. Theres this wonderful fluid state about the way in which he wrote. All that energy, all that excitement, he doesnt have about the rfk book. He is not sure he wants to write it. I think that he realizes that inherent in writing that book, the faults that are in the book, that by the time he gets to writing that hes too close to the project. Again, personal dimension, hes lost one president , somebody who he was close to it a kind of a professional kind of a way. By the time we get to 1960 as we discussed hes friends with Robert Kennedy. Kennedy is assassinated, and also hes worn down by the time, you know, hes writing in the context of the polarization of american politics, watergate crisis. This is a time when hes in various, he was in a cinema, for example, watching a movie and somebody would just turn around and say when the revolution comes you will be taken, but against a wall and shot. Just when hes out literally doing his business that, for example, he would walk his son to the bus stop, would be walking the dog and people what you start shouting at him in the streets. I think when he writes that book hes writing a kind of sense of america that is lost. But also technical problems with the book that when he writes about rfk during the white house years, it becomes his hero of the book because so much of it is talking about jfk that Robert Kennedy almost becomes secondary in his own biography. So there were things that he was never quite able to reconcile. What do you think, perhaps theres one other thing, which is between the writing of 1000 days and the rfk book, arthur learns things about the kennedy presidency he didnt know. You had these revelations about from the Church Church committt attempts to kill castro. Theres more about the president s health. Rfk is the one who tells the world, there was the secret gibbet ended the cuban missile crisis. The president s health arthur may build something up but the other thinks he did know anything about and he did know about the taping system. He is fastgrowing and he wasnt told about the best source of information about this presidency. John f. Kennedy didnt tell him. And jackie who also knew about it didnt tell him. So to what extent do you think some of the rfk book, a different tone, is a product of his disappointment . Because hes, he has to redo 1000 days a little bit and as a result i think is very defensive tone. As you say its a sense of disappointment that, and is having to try to square the circle in ways that he doesnt do very successfully, that things Like Operation mongoose, as you say things like the missiles and kind of the revelations about kind of kennedys indiscretion. We very often described as the darker side of camelot. And i think that to write about the defensive tone because whatever you say about a thousand days theres a sense in which its a genuine book. There are things that may not, turned out to be right under things where judgment may be wrong. But as a historian you can look at those things and by and large, even with the romanticized things, theres an authenticity to that book. As you say with rfk, even as a historian hes written about some of these things, the embryo presidency he talks a little bit about kennedy taking things on imperial presidency things like the turkish missiles or mongoose are exactly the kind of things that he is criticizing in the imperial presidency. So to some degree hes not exactly humiliated but he is kind of off vain in in the earr book and so as you say write about it. As a historian if we step back, very popular book, the parts of which are very active but i think as a historian that you would have to say that its not effective in the way that earlier books like the age of roosevelt or the age of jackson or a thousand days are. And for good questions and answers, volume four i guess wouldve been of the age of roosevelt like a white whale of the hologram of this book are i dont know how many times you have arthur saying to somebody the book is the next thing im going to do. Why do you think, because there was some pop psychology but why Arthur Schlesinger didnt finish it. He had too much fun at parties. As his biographer, also as his intellectual barbara because this book is much as an intellectual barbara as it is as much his rival with ted and all that. Why do you think you didnt finish mulling for . I think there are a number of reasons. Youre right that he just constantly refers to it, and theres some part of you that just wants to, just let it go, let it go. Because even when he takes up the white house job he says i only want to do this for you because of what to get back to the age of roosevelt. All through his life is constantly talking about it. We know its not laziness. Because he writes the imperial presidency, he writes the Robert Kennedy book and he writes many more kind of which might describe as oped type books as well. I think its two things. First of all, we all know that when you write a book theres a kind of intellectual energy that is behind the original idea and you dont season intellectual energy, then the fires can do demon and you move onto other things and its difficult to reclaim that. I think theres another reason, and the clue is in the 1950s when actually its during the process of writing that kind of the earlier volumes he goes to london and gets a series of lectures at University College of london which his own father had given in the 1930s. The reason why changed his name to Arthur Meier Schlesinger junior was because he had get a passport to go on around the world trip with his father pics of the said been kind of a seminal trip for him. He does the same lectures in the 1930s and their visit about all you can for. And when he is there, almost cant write even then that he shows up, he hasnt done the properly, he rushes back to his hotel to kind of fill in details. So i think even then he knew there was a problem, and why is a problem, and answered your kind of question . In some ways its almost like the rfk thing, that the problem is hes written about the good bit of fdr. He stops in 1936, but hes going to have to deal with the supreme court. Hes going to have to deal with the holocaust turkeys going to have to do with isolationism. By this stage he reveres rose up so much, im just not sure that, maybe it is being a good historian, he realizes that by now hes the wrong man to write the history of fdr. Arthur schlesinger was very good to me and so i wouldve had the opportunity to ask him and im sorry i have not read your book when he was alive. But i wouldve wanted to ask him, having been in the white house, you see, most of us who write about president s, none of us are president s, but most of us happened live in the white house. Even the ones who work in the white house have been very close to the president. Given that he was close to a president and then learned what he didnt know about that presidency, how confident could he be writing about a presidency that occurred when he was 20 years old . Did he lose some of his selfconfidence about the ability to recreate and administration, given his experience in the Kennedy Administration . I think thats a really fascinating question. And he ruminates from this notion of keyhole history or the historian as participant and all of those things. I think the other thing we have to remember is that when he was strictly an academic historian, with his first book coming out, senior thesis at harvard and then Andrew Jackson, hes writing about the 19th century. But there after hes always writing about contemporary history, and hes writing about roosevelt in the 1950s when roosevelt only died in 1945. That would be like us writing a book about president george w. Bush or maybe bill clinton. So theres a sense in which its contemporary history. And so as you say, maybe its also by the time he gets background to result if that were the contemporary history anymore. So maybe the contemporary side of it is the animating force. And as i said earlier even the age of jackson in some ways is a book about the age of roosevelt. Lets take some questions. Five schlesinger was a very unique historic figure in the United States presidency, and has there ever been a nether person who is his equipment in the 20th century, and there i say, i wont even ask in the 21st century . It seems like there never has been and probably never will be, and it appears that really what we see when we look at schlesinger is the respect that president kennedy had for history and for learning from history. I recall reading once that during the cuban missile crisis he make some statement about come with some book you just recently read, he said i wish that generals have read this book. I would send them a copy but they probably wouldnt read it anyway. Is that how unique schlesinger is, that we can say he doesnt have an equal in the history of the american presidency . Or is there someone else who is his equal that served a president . Thats a really interesting question. Because schlesinger himself says when he comes into the white house there has been nobody like me before. Their event of the people of written about president s, who had been within the circle, but nobody brought in quite that way. And in some ways he sets kind of a precedent. So for example, when bill clinton becomes president , hes a great admirer about schlesinger. He wants Something Like schlesinger nursery talks to Taylor Branch, kind a very distinguished historian and says to him i want you to be my Arthur Schlesinger. And Taylor Branch says mr. President , im not sure that actually a very good precedent. But he does, Taylor Branch eventually as you know does go into the white house. He does have these conversations with the president and there are other examples, Teddy Roosevelt is given access by Ronald Reagan and rights kind of actually quite controversial biography of reagan. And so the are ways in which writers come in, but i think your question is right in one sense, theres nobody who really is brought in in the same way as somebody who is influencing policy, who was understanding what is going on, is involved in decisionmaking, but who write from day one i think its understood, certainly it is understood i believe by kennedy that actually, ultimately you are going to have another task that in some ways you are going to be writing or involved in or helping in the age of kinky projects. Thank you. I wish you would enlarge a little bit about the statement you made earlier with regard to the fact that schlesinger, he had progressive proclivities, some might say we can sensibility with regard to history. I was just struck in reading some of schlesingers essays by the fact that he seemed to have been influenced profoundly by as the centerpiece of thinking had to do with the flaw in human nature and that was manifested historically. It seemed to me that schlesinger would reflect upon different historical times, he had always been mindful of the fact that moving piecemeal, always imperfectly, every situation is never thought and its always a work in progress. As a matter fact it was some of the people like when he addressed historians like William Appleman williams or nonchomsky. In fact, he had this grand design conception as though people engineering these huge spacious plans for decades and decades. He says, you talk about the end of the second world war. He said talking about beleaguered, tired, old, sick, exhausted, theyre making piecemeal arrangements. As irreconcilable with the realistic conception of history. Yes, and youre quite right to of course identify lieber as a mentor both personally and intellectually to Arthur Schlesinger. One historian has written, and i think this is right, that effectively what schlesinger did was to take reinhold labor conservative analysis and applied for progressive ends. He takes on board this kind of idea of even kind of coding and im going to misquote her, so kind of i apologize to everyone for this but he quotes the words of pascal in one of his books and labor voting pascal, the gist of which is one of the problems of mankind, we are brutes, effective not just because we we want to act in a way that is good. So is kind of very wary of this kind of sense of, as you say, perceiving kind of carefully. But what schlesinger does is to take that and to say well, because of this, we can look at these kind of, we can look at the trends, look at how these progressive ends and we can move in that direction, but always being aware that we have to test these things, for example, against history, that we have to be aware of our own proclivities, and so on. Reinhold leader is a great influence. The two men were great friends, schlesinger was very kind to after he had he had his stroke, for example, organizing kind of people getting together so he could watch tv and so on. Its personal but absolutely as you describe it is intellectual. A little aside, could you comment on the potential release of the jfk papers . What are you looking for . I have to say that im probably the wrong person to ask that question. We had someone whos a real expert on that sitting next to us. I would say that, two things, for in historian the release of documents is always an exciting thing for all the reductions that would be there. Maybe some of the best material. It will probably take years for people come historians to work through and to pull out the implications, but, come and knw that it will feed the conspiracy theories around this event. But any documents released is open for historians. But as i say, here is the expert pick you should probably ask him to comment on that. Kim . We are all, oddly enough, in the debt of oliver stone. I say oddly enough because he created a cockamamie, cockamamie conspiracy Donald Sutherland is one of my favorite actors. You know, i was a big fan of the baseball team. Anyway, Donald Sutherland in jfk movie is the personification of the conspiracy, and it involvs everybody. Which i always found funny because most americans, i think the right and the left share. Most americans understand our government is inefficient. Some people might like the government but the nose inefficient. Other people dont like the hermit because it no, its efficient. Everybody who is a conspiracy theorist not only does is perfectly, but nobody talks. Nobody talks. The long and the short of it is that because of the confluence of several different conspiracy theories in the 90s, jfk was killed because he is going to pull out of vietnam. Jfk was killed by castro found out that the kennedys were going to kill him and they killed him first. Jfk was killed by soviets. Jfk was killed by southerners who were not happy about civil rights. Jfk was killed by oil interest. J akil jfk was killed by the mob, okay . Each of those entails a series of documents, and the jfk act created a collection called the Jfk Assassination collection. Its huge, its 5 million pages that includes each of these possible theories. Its a boon to historians. We have been mining that war since 1998. But the review board, a series of very honest, sober minded nonpartisan people got to see at all. And some agencies and the fbi said to them, this document which you can read, they had all the clearances, its not relevant, is it, julie Harvey Oswald and the potential conspiracy. The process was not to tell americans, tell us what happened to let us decide. This was not a Warren Commission we docked. But they said does this really, would this lead the person to know anymore about lee Harvey Oswald x they said no. So they said lets not release it. So theres a bunch of that stuff. According to the National Archives website, about 50,000 pages were withheld in full, and portions of 550,000 pages were withheld, out of 5 million. The law was beautifully written for historians, but badly written for government officials. Theres a section that says everything in the socalled assassination collection must be released 20 years from now, unless the president at the time decides not to be well, that kicked the can forward. So the review board did its work very well. This disestablish yourself in 1990. These were were people chosen by bill clinton, that the office was signed by George Herbert walker bush. They can was and would imagine in 1992 that a manhattan developer who was well known in 1992 would be the one to decide . Thats what this is all about. These documents, i havent sen them, but i know something about how old they are, these have to do with the murder of some u. S. Policy towards vietnam but not many, a policy towards cuba because in 1998, castro was still alive. And so the war plans that were closed, and also cyber stuff. You can read this but you have to be a nerd like me. The National Security agency found things that were responsive within the argued, they could see them, is this really helpful . They said no. That stuff is in this collection. I think would happen today, i dont have any inside info, is that the agencies which have been screaming, nobody ever expected this to come out, have been making the case to the white house. And thats why the stuff doesnt come out yet. I would be surprised but never predict, very bad at, i would be surprised if the change in any topline narrative issues regarding lee Harvey Oswald and the conspiracy. I dont think it will change that many topline coalition but it might and it would give us details about covert action. An example of something that is close. I dont know the details but i can do what its called. The name of the cia guy who took the poisons the congo to kill mamba. Thats close. It will be open. If it goes through. Cia doesnt like to open those kinds of things. What did affect your nose of whether lee Harvey Oswald killed kennedy or not . No. But thanks to oliver stone, every possible conspiracy got thrown into the pot and 5 billion pages with the result. Thats my understanding. [applause] as we know as the story is documents reveal things that nobody could have predicted, and what you mean by that is for all the agencies going through this material, for all the review boards looking at this material that would be things in there that some destroyed will say actually you thought this was irrelevant but this is really, really and it may not actually be to do with lee Harvey Oswald. Heres the thing about it, is our government, i think ive worked in enough for archives to tell you, i did work for the National Archives site a bit biased, but our government has the best archival system in the world. Great britain has a beautiful building and its very, very efficient, but britain as a system where the government can destroy documents before they go to the National Archives. Im not saying our system is perfect, but we have a different kind of system. And so we can demand documents. We may not get them for a while but we can demand documents in a way that no other country permits of their own materials. Because we have this right, we put a burden, a good what i think of all the agencies to review the documents. This gets to richards point, who reviews them . Sometimes they are retirees who dont know anything about the story. Its not that they were working on it. They dont know anything about it. So they might be told a list of codenames became reveal but otherwise its their decision. And thats why, those of us in the business know that you can have document that is redacted differently at the same time because it depends on who did it. It. Its an art, not a science. So exactly there are documents that would be key to a big argument that the reviewer wouldnt have a clue about. So thats why its always worth taking the time to go through the documents one by one. Its a great benefit over the system that they will be some phd student focusing on some very narrow area who would have to go through some of those, well, then millions of pages but will identify some of those and then will happen aha moment and there will be peach students around the world working on this, and together something will happen that we just simply cannot predict. As i say, its a great day for historians when documents a pretty good profession, too. We are actually very lucky. I would say. I have a question about, a question candidate can you were asked. I dont know where i read or who wrote it, but the question that kennedy was asked from the thing ive read, a reporter asked him, mr. Kennedy, what is your greatest qualification to be a candidate for president of the United States . And reportedly kennedy responded, i have a sense of history. And my question is do you know if that was an accurate account of something at that time . So did kennedy have a sense of history . Yes, absolutely he did. I mean, i think even the fact that he could go right back to his time at harvard where he wrote his senior thesis about the munich crisis and then subsequently publish that as a book, with the fact that he had the impetus to write profiles in courage which he writes with ted sorensen which wins a pulitzer. And even, you just have to look at kind of simple things like he reads the book review pages of newspapers and circles books and canada since out to his local bookseller from hyannisport to kind of order these books in. Hes reading all the time. One of the previous questioners referred to i think probably the barbara churchman book about the origins of the first one war, which is very much kind of on his mind, kind of around the time of the cuban missile crisis. Hes a great reader. He has this genuine sense of history. Coming back to what were talking about before, ultimately thats really why he likes having Arthur Schlesinger around. He just likes talking history, thinking about things in that historical context. As the cuban missile crisis demonstrates it does inform his policymaking. He is thinking in this kind of broader historical context. He does think about of the president s, particularly why he doesnt like president s like wilson and theodore roosevelt, because they are, not to use roosevelt own praise, they are proselytizing president. He prefers president like polk or treatment because our practical improving president s looking in a very technical way that something that is wrong and to make it better. So thats a historical reflection. So absolutely he is a president with history on his mind. As historians how do you feel, like here we are in the age of camelot, right . Everything is working fine. We are looking at jfk. Everybody is feeling great. Its 1963 in the spring. Things look wonderful, and then a couple of shots ring out and change history forever. Now, when you guys look at a thing like that, as historians, i mean, what goes through your mind . Because everything has just changed completely. And now you have to go from kennedy to johnson, and from johnson the nixon. And eventually to trump, i dont believe i said that. When you guys look at this stuff and youre not expecting it, none of us was expecting november 22. And i lived in new york and it was the first time in my entire life that in new york city i could not hear a sound on november 22, 1963. Not a sound. Not a bird. Not a car. Nothing. It was that dramatic. So how do you all deal with that . I mean, you have the initial shock and now you have to go through what the heck happened. And what is going to happen. Because you have to kind of like, for lack of a better term, instead of being a historian, and i got to kind of like the a soothsayer. Whats to happen next, you know . So how do you guys do with that kind of stuff . Thats a very interesting question on all kinds of levels, one of which is that the kennedy assassination is different for you that it is for me, because im a generation later. So didnt live through, you know, i hadnt been born, when kennedy was assassinated. So for me its all history. Its not lived experience. Just in the same way i see with my own students now, not only to cannot remember the cold war when the berlin wall coming down, which is kind of a excitement moment for me, they are a generation theyre not coming through, they dont have any memory of 9 11 either because they are 17, 18 years old. They experience Something Like that very differently. But i think on the question of how you write history like that, there are two different ways of thinking about it that, first of all as a storage we always recognize the importance of, in this case tragic, but we might describe as serendipity. If this happened that changed the course of history, that if we believe in individuals make a difference and i certainly do as a historian, then the death of the president matters. The transition from one president to another means something. But then we also think about the broader context that, these are the kind of things we debate, the vietnam war for example, which is a huge factor in americas history, subsequent history. Its the reason why historians argue about would kennedy have done the same thing . Was he on the verge of doubling down or was he on the verge of pulling back . Historians have argued about that. The question of civil rights. Theres an example that lyndon johnson, the great political operator, is able to take this kind of National Tragedy and turn it into Political Capital by getting civil rights legislation through, by effectively kind of saying to even those who might have been opposed, this will be john f. Kennedys legacy. To understand the complexities of that. Its a great debate about that richard alluded to, a great debate in how much are we fish swimming in this dream and the stream is going in a certain direction and we have colleagues who would talk about forces, either economic or cultural or social that are beyond the power of one person. One person can delay half a generation of something that its going to be moving in that direction anyway. And whats clear to me is that we also debate how important we want our president s to be. Moments when we want our president s to be really important and there are moments when we want this period to move beyond to another period of history, if you will. And one of the things that arthur had to think about in the 70s, because of medicine was whether he faces the concept of the president with too much. Whether he had in fact created if you will a monster and whether the system, the cold war in this case, not arthur by himself at all arthur imagined the importance of the president , had written books about the president , had to find ages by the name of the president and whether that was a mistake in the context of this republic and thats a debate that he had had with themselves and shared with others. And were having again, i would suspect its also an example of thinking as a historian. These still a professional historian. As hes coming through it at different stages, is engaging with that, people writing about broader forces and the change over the long period but during the late 60s, is also engaged in debate, sometimes quite acrimonious with historians of the new left, for example and Arthur Bernstein and other historians writing about policy like Walter Ferber and he goes along to a lot of these graduate conferences for example. He goes to George Kennans graduate seminar at princeton with people like walter lefevre and Lloyd Gardner and these people because he wants to engage with these debates and youre right, theres always a sense in which the arguing with them but also arguing with himself about the way in which history is understood. Thank you gentlemen. I guess part of my my question i asked arthur already. You mentioned we should apply history to the current era. Everyone, not everyone can start a history so everyone can learn fromlessons. Do the same history, different people have different bastions so we learn from history or just simply different points of view with different people applied to this history matter and eluding history. Which history did you say . My question is is jester history havingdentures . Should we leave this job after, like you or is there any lesson you can teach everyone so we can avoid that . My cell as a physicist, we know that in physics, some laws are simple. Youcan tell people. You dont handle the problem, in a nonscientific way and its very simple in physics. Its just shut up and calculate it. Its very simple. Im wondering, is there something you can give us so we dont get misled . I think it you took it the wrong way if you said shut up andcalculate. [laughter] i certainly think not to study history is dangerous and when you think about where genes throughout history who have been totalitarian or fascist regimes and authoritarian regimes, one of the first things they come for is the articulation of history and trying to rewrite history and that kind of away. But yes, equally, youre right. Even within the historical profession there is a debate about the appropriateness of applying history. And i think that Arthur Schlesinger is one of those characters. He was aware of the dangers and he swam in some of those dangerous waters and was aware he was doing it but theres also a sense to use your example, science doesnt happen in a vacuum either. That rutherford split the atom, but that process can be used either for medical science, for radiation to treat cancer, but it can also be used to draw anatomic or thermonuclear bomb. So these kind of decisions, if you think about the great decisions we are facing now about medical aspects surrounding kind of our dna and so on, though history in many ways is the same, theres a sense in which these are important questions. Many of them are toxic westons but i think that actually, historians debating them in a way that he was talking about with the things that are going to be coming out or maybe coming out today , that thats whats important. And if you think back to when schlesinger was in policymaking, its also true in his history that ultimately his great friend actually Isaiah Berlin had it right that its all about pluralism. Its all about a diversity of use and approaches and something in that process, something in that thing that we do shakes out a kind of an answer to these things. I think that what we should, i believe that freedom comes from sect skepticism. And not cynicism. And its afine line. I dont think you will hear any of us, anybody in this room is a historian, i know a few historians. I dont think youd hear any of us call what we did definitive. We dont use that term because, we debate with our colleagues all the time but we accept it as fact existence, just as you in science would accept things and if you have respect for facts, i dont think the weaponization of history that you are talking about. I know how history can be weapon eyes. There are lots of cultures that have these views of the past that include hatred of their neighbors. And its the weaponization of history but if you commit skepticism, and have real access to data, im not sure that it needs in the direction that yoususpect. And by the way, churchill with democracy, its a terrible system but its the best that we have or Something Like that, only about the alternative of not studying history . Every day its groundhog day. Every mistake weve ever stayed in the past and im not saying by the way, theres a lot about the fact that analogies are really that useful for policymakers. Its useful to make questions but its not prescriptive but if you dont study the past, how could that be good . It makes you vulnerable to stupid, by stupid i dont mean based on nothing but just really incoherent and political views because you dont know any better. You have no data points that you can use to say what about that . To question it. So i think history has problems and again, dont expect affinity of history, whatever that is but i cant imagine thealternative. I like that quote often attributed to mark twain because i think it captures what we are talking about here is that the idea that history doesnt repeat itself but it often rhymes. I think thats right that as always, even if you didnt say it, it has a ring of twain about it. He deserved it. And if youthink about kind of mark twain , someone who read much is in the news at the moment because of the most recent book that he was friends with grant, president grant and theres an element in which yes, were not saying that what happened then is whats happening now but where seeking for residents and coming back to his point, ultimately this is why the footnote, as boring as it sounds, is so important to the things that we are writing. Because you can read schlesinger, you can read one hell of a gamble and if you dont agree with something you can go to the footnote. If you think that doesnt sound right, you can go in my case to the new york public library, find the document yourself and say no, hes misunderstood this. Thats why we dont just have one book on kennedy. Somebody else will come along, hopefully not too soon but somebody will come along and write another book about Arthur Schlesinger because theres always more to be said each generation and has something new to be said. Thank you. Are there any other questions theres another one. I didnt realize you had run the Nixon Library so since the question is we are supposed to learn from history, what can we learn because its true. Our parents told us this. Learn from your mistakes, dont make it again. So ive been told by some learned friends that one of the reasons we cant impeach our current buffoon is because he hasnt done anything illegal. And that historians and im not sure where they quoted from felt that the republican finally said yes, he has to impeach nixon because what he did was criminal abuse of power and all those things. Because we are right now in the middle of what you will be writing about in 10 to 20 years so i wouldnt mind a sentence or two or a paragraph. I almost got through the evening. Even as that question was asked i thought better you. Okay. Ive done some writing about it and ive got a couple suggestions for you. Im very proud of this. Im proud of the group i worked with at the National Archives. If you go to the nixon website and you go to the section on the watergate exhibit, we digitized and scanned, we digitized the materials that are the footnotes if you will for our watergate exhibit and we tried to have evidence that almost all the abuses of power by Richard Nixon and theres documents and taped segments and oral histories that we did. Go and familiarize yourself with this. On its on a government website and its a tale of an abusive president and there is no doubt, i believe and the American People believe in 1974, theres no doubt Richard Nixon desert to be impeached which means indicted and then removed. If the house and peaches, the senate removes. Bill clinton was indicted, impeached but not removed. Richard nixon was told by senators of his own party that he should leave. When you go down those list oforacles and you see the extent to which Richard Nixon use power to hurt people , to hurt his enemies , you will understand why he abused his trust. And i think thats a good standard for impeachment or removal. And ill leave it, im just one american so go look at that and make up your own mind. First i want to say thank you for presenting a really a point of view of integrity on cnn. Its wonderful to hear some from historians. We had many of the commentators really bring a sense of logic which is great, we appreciate it. I was really young during kennedys administration, but as ive gotten older and learn about the way the press reserved information, it didnt disclose everything about kennedy, especially things that would be harmful and deleterious to his presidency. And i realized there was a lot of reserve in the press. I wonder if you would comment on freedom of the press and the future of freedom in the press in this climate under the pressures of this president. And i just like to knowyour point of view about where you think freedom of the press and freedom of information is going . As you rightly say, during the Kennedy Administration is almost the last gasp of a particular kind of media environment. Edward keith went on to be the british Prime Minister in 1970, a cabinet minister at that time said in point said to the early 1960s and he said until then there was respect and the specific example he gives is when journalists start following him blindly so theres a sense in which the press was much more respectful, that for example, eisenhowers private life in many ways perhaps not quite as colorful as jfks but you know, there were indiscretions thereto, none of which were reported. Once you get into the 1960s obviously everything begins to change. I think its television that changes that. Its, thats the trajectory that we are on now because obviously living in the current Digital Media environment, i think as well the other thing i would say that seems to be very different to me as someone whos moved to america from a different system is that in the early 1960s, there was still within the American Media a sense of impartiality. That whichever network you reported for, there was a sense of duty to impartiality. Thats something which is enshrined in law in the uk, that television had a duty for impartiality for which they can be fined if they are found to be in breach of that but the press is very different. But i think that there is kind of a sense in which who today and American Media stands for detachment, for that kind of impartiality. Perhaps you could argue that some of the things like npr and pbs and so on how that they it seems to me that they interpret that in a way that simply because of the environment has to be very careful. Impartiality doesnt necessarily mean that you have to be, that you cant say that one thing is right for one thing is wrong, but you have to give equal to both sides but it means that you have to be able to back up your analysis with data, with evidence, with facts as tim was talking about so thats the thing that i would worry about going forward, that where is that going to come from and where are, when we want to know what is really true, what are the arbiters of that . And i think that thats as much to do with the new technology and working out how as a society we can deal withthat. Thats very complex. Thank you for those nice comments and cnn certainly is gives me an opportunity to say what i think i should and to contextualize what we are going through. I want us to have time for this last question. I sort of have to questions and im curious. Id like to have your response on what seems to be a changing in our history with so many statues being removed and taken out of view. Its like we want to disassociate ourselves with all this history, and yet thats part of our history whether we like it or not, thats been there. And i would like to have your thoughts on it. Obviously, that is very controversial topic today. My view about it, is that it seems entirely justifiable to me that statues which quite obviously would give offense to particular communities should not stand without context. So what i mean by that is that statues for example of the kind of in the south that weve been talking about. I understand why some of the statues would be removed but i wouldnt wish to see them destroyed area i would wish to see them put into some kind of environment that provides context, that recognizes that they are part of ahistory of the United States , because the controversy is not something that issues from today. These are things which have been controversial and have borne out controversy through the entire history of the United States, very often. Though in some cases maybe my response is precisely that of a historian, that we dont want to wipe these things from the record, but we need to understand them in the context of history, to contextualize them because ultimately by contextualizing them, we understand them and then we are able as a society, we areable to move forward. I want to thank richard and you for a splendid conversation. You now have an opportunity to purchase richards book and to enjoy yourself. Thank you richard. [applause] well done. Heres a look at authors easily featured on afterwards. Bestselling author Jeanette Coleman reported on the work of her grandfather, Manhattan Project administrative director james bryant opponent. Daily color News Foundation editorinchief Christopher Bedford explored the leadership chilled skills of president from an fbi agent temporal during details his experiences fighting terrorism as a muslim american. In the coming weeks on after words, christopher scalia, son of Antonin Scalia will share selections from his fathers beaches. Scott kelly will discuss his recordsetting year for the International Space station and this weekend on after words, goldstar father peter con will recall his immigration to the United States and offer his thoughts on what it means to be an american. I am a student for one constitution, the reinforced course i took that brought me to the declaration of independence was a study of world constitution. I studied full constitution and we still that story in great detail in the book but to no other constitution in the world, and i implored the americans to read one more time just five words of the First Amendment and they tell the whole story where the human dignities are enshrined in our constitution to stand in the cautious and the fabric of this nation as Congress Shall make no law. Five words, they speak so clearly about nations, about the forefathers emphasis on some Human Dignity as i call them, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly. These are the golden nuggets of our bill of rights and it is there that i implore that oh no other constitution, most constitutions have this right, parliament can do that. Parliament is authorized to do this, National Assembly can do this. No other constitution is Congress Shall make no laws. So sacred by these five words , after words heirs on book tv every saturday at 10 pm eastern and sunday at 9 pm eastern and pacific. What inspired you to write this book . First of all, let me say how glad i am to be here in austin and yes , yay austin. And thank you so much to all of you for turning out for this panel. I agree with neil that this is the civil rights issue of our time so to have you here listening and thinking with us means a lot so thank you for being here. Im actually, to answer that question i want to read the final chapter of the book because i think its perhaps the shortest way of answering it, its a paragraph long, called my heart, locked it. In my heart locket five daily round skinned kids, cousins, will be forever at play in the myrtle trees, days and the benefit june sunshine. I love to climb trees as much as my cousin michael did. An army here, a link there. Just out from the trees for all sundresses. Delicate skiing of pink and purple blooms. When we found unglued bonds on dock on your lawn we would gently press that theyre not until the skin slipped and the fragile crinkle blossom emerged whole. Meanwhile, inside the house through the living room picture window the results. Beloved are forever passing their time in glancing distracted talk. So how is that an answer to your question . I grew up as one of a set of huge cousins, big sprawling family. My dad had 11 brothers and sisters and five of us were particularly close. Myself, my brother and three children of my fathers younger daughter and the baby of the family was michael, my baby cousin, youngest of the two. And we grew up together as equals. Thats the point of that final concluding passage. Bound by the love of family, bound by the love of starting in the same place. Im a professor at harvard. My cousin is dead. He went to present at 15 on a first arrest for an attempted carjacking. Terrible thing to stand up in public and have to talk about the person you love who committed an attempted carjacking. The only good thing that can be said is the only person who got hurt was michael. The victim got his gun and shot him through the next and in the analyst on the way to the hospital, he obviously confessed what had happened but in addition he confessed to having robbed three people today previously and another person a week before. He had done anything like this, we were caught completely by surprise. California had passed its three strikes youre out law and what is meant he was told by the judge that if you went to trial and was convicted on all the things he confessed to he would receive 25 years to life so he was sentenced to 12 years and eight months and went to prison as 15, was transferred to adult prison at 17 for reasons that are opaque and ive not been able to get from the record and got out while he was at 26. I helped him with College Courses and i was the cousin on duty trying to help him with reentry and i wont go through the rest of the story but the story is by 29 he was killed by somebody he met in prison during that 11 years that he spent in prison so i wrote the story partly because to convey the pain of the way inequality works in this country. Okay, so we talk about inequality as an abstract thing. Its got emotions, think of those five kids growing up together playing in a tree and look at the different world we live in. This is not something that is purely a matter of the different choices we made. Michael and i made different choices but its also about the different degrees of difficulty presented to each of us on our lifes path as he endedup at a 15yearold in southcentral los angeles in a dangerous world of gangs and violent crime. And its that degree of difficulty that presented to young people who come up in different circumstances, different neighborhoods that we have a collective responsibility for. Thats the story that michael is about and i wrote it why . Because having escaped a junior at harvard asked me to give a series of lectures on the state of africanamericans in the 20th century and i said i couldnt do it and i kept giving him abstract titles like im going to talk about africanamericans in the 20th century and i kept postponing and finally he said kid, youre going to have to give these lectures and i realized thinking about it the only way i could pretend to the question of what has happened to africanamericans in the last 30 years was to tell my cousins story so thats why the book. Watch this and other programs online booktv. Org. [inaudible conversation]