Schultz, he talks about his book, issues on my mind. In the measures onio mind you talk when it comes to terrorism, we must think of moral involved if we must think of way of life, we must be willing to defend them. Means of more active defense and deterrence must be considered given the political support. If you have a Law Enforcement approach, you say, okay, let a terrorist act happen, then we find out who did it and we try them in the u. S. Courts and end lease appeal they go to jail. Well, what does that accomplish . A certain deterrence but in the meantime terrorist act is taking place and terrorist act like 9 11 can kill a lot of people. If you know something is coming at you, stop it from happening. In other words, prevention. I think when i first said that in 1984 it was controversial but after 9 11 people said, of course, we should be trying to stop that from happening and so trying to prevent things is very important and we do it a great deal in the country. I think theres been lots of terrorists acts that didnt happen because we found out about intelligence and prevented them. Former secretary of state, former secretary of labor, issues on my mind. What was your favorite job you ever had . Well, you say job. Job implies something that you have to do in order to get some money and if you say that i never had a job in my life. Ive always done things that i have found rewarding and interesting and if i ended up doing something that wasnt like that i would find Something Else to do but in government its a great privilege and opportunity to serve and i had a succession of jobs and all of them had tough moments but starting with 2 and a half years overseas in the United States marine corps and world war ii. There i was, i was fighting for my country and at the end we were victorious, i didnt have much to do with it. I was one person out there. I served in the Eisenhower Administration in economic advisers, it was a great privilege. I remember going down my office, was in this Big Office Building right next to the white house, used to be called the old state building, anyway, i had an office that looked the south lawn of the white house. I remember my father died not too long after that and he came and i took him to my office and he saw the view and he said, son, youve arrived. [laughter] so it was great to work there and you when youre working in the white house complex, you have a view of the whole government and i learned a lot about how you put the statistics together that we talk about all of the time. So that was a great experience. While i was secretary of labor, i had i knew the subject matter very well and i knew the department well because i had done things in both the kennedy and johnson administrations and gave me that exposure, but didnt know anything about washington and politics and the press and all of that, so i had a good base of knowledge from which to learn about these things and i was fortunate and persuading a man named joe to come and be the press person. Joe had worked in new york times, i dont know, decades and he was the premier labor reporter anywhere and he was really good, everybody read stories. Knew the subject and he said he would sign on but he had conditions. I said, okay, joe, what are your conditions . He said, first of all, if im going to be the spokesperson i have to foe whats going on. I dont want to be blindsided. If im blindsided, then im over and i said, of course, you go anywhere you want. Anybody would be glad to have you there, youll a contributor, what else, well, dont lie, i said come on, joe, i dont lie. Youll be surprised what happens to come, they come down here and they get under pressure, maybe they dont lie but mislead, misleading is bad as lying. So youve got to be straight. I said, okay. We will be straight. What else . Never have a press conference unless you have some news. I said, well, dont reporters like you dont understand. Reporters are guys who are trying to make a living and the way you make a living is you get a news story with your anymore on it and gets on the front page of your paper. You call a News Conference and the reporter thinks this is my story and he comes and you dont have any news, whats he going to do, hes going to ask you questions and try to make you Say Something stupid and thats the news. So he had a whole bunch of things like that. I learn a lot about the press from joe and while sometimes people write things you dont like on the whole, constructive attitude and you help them get the facts straight, you are going to be much better off. Then i had, there was a guy name bryce harlow in the white house who was political counselor and congressional relations guy and he took me under his wing to a certain extent and he had rules. He said never make a promise unless you can deliver on it. If it tushes out its turns out its hard to deliver, try all the harder because people only deal with you if they trust you and they trust you if you do you say youre going to do and his word is trust is the coin to have realm, trust is the coin of the realm so i always tried to remember that. In the Labor Department i had some big my first big battle in the congress and i learned something about that. Theres a great learning thing. Then i went there to be the director of the budget and then you have the whole government out in front of you, so that was great, then i became secretary of the treasury. There was a time when we were we readied the International Monetary system. Lots of dealings with people all over the world and i learned a lot about how to do Something Internationally. So that was great experience for me. It was fun, i enjoyed. Enjoyed the people. Some are still good friends today, but, of course, when i was secretary of state, plates changed. When Ronald Reagan took office the cold war was as cold as it would get and when we left it was left but the shouting. That was a huge thing to watch unfold. Mr. Secretary, if your book, issues on my mind, you have rules for leadership and a couple of those youve already expounded on, bryce harlow rule and joe loftus rule, your first role is to be a participant . Oh, yeah, thats what democracy is all about. Early on when i was working with him in primaries Ronald Reagan gave me a tie and in the tie said democracy is not a spectator sport and be part of politics and be willing to serve and be a participant. Rule number 5, competence is the name of the game in leadership. Well, its a great start to be competent. If youre not competent, youre going to get in big trouble. I had a tough experience, i told you when i went to washington as secretary of labor i was kind of innocent of politics and had political appointees slots to fill and i realized that you are trying to work with a diverge constituency and i said i need the best management guy in this industrial relations, everybody told me a guy named jim hudson, and then i talked to him. I said, well, we have to have a real labor guy, not a lawyer but someone who negotiates, stands for election, union guy, so we found a guy named bill. We have to get somebody who knows manpower training and so we got that, we have to get somebody who has worked in the area of how to deal with discrimination in the workplace and so on, a lawyer who know it is labor market, anyway, i get a lot of the people lined up and president president elect nixon thought it would show progress in his administration so he said why dont you bring him to the hotel and we will have a meeting and take him to introduce him to the press and i introduce jim hudson and asked him all kinds of questions and pretty obvious that he was a real pro and knew what he was doing. Some guy in the back raises hand, mr. Hudson, are you a democrat or a republican, i never even asked him. He says im a democrat. Next i remember weber who is dazzling and he just same guy holds his hand up, im a democrat. The last guy was jeff moore who is our nominee to be head of the Bureau Statistics and he was statistician and statistician and arthur who was close to nixon, something he wanted and i wanted, finally, we have a republican. So the same guy asked the question and he stands there like a couch and he finally says, well, i guess you to say im an independent. Anyway, i get back to my hotel room, phone is ringing off the hook and republicans on the Senate Labor Committee are saying dont you know that there was an election and so on. I cleared the names in the white house and i cleared them with ranking remember jacob javits, but anyway, i will give them credit because all my guys did terrific, they were competent people and even some of the people who oned called me and said, you know, we like your guys and jim hudson succeeded me as secretary of labor and later became ambassador of japan. So if i had ruled all of the people out because they were registered democrats, i wouldnt have had the competence. I should have asked the question and done something about it but anyway, if you have competent people around you, youre going to do much better than if you dont. Your first job is to form your team and get people who are competent in those slots. George schultz was one of several Hoover Institution authors that we interviewed in 2013, you can find them all in our website, up next soon to be director of Hoover Institute condoleezza rice. In the Reagan Library in 2017 she talks about her book, democracy, stories from the long road to freedom. When i think about democracy, its actually kind of mysterious things that people are willing to trust these abstractions, constitution, rule of law, willing to go to the polls and elect people to represent them rather than going into the streets or rather than binding to family or to clan or to religion, they trust constitutions and rule of law and thats a very mysterious process and i think as a kid, as a child in birmingham, alabama i saw something more mysterious, you couldnt go to Movie Theater or restaurant if you were a black person and most certainly secondclass citizen. I saw black citizens absolutely devoted to institutions of american democracy. I have one incident in the book that encapsulates it for me and i was 6ish years old and my uncle, my mothers brother had picked me up from school and it was election day and there were long lines of black people waiting to vote and i said to my uncle, well, this must mean that that man wallace, George Wallace cant win. I knew that we didnt want him to win. My uncle said, oh no, we are a minority, so hes going to win. I looked at my uncle and i said, then why do they bother and my uncle said because they know that one day that vote will matter and as i went around the world as secretary of state and i saw long lines of liberians or afghans, iraqis, south africans, in latin america people voting sometime for the first time i thought to myself one day they know the vote will matter and we are blessed with this extraordinary gift, democracy, americans in particular are blessed with Founding Fathers who understood an institutional design that would protect our liberties, our right to say what we think, to worship as we please, to be free from the police at night and have dignities that come with having those who will govern, i have to ask for your consent, but if we were blessed with that and we believe that we were endowed by our creator with those rights, it cant be true for us and not for them and one of the marvelous legacies of the United States of america and the building in which we sit, the library, one of the most marvelous legacies of Ronald Reagan was that he never forgot our obligation to speak for the voiceless. He never forgot our obligation to do the right thing in supporting those who just wanting the simple freedoms that we had and he delivered because he believed that the United States of america, america is an idea and its an idea thats universal and so thats why i wanted to write this book. [applause] you were in the position to move the worlds opinion of the United States and actions better than any other american, im sure. I know youre not in office now and just over 100 days since weve had the Trump Administration empowered and i wonder if youre able to speak to and if theres been any change in your mind as to how americans are viewed as we transition from president obama to President Trump . Well, i was in europe not too long after the election and the first thing i said to all of my friends, settle down. The United States of america is engaged in democratic experiment. [laughter] we just elected somebody who has never been in government before who has never even sniffed the government before, and that president is going to take some time, a bit of a learning curve but the one thing that america has institutions that are absolutely firm and absolutely concrete and will hold america and if you look at the president , i think hes getting used to the fact that actually its not as easy as it looks in there. That the american presidency is not just one person, its an institution, its a constrained institutions. The Founding Fathers were very, very terrified of executive power. If they were leaving a king, they didnt want to create another one. They created a congress, two houses as a separate and equal branch of government. Its article 1 of the constitution as the congress will constantly remind you when youre in the executive branch and today congress is made up of 535 people most of whom think they should be president of the United States. He has cohorts which he learned will challenge the president , he has governors, 50 of them, half of whom think they should be president of the United States and they have legislators and by the way he has a press as well, Civil Society and americans who are ungovernable. [laughter] so the job of getting to be president is is one thing, once youre there its quite another, the learning curve has been steep but i think we see some things that the world likes in what they see in america and i think the decision to strike the syrian air bases after the chemical weapons attack by assad on his own people was a very important corrective. We had layed out a red line 4 or 25 years ago, its been crossed and we have done nothing. That eroded american credibility and in that single strike the administration said this far and no further. There are just some things that are intolerable and i saw Something Else too in the way the president did that. You remember he said, i couldnt sit by and watch babies choking on chemical gas, what he was really saying as president of the United States i cannot sit by and watch baby chokes on chemical gas and so i think that, you know, still a lot of water to pass onto that bridge and we are still learning in many, many ways what its like to get up and not just react every time, but some very good things have happened and the one thing i will say as an american we have only one president at a time, and we have to do everything we can to try to make our president successful and thats where i stand. [applause] very large percent of our audience here might think some in the left and the right too that its waste of tax dollars and why would we be putting money in foreign aid because our schools needs to be prepared, bridges and all of that. Question coming from former secretary of state, do you think theres a foreign aid argument thats, you know, thats really important for the American People to grasp . Yeah. Well, for me its the same argument that i would make about democracy and promoting democracy. You can say we will Pay Attention to our own knitting, own affairs, we have to rebuild our bridges, rebuild our bridges in philadelphia, why are we building bridges in afghanistan. You can say our schools are not in great shape, why are we trying to send girls to school in nigeria, you can say all of those things, but i think theres really two powerful arguments against that kind of thinking, one is a moral argument and one is a practical argument. The moral argument is this, america is an idea and if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal and are good for us and cant be good for us and not for them, and we are at our best when we lead from both power and principle. Now, the principle that no man, woman or child should have to live in, the dires of poverty and worst of circumstances because we are also a compassionate nation that actually believes that as many problems as we have, we have been given an extraordinary bounty. If you go to some of the places in the world, i dont care how bad it looks in the United States of america, its much, much worse, how can you turn a blind eye to those children playing in the dirt in haiti and how can you turn a blind eye to an ebola pandemic in liberia . We are too good to be that way and the moral argument is that i am christian and i have been told that what you do for the least of my brothers you do for me and whatever your tradition is and wherever that impulse comes from for compassion america has had it and we have to keep it. Thats the moral case and now the practical states. Democratic states that can deliver for their own people dont invade their neighbors, they dont traffic children and sex trade so women end up in brothels and they dont democracies dont fight each other, we know that. And so theres a reason that we have believed that we are better off when other people beyond our borders can live with decent governments to try to take care of them. Yes, i think there was a time where foreign aid was just given for strategic reasons, soviet union was giving money and we gave money to somebody else, guilt of colonialism or whatever, the days have actually been long gone for a long time and if you look at some of the foreign aid programs that we now run, the millennium challenges are very good example of this, millennium challenges say to countries, you receive large foreign aid packages from the United States only if you are governing wisely, if youre fighting corruption, if youre investing in your people and if youre doing those things, then we will give you foreign aid. I will give you one example. They wanted to do the, you know, a lot of farms in the third world are quite inefficient because they are very small farms and one of the problem with combining is nobody knew what the titling was for the land and there was a law on the book that women couldnt hold land in their own name and so so the United States of america said, if you want to see a dime of this foreign assistance you will change that law and they changed the law, so when you go abroad and you look at what america has done in aids relief in humanitarian crisis or in the kinds of programs that we run all over the world, we are the largest donor of food aid, you recognize that the most powerful country in the world also ought to be the most compassionate and its good for us too because when you create responsible sovereigns that act in the International System in a way that enhances prosperity and security, we are all better off, so foreign aid is a very inexpensive way to keep us from ultimately having to intervene in other more expensive ways including by military force. Stanford university Hoover Institution was founded in 1919 by Herbert Hoover with the purpose of collecting materials about world war i. It has since grown to nearly 200 fellows who specialize in a range of Public Policy field, our look at books written by Hoover Institution fellows continues with economist thomas sole, he appears in Author Program in 1990 to discuss his book preferential politics. I was born in the south and transferred to new york, i was shifted between Different Levels of education and so i was top student in my class in North Carolina and then i was immediately the bottom student in my class in harlem and i was way behind, next to the bottom because the education was just that great. Painful period of adjustment but there was no racial issue involved since all the kids ahead of me were all black and so i got through that and second time of my life, i went out of my own when i was 17 and didnt return till 25 and the second time i went to an environment that had been very difficult compared to what i was used to and i was way behind. Where were you then . Harvard. The first time fulltime student, youre fulltime student at harvard without a high school diploma. So there were a little difficulties. Studying what . Studying major things, economics, all my degrees are in economics. Again, enormous adjustment to make but no one there to tell me all the white professors have it in for you and thats why youre doing badly. First of all i had done bad in harlem and overcome, i overcame it. What happened, how long did you stay at harvard . Well, i graduated. I thought you went to howard. I transferred. I was working fulltime in the day. So that was what years did you go to harvard . I graduated class of 58. So you can understand how the students would find plausible, black man a lawyer he was told when he first got there that they never knew black student and he got a b plus, but great consternation because one of the myths had fallen, its criminal in terms of using and manipulating the students to serve all kinds of experimental purposes. Can you give us an idea of external purposes that youre talking about . Political purposes. Just a couple of days i was told that campaign, demonstrations, black girls who did not want to participate in that, threatened with violence and thats not unique. I stand for it, the hispanic students, some hispanic students complained that the hispanic establishment that they dont want to go along with whats being said and done and they claim that only 15 of the hispanic students at stanford have ever attended a single event sponsored by hispanic accomplishment which speaks boldly and you have these things going on across the student. Once you let in the students who cannot make the academic standard, you will have professors who cant immediate the academic standard. Correct me on the names, derrick, Harvard Law School black and threatened law school if they didnt hire a black woman, hes leaving . Hes taking unpaid leave until such time as they hire a woman of color as he says, but hes also said that by black he does not mean skin color, he means those who are really black, not those who think white and look black, what hes really saying he wants ideological conformity of the people hes hiring to fill the position. Thats not uncommon. I know a black woman, for example, who has a ph. D, book published, contracted for another book, toured very nice place, she had a devil of a time getting a job teaching at a college and the reason is she gets shot down, whatever, white people who dont like her ideology. Its happening even where race is not an issue. Law school, i learned recently, there was a woman who was being considered for a change of position and all the men voted for her and all the women voted against her her because she does not follow radical and youre getting these test and extremely conformity thats being enforced where people have the power to enforce it. What are your politics outside of race issue . My political biases and im biased against politics and i havent been a registered member of any Political Party since 1972. Why . Well, following what they do and how they do it . They are really quite clever at things they do but the things they do dont really benefit the public very much. All the issues in general. Has this changed over the years . It has changed, its been for the worse. I see some hopeful signs and people try to limiting the terms of congressmen. I would like to see eliminate to one term. If youre going to allow a member of the house of representatives to, for example, spend 4 years in washington, i would rather they change that to one 4year terms rather than two 4year terms. They will sell out the Public Interest to get the money. Its really quite simple. The sugar industry can appropriate as much money to pay them back a thousand dollars on every dollar. You cant get that kind of return on investment in any place and so theres no signs they will stop doing that, either stop offering the money or congress will stop giving the money. We were looking at the cover of your book, preferential politics, International Perspective published by marol. In history, who are your favorite not politicians necessarily but who are your favorite people in history . Do you mean historic figures or do you mean people who i looked up to when i grew up . Who have you followed, Winston Churchill. I think Winston Churchill was the greatest man in the 20th century and i find it horrifying that most American Students do not know who Winston Churchill is. Any one man can be said to western democracy, he saw the enormous danger that led to world war ii, warned against him if he had been heeded in time maybe 40 Million People who would not have lost their lives. At the 11th hour it was enough to pull britain through and had britain threw doubtful the United States would have pulled through and highly unlikely that i would be sitting here alive. Who is your favorite american president . Oh, my heavens, thats a tough. Abraham lincoln, i guess, but its a shame to go back all the way to Abraham Lincoln to find one thats qualified. The modern people, in different respects i would say fdr, john f. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan and even though domestically Ronald Reagan and kennedy are opposite poles, they recognized the International Danger and saving the country which all the other issues wouldnt matter. Do you have an ideology, not a Political Party . I suppose. Im a great believer in maximum freedom. Libertarian . Not in a sense which the American Civil Liberties union is. I dont believe that they should be kept in school because of strange reading in the constitution. People have to recognize that all people, all their lives surrounding society and they cannot simply demolish it because its unjust. What youre going to do to make it better would have to be within that context so that my tendency is to want more freedom for the individual and less i dont want people making decisions who dont pay the price of their decisions and thats what politics is all about, you dont pay the price of the decision. One of the reasons we had a jim crow era in the country was because the politicians didnt pay the price of that. That was enormously costly, but the politicians who put that in didnt pay any cost of that. They drew full salary irrespective of all that and i want someone who discriminates that has to lose money discriminating because of the examples i give in the book. People start to back off when they start losing big money. Harlem was an all White Community and became black Community Despite organized effort to keep blacks out because people were losing money trying to keep it a White Community and i think people in the Civil Rights Era missed a bet by not trying to promote. One of if most interesting sentences here in the book is about india, they are the most diverse country in the world with 180 different languages and 500 different dialects, are they more of a melting pot than the United States . Good heavens, they do not melt, the enormous handicap under which india is laboring, under which many parts of sub sahara are laboring and now the United States having escaped with all of that, one language and cull hour over a distance that in europe go from madrid to moscow, having had that blessing, we are now going to pull that down the drain and go not being aware apparently of what is happening in the history of the balkin or people who speak in different languages trying to be in the same society. Back to the campus, relations on the campus, if this keeps up, whats going to happen . Oh, skin heads recruiting on some schedule campuses and white state of the union unions being formed, theres already harassment of minority students unseen 20 to 30 years ago and of course, the reaction on both sides escalates because what you do is give a lot of leverage to the crazy elements in all of the different groups and that is you pick internationally, for example, israel, someone said on the radio, on television that because israeli man killed 6 or seven arabs, one has has the leverage to prevent millions of people on both sides from working out some kind of livable arrangement between the two of them and, of course, once you get this racial hype, you put that power into the hands of demagogues and hoodlums to prevent numbers of people who may be disposed not to be able to do anything because they are polarized by crazies or whatever. Back to the campus again, what is creating the prejudice other than the elites that you talk about that have their own what is it among people that creates the differences that they dont get along . Well, the differences have always been there, but they got along before. I mean, blacks and whites were different at harvard when i was there but you didnt find all the black students huddled together at lunchtime at the end of some table the way you do on many campuses today. All the black students that i knew had black roommates and the ones that i knew were popular other than me, but thats not the situation today. So whats causing it . The fact that you do have leagues that have the agenda and the blacks are forced to come out and do the demonstrations and the what not and the fact that you have students that thats are tremendously alienated where they find in the situation where all they can do keep noises above the water if they can do that and theres someone there to tell them that its all due to white power structure and white students are tired of hearing that. Dont give us this junk and thats called sensitivity. Theres some that keep feeding each other. Lets say incident happens, the first thing that must be said we must have a larger quota of minority students and larger quota of minority faculty and must subject the white students to these sensitivity courses or ethnic courses or what have you, otherwise they wouldnt be necessary to force them. That wont make things better, that will make things worse. As they get worse you keep doing that and its an upward spiral. I just dont know where the spiral will end. I dont see anybody with courage stand. What would you do if you were administrator at a college or a university . Well, youre bringing me in 20 years after they have gone into this mess. 20 years ago i said dont do it, 20 years ago i said if you do it this would be the consequence and i wouldnt the only one and people simply did not want to hear it and im unsympathetic to the administrator, you made this mess, you get out of it. Fortunately for me nobody wants to hear what i have to say and not a live issue for me. Some gentleman wrote me from princeton, i think hes associated with the university in some way, i come to princeton and confer with this or that person, and i said, no, nobody asked me to come to a university to do this. The idealogues. Weve opened our archives to look at Author Programs with stanford university, Public Policy think tank the Hoover Institution. Next historian Neil Ferguson discovers biography of former secretary of state kissinger who is also a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Ferguson appeared on book tv Weekly Program after words in 2015. Thisthis is the first book of biography and not only book with Henry Kissingers cooperation but at his suggestion, how did that happen . Aught ought to be nervous of it because it implies it had some control over it but when he suggested to me over 10 years ago i said, willing to do this but on condition freehand. You have to accept that if you do this give me access to private papers i will write what i think is the truth which was incidentally the basis on which i had written the previous book, so he agreed to that and its not authorized because things he doesnt like. Good. I think i wouldnt have taken it on on any other basis. How does it happen . Did you know him beforehand . What was the moment . He read my stuff. I told the story, full disclosure and we were talking about one of the books that i had written about, having a conversation about that and so we met on that basis and i forget but some time after that the subject came up. I think he was attracted to the idea of biography being written. I wasnt the first person that had been considered for this job but when he put the question to me i initially said, no, and he then wrote me a very Henry Kissinger letter. A letter or email . It was a letter. He didnt do email and the letter said what a great shame, just when i had decided you were the ideal man to do this, just as i had found 150 boxes of my private papers that had been that i thought lost. I supposed a week or two days ago he was looking at papers and i decided i should do it. It is an extremely difficult life to write for a whole range of reasons, its controversial, well documented, difficult thing to do. Particularly early correspondence and dairy and within a few hours i said, i have to take this home. This is not a man who hasnt been undocumented and hes written memoirs extensively even longer than your book. Why do you think he wanted hes also shared some information, i mean, he spoke with walter for his biography, why do you think he wanted the book written . One of the points i make in the book hes a trading historian and historian knows that the memoirs are different from the histories from the biographies. His 3 volumes after all cover mostly time in government about the period before 1969 and so there was part of his life in effect that he hadnt written about and relatively little about and book is a journalist book, interviews, documents there and i think the idea was, somebody should write biography based on the documents, archival sources because that simply didnt exist and although a whole bunch of books that you can find in libraries that are biographies of kissinger, most are not based on much more than hes saying. It was a compelling one and as it turns out the material was very rich and i was lucky because that whole period from earliest days growing up in germany right down to the moment that Richard Nixon offered him the job of National Security adviser. You were described as conservative historian, do you think he chose you in part for that reason and the other person who he offered it to was conservative historian . I think its more important that im british, though, because theres some advantage of being an outsider in working in American History. One characteristic feature of Henry Kissingers life has been extraordinary political controversy that can date back to early 1970s and raged on ever since and in some ways off the generation of 1968, off the generation that came of age during the vietnam war and your generation of americans, im somebody who can come at this as history. I dont have memorabilia in my attic. In the question of conservative i think its worth adding footnote because conservative means Something Different if you have grown up in the uk but its not republicanism. The u. S. Version and im not by any means a republican in my politics now that i live in the United States. Im a conservative in the way that Henry Kissinger was a conservative as young academic. A european conservative and you often feel like a liberal if youre a european conservative in the United States because things american conservatives say are shock to go you and in the same kind of way that kissingers conservatism is really european, so is mine and that maybe be one reason that he thought it would work. When you say european conservative and things that you find shocking are in the National Security realm or social issues . The social issues and those things that i regard as not being in the politics that are in the domain of politics in the u. S. Are National Security issues. Show argument going on about National Security. Ive been critical in recent years of president obama and i was very critical of his predecessor in the book published in 2004. I was extremely critical of the invasion of iraq and the way the occupation was handled so part of the reason to doing this is i had been drawn from the moment really that i sat foot in the u. S. And i probably approached it rather naively thinking that i would criticize both republicans and democrats. Its hard to be in that position. You never expected to be one side or the other but on National Security issues and much else im more an independent. Im not sure theres no question that theres been a convergence since the end of the cold war and if you look at the issues or iraq itself that there were people on the left who saw the humanitarian challenges and people on the right who were isolationists thats certainly true and other than perhaps somebody who choses case by case. Right, or at least somebody who recognizes that there cant be a simple party line on the National Security issues and somebody who doesnt want to be bound by national and cultural issues. He certainly didnt selfidentify as liberal in 1950s or 1960s harvard but when he encountered real conservatism, barry goldwater, 1964 Republican Convention he was appalled and he always had uneasy relationship with the right of the republican party, with conservatives as well. Interesting things about kissingers predicament and let me explain why, controversial figure. Many enemies on the right. So the book is called the idealist which is a rather contrarian take on kissinger who is even most kindly description is described as the ultimate realist so your choice of the word idealist which would explain in the book is really not notion of idealism, its more of a notion of idealism, can you explain for the audience at home what you mean by idealist when it comes to kissinger and why its our notion, of course, traditionally but thats not the description that youre using . Its true that most people think of Henry Kissinger of the realist and the names they throw around, he wrote about, maybe not surprising that people have fall into that trap. He really wasnt a realist and one realist that argues that the United States should follow interest, but he wasnt one of them and those who were realist were critical of him, the first clue of something wrong with notion. When i started to read his writing which i began to think not many people have tone, i was done, i was really struck by something that they were critical, pretty critical. Highly critical of the maestro of 1970. I started thinking here, i dug deeper into kissingers development and three things are striking, one is inexperience growing up in 20s and 30s and being driven to flee germany and made him surprisingly critical appeasement of dictators and very interesting essay because they thought they were pursuing narrow selfinterest that approached the Foreign Policy and disregarded the human rights abuses to have dictatorships and number 1 his own experience in 1930s makes his suspicious of what he saw the realist apieces and appeases and number 2 he comes to harvard and push undergraduate, elliot says go away and read manual and come back when youre finish and he did go off and read and put it into his senior thesis. The problem on the one hand cant tell that theres such a thing of freedom, free will, free choice, the experience of freedom is real but on the other hand, argue that is theres some kind of plan for the world, the humanity leading ultimately to perpetual peace and discussion in kissingers senior thesis is whether reconciling and he concludes that there is and ultimately the experience of choice is a real one and freedom as kissinger defines this is in the experience, intellectual experience. A third point which is perhaps the crucial one given the cold war context of his early academic career, kissinger rejects materialism. Idealist in the sense that he rejects materialist theories of history. The theory of the soviet. Also he rejected capitalist theories and if our growth rate is higher than growth rate we will win cold war. I think those three kissinger emerges as idealist. Oddity, rarity of the harvard of the 1950s. I think its what made his contribution fundamentally distinctive. Youre watching book tv on cspan2 and we are looking at authors programs with fellows from stanford universities Hoover Institution, Public Policy think tank founded in 1919 by stanford alumnist president Herbert Hoover, up next john hugh who worked in office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department during the george w. Bush administration spoke at Common Wealth club in 2012 about coauthored book called taming globalization. So let me just briefly describe case of medine versus texas and to me it capsulates a lot of the issues in taming organization. Require that when an alien is arrested in the United States, he be given warnings he can seek access to his consulate and get assistant from translators and so on. Texas refused to reconsider its decision, even thoughed hate not provided these warnings as required by a treaty. The country of mexico went to the International Court of justice to seek relief, saying the United States violate its treaty obligations. The International Court of justice found against the United States, and said the United States had in fact violate our obligations under the treaty and issued an order to United States to had the execution of mr. Medellin and other aliens on death row. President bush issued an order to the governor of texas, i trust he knew the address to put on the letter. He issued an order to governor wreck perry, asking hipping ordering him to stop the execution so that the out could come into compliance with the Vienna Convention and the International Court of justices decision. Texas refused to obey it, and actually was sued in the Supreme Court and ultimately the u. S. Supreme court refused to stop the execution. Mr. Medellin was executed shortly thereafter. In that decision the Supreme Court said that even though the United States had signed the Vienna Convention that required these kinds of warnings, that Congress Still had yet to do something, congress had to act to put it into effect. Until congress did that, the courts were not going to get into the business of enforcing the treaty. Even in a Death Penalty case when someone was on death row. That one case and its very complicate but that one case summarizes a lot of issues in this book. The first is that globalization, we use the phrase a lot, has caused a lot of changes in our political and legal system. When we say globalization, we mean a few things. One is the easy and rapid and cheap movement of goods, capital and people, across national borders. So, for example in the United States, millions of aliens cross our borders every year, coming in and out of the country. Billions of dollars of goods and Services Also cross our borders inch the last i think the economic report of the president a few years ago, 30 of american Gross National product is either related to imports or exports. And of course, billions of dollars move with the press of a button between accounts here and abroad. Globalization refers to i think the ease of communications and the rise of internet and the creation of new kinds of networks that make it extremely easy ask cheap for people to community communicate and things abroad affect us here at home they didnt used to 15 or 25 years ago. Look today at the american stock markets. They move up and down for what is happening in greece, whether guest will pay back the bonds and has an meek effect on the dow jones. Wouldnt have happened 30 or 40 years but the speed and quickness of communications makes that possible. Wed be the first toed a miss globalization is not an undiluted good. Globals makes bad things possible. Transnational criminal networks. Drug smuggling. Pollution crosses state borders. Terrorism crosses state borders amount of loss the problem use the same channels of International Commerce and communication to move around the world, just as goods, capital, and people do. That has sparked i think in our view, a response, which is to try to create regulatory regimes that control these new types of globalization. We call it in the book global governance. The basic idea is its outside the power of a single nation fate to effectively regulate these things. Used to be in the power of one country to affect most of the goods, services and capital and to control problems look pollution and crime that occur within its borders, but today because of the ease of transportation and communication, because of globalization, it lies outside the power of most nation states to effectively regulate these new types of problems. So what you have is the rise, we argue, of a new kind of governance. Global governance, and international dreamts now try to regulate worldwide that to effectively regulate Something International law has to have a scope that it didnt use to have. So, for example, to regulate chemical weapons, worldwide, the Chemical Weapons Convention regulates the production and storage and existence of every kind of chemical in the world no matter who possesses it. Even chemicals held by research laboratories, by industry, by private persons, fall under the ambit of the Chemical Weapons Convention. One thing youll see is broad scope that reaches well into a nation state in a way that International Law did not before the second thing is the rise of new kinds of International Institutions that are neutral and independent from the control of any one country. In fact they wouldnt be able to do their job unless they had those characterikes bus in order to effectively regulate and enforce new Kind International the institutions have to be seen as outside the control of any single country. So you have the rise of things like not just the United Nations and the Security CouncilInternational Court of justice, but things like the Chemical Weapons Convention again has a secretariat or the World Trade Organization has new terms of courts and regulatory bodies that sit outside the control of any one country, but also have, because of that, independence, a kind of power that International Institutions didnt have before. Used to be i think fair to say that International Institutions were more directly under the control of a few nations or some nations. Now theyre seen as being independent of any nations. So, just to give an example, if the United States and other countries in the world were ever to reach an agreement about Global Warming, it would have both characteristics, Global Warming treaty to be effective would have to be able to reach into Energy Production and use in a country in ways maybe the federal government today doesnt regulate here at home. Even maybe to the extent of regulating domestic or home energy usage. At the same time would have to create International Institution that would have to decide how much each country was allowed to produce in terms terms of energw much pollution it was allowed to make, and also to measure whether people are in violation to issue sanctions and no one would trust the institution if it was directly under the control of the United States or of the European Union or of china. It would lose its legitimacy and function and the regime would not function unless it was independent from nation states. Dont feel and i dont think we feel like this irparticularly controversial descriptions of what is going on in the world. Were still at the early stages but its been going on and accelerating and the views that as globalization ties the United States and our economy stow site tighter to the rest of the world youll see more and more of these kinds of agreements and institutions. The problem from our view is not that these are done at the international level. The question for us and the question for the book of taming globalization, is how does the United States political and legal system respond . Can the United States cooperate with these International Institutions, these new kinds of regimes and how does it do it . Thats the fundamental tension and issue at the heart of the book. Because as you can guess, maybe in my description, some of the new kinds of regulation, new kinds of institutions, are intentioned with the way the United States traditionally exercises public power, and particularly run into the prerogatives of cronk and especially over control of domestic law and taxation and also the peringtives of the exec branch and the judiciary. To give one example, when treaty regulate an issue, standard doctrine amongst many scholars and people who work in this area, that treaties are not limited by the same restrictions on behalf of federalism that apply to congressional statutes. So there was a famous case called missouri vs. Holland where back in the 1920s it was thought that congress could not regulate the flight could not regulate and protect species of birds for endangered species reasons. The court and the her court struck down statutes that tried to protect birds. The out then entered a treaty with canada called the Migratory Bird greet and then in congress, where congress did exactly the same thing that the courts said it could not do under its domestic powers and missouri vs. Holland the Supreme Court said, yes, the United States could do that and in federal governments powers could be bradder to regulate things domestically it couldnt do via just a normal congressional statute. Another example would be in the area of separation of powers. If the courts play the same role they play with International Affairs that would Domestic Affairs the powers of the courts will agreement theyll be called into areas and matters which traditionally have not been involved the but because of interam law and regimes and International Institutions are affecting more and more thing that used to be under control of the National Government of the states it will draw the courts into the candidate offed delicate decisions about politics and Foreign Affairs they used to try to stay out of. We welcome our look at book biz booksly Hoover Institution fellows with shelby steele. Mr. Talking about his back shame, how americas past sins have polarized our country. I wrestle evidence with the title of the book. Different themes in the week and couldnt find that sort of single thing. Finally i calm upon the my wifes help, the word shame and that word seemed to bring together all the themes i was trying to work with in the book. And so host that central theme wor going for. Guest the idea is that america argue whether i the greatest country in all of history, also committed one of the greatest sins perpetrated that sin over centuries. Dehumanized an entire race of people. Relentlessly. Rear in and youre out for a very long time. So, the profound evil admidst stunning greatness. And so now that greatness i think of course is what finally delivered us from what we were doing wrong, but on the other hand, it is the shame we will now have to deal with, and so it is maybe were still too close to the 60s when we first acknowledged the shame to understand it importance, i think its one of the most important events in all of American History certainly, how does a society that believes in freedom, grounded in freedom, deal with having bree trade it and the betrayed it and the book looks at different aspects of that irony. Host in my reading of it, the shame belongs to the 1960s liberal movement in your view, and it is thats what caused or current political porlarization. Guest yes, thank you. Thats. Host is that fair assess. Very fair assessment. In the 1960s, american liberalism changed and took responsibility for dealing with that shame, and saying in effect, we are the politics, the ideology that is going to redeem america, bring back american legitimate si as a democracy. Thats our mission, and it liberalism has dominated american politics for the last 5060 years. Simply because it took propriety over this terrible shame and said, we will save america from it. And we will end racism and we will ensexism and we will overcome all of those things and well the people we hurt, we will have great societies and wars on sport and we will redeem them and bring them up to power with everyone else up to par with everyone else. Well correct that and that will restore our legitimatey as a free society. Host and in your book, the nword is used pretty liberally. Guest uhhuh. Host and necessary. Host some groups coopted it. They didnt necessarily want to be but they cooped the word. Guest yes. Well host for their own political purposes. Guest yes. Yeah. Took it over and almost made a romance around it and sort of ascribed to the word a kind of power and a truth that had never been really before. About did serve their argument, because much of the argument certainly coming from minorities in america, for the last 50 years, sense the 60s has been now you have the twomers and you admitted all you did, and we are we now demand in the name of what we suffered that empowers us, that gives us an entitlement to special considerations in American Life now. And so that word was just a part of a theme that contributed to that larger point of view. Power and victimization. Host why did you include the story of your swim team and quitting the swim team in this book . Guest i included that story, talking about quitting Swimming Team and the story that i was the only black kid on the Swimming Team, and the coach host the captain. Guest the captain of the team and the coach and i were very close, really, but in the summer before my senior year, he had a three week sort of Summer Vacation for the entire team, at his mothers home in upper lake michigan, and he never invited me, and i was excluded and not meanly in any way but i just the team organized around routh we knowing about it. This wonderful time they were going to have on the lake, and i was never told about it. Well, the implication there is that he collaborated with racism. He was my friend. He was a group coach. We were we liked each other but he one his mother said no blacks can come. And so he honored that and he plotted with the parents of others the other swimmers and so forthso that did not happen. He was a metaphor in that sense for america. He knew better. He liked me. I liked him. I babysat for him. And yet he collaborated in a way that was at the very least cruel, but sending me a message that larger america said there was something unacceptable about me, and he claims he was not able to see that but i think he was. And so i talk about him as this is the situation of the sort of profound hypocrisy that america is now in. America is now looking at minorities as my Swimming Coach looked at me, he called me got mad and called me every name in the book and said i i was a militant and all of this. I was very calm because i knew he was wrong and he knew he was wrong. And america now stand before itself minorities, humbled, polling yet apologetic, bathing for relief from the stigma of racism and that is minority power. That is the power of minorities have wielded in American Life now for 50 years. And so that little incident of the quit the simming team ed tide not of the swimming beau team bass of that. Gentrify up in segregation, had seen it all the time id be here all day docking about owl the instances of segregation endured but i knew he was he was compromised, and so thats what the sense it inned up amounting to. Host what was your parents life like in 1940 chicago. Guest my parents are two very Exceptional People. Im actually write about them in the future. They were my father was a black from the south, third grade education, taught himself to read and write. My mom was upper middle class who it from ohio, daughter of a contractor, and a masters degree from the university of chicago and so forth. They were very on the surface they were very different. Once you get to know them, you saw that probably was my father who was better read and spend more time reading, than my mother, but they for them life was they were Exceptional People in that they knew and had no illusions about the fact they would have to fight for a place in American Life, and they did it. And they did it without ever maining, without any compunction. They were founding members of core, tying overred racial equality. Grew up as what they call a core baby. And then they had core babies ump was a core baby so i marched through childhood and tell mon straighted and that was dome mon straighted and that was ethe those i came out of and they lived their entire lives fight are for civil rights and they were true. They were admirable people. Host were they wrong . Guest were they host were they wrong . Guest they were not wrong. They were right. This is the something that is important. They were not wrong. In their day, this was a deeply blanketly racist society. I grew up, i couldnt go here or there. I neverred a in a restaurant until he was 17, on the Swimming Team, because you blacks cooperate go in restaurants, couldnt bate job there segregation was everywhere. They were fighting a real, concrete, unapologetic enemy in American Society that said, listen, youll stay inferior, be treated that way. Forget about it, or like William Faulkner said in a fame miss essay, probably right but go slow. Well, obviously he had never heard of patrick henry, give me freedom or give me death. Well, my parents would give me freedom or give me death. They were not ever apologetic, they fought to the bitter end and i grew up seeing all of that and it certainly had an impact on who i became in the long run, but they were two now we 60 years later 50, years later, america is a different place. America is not very leaptly racist. Racism no longer stop this dreams and hopes of any black person in American Life. You can do anything you want. You can be the president , you can be a ceo, you can be a diswasher, you can be anything you choose to be in america today. Does that mean that every white person will love you . I dont know and dont care. What is important is that you have that opportunity. The opportunity is what its all about. So, the Civil Rights Movement today is very different than back then. Theyre not fighting against a real racism, a real enemy that is going to stop their live wiz bigotry. Theyre fighting now for the rewards, for all of for their manipulating white guilt. Theyre using the story of black victimization to manipulate the Larger Society into entitlements and we have a generation of black leader who do nothing but shake down major american corporations. This is not the Civil Rights Movement of my parents. Its not anyone i grew up in. Its a very different one. Host what is your connection to stanford yard of and the Hoover Institution. Guest im a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at stanford university, all been very happy pout. A great, great institution, great people there. And great environment. And colleagues and its maintain everything to me and to my work, and has facilitated that. So im a fan. These are just a few of the many Hoover Institution fellows who have appeared on booktv. You can watch any of the programs featured over the past 90 minutes in their entirety on our website, booktv. Org, search, Hoover Institution and book. Here are some of the current best selling nonfiction books. According to bromans book store in pasadena, california. Topping the list former u. N. Ambassador in the open Obama AdministrationSamantha Power in the education of on idealist. After that, mike mccargo examples the Science Behind why we make bad additions in you are miracle, followed by untamed. Then the splendid and the vial, erik larsons study of winston n churchills leadership during the london blitz and wrapping thump he book at the the best selling nonfiction books is Michele Obamas memoir becoming, the best selling book of 2018. Some of these author its have appeared on boost about and you can watch them online at booktv. Org. The president from public afared paper paperback and ebook, biographies of every pratt, from best to worst. And features perspectives into the lives of our nations chief executives and leadership styles. Visit our website cspan2. Org president. And order your copy today. Wherever poocks and ebooks are sold. Jukes at a vent in new york city she heres a portion of the program. I was really influenced by the post modern assertion theres no such thing as a knot central position, that everyone is invested every position is political, all of us speak from a particular place that has to do with who we are and values and consequences. Because before that there was such a sense theres something neutral and objective which was usually white and usually male and usually pretending to some kind of weird rationality, and what is really doing back then and the 80s was writing in three different veins. I was trained as a journalist, the graduate school of journalism at berkeley, a great training, doing journalistic work, working as an art critic where you assume an authoritative tone that is personal but externalized and these are my opinions and associations but in the inmost store and then writing essays and just felt like three thing that war really far a that were really far apart and then being an activist that changed every. We so often talk but activism as a kind of broccoli you should eat because its good for you with implications eight mildly unpleasant and full of virtue signaling but a lot of the best things that ever happened to me came to me and the best people hat ever happened to me were because of activism. View the rest of the Program Visit our website, booktv, type Rebecca Solnit or the title of her book, recollections of my nonexistence, into the search box at the top of the payment. Heres a look at Publishing Industry news. Former president bill clinton and best selling author James Patterson are teaming up again to write a novel titled the president s daughter, which is scheduled to be released next summer. This follow theyre 2018 release the president is missing that sold 3 about 2 million copies the New York Public Library turned 125 years old last yankee and to mark the occasion library reese leases lists of book that they say inspire the love of reading. The books available at their website, nypl. Org. Publishers weekly named Porter Square books in cambridge, massachusetts, the book store of the year, the 16yearold store is coowned by deanna and david mo bought it in 2013 decided to sell half to several of their employees. Also in the news, npd book scan reports that book sales were up close to 8 for the weekending may 16th. Adult nonfiction sales were flat and remained down 8 for the year. Many book sophisticates and conferences forced to cancel continue to offer attendees a virtual experience. Bronx book festival will be online on june 6th the American LibraryAssociations Annual conference is virtual. From june 24th to the 26th. Booktv will bring you new programs and publishing news and watch our archived programs at any time at booktv. Org. Beginning now on booktv its an author discussion on labor moms of the past and present. Now the working class is faring today. This Virtual Event its hosts by haymarket books. To get our conversation started here im going to ask each of our speakers to give us a quick five minutes on where they think we are right now and what should happen next and then a few questions for them. Staysy, youre first. This is a great opportunity to talk through the moment were in right