Transcripts For CSPAN2 Books By Hoover Institution Fellows 20240712

Department officials, john and awardwinning author, shelby steele. At first, heres a portion of the 2013 interview with George Schultz freed secretary of state during the Reagan Administration he talked about his book issues on my mind. And the issues on my mind, you write that when it comes to terrorism, this country must think hard about the moral stakes involved and if we truly believe in our Democratic Values and our way of life, we must be willing to defend that. Passive measures are unlikely to suffice. Needs of our active defense must be considered and given the necessary political support. Estate if you have a Law Enforcement approach, you say okay, but a terrorist attack happened. Then we find out who did it. And then we try them in the u. S. Court. And we find them guilty. Then they go to jail. What has that accomplished. A certain deterrence but in the meantime, tara stark has taken place. In the terrorist act like 911 can kill a lot of people. So if you know something is coming thank you, when it stop it from happening. In other words, prevention. When he first said that in 1984, it was very controversial. But after 911, people instead of course, we should be trying to stop it from happening. So i think trying to prevent things is very important. And it is become common if we do a great deal this country. Think there been lots of terrorists acts that do not happen because we found out about them through intelligence. We prevented them. Host the former secretaries of treasury George Schultz about his new book, issues of my mind. Mr. Secretary, was your favorite job you ever had. George please 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. Others have done things that i have found rewarding. That amount of doing something that was like that, i would find Something Else to do. But in government, it is a great privilege and opportunity to serve had a succession of jobs. In all of them other tough moments but all of them for rewarding starting with my two and half years overseas in the United States marine corps in world war ii. And there i was, i was fighting for my country. We were victorious in the end and i didnt have much to do with it but i was one person out there. I served in the Eisenhower Administration and its counsel rate is a great privilege pride and i remember going down into my office and assist Big Office Building right next to the white house. Used to be called the old state building. I had an office with the window looked out on the south lawn of the white house i remember my father who died, not too long after that, but he came and took him to my office and i saw this view. He said son, youve arrived. [laughter]. So its great to work there. And working in the white house complex and we have a few of the whole government. I learned a lot about how you put the statistics together. That we talk about all of the time. That was a great experience. And secretary of labor, i had a new the subject matter very well and a new the department well because i had done some things about the kennedy and johnston administrations. Give me that exposure. But i didnt know anything about washington politics and the press and all of that. So i had a good base of knowledge which to learn about these things. I was fortunate in persuading man to come and be the press person he had worked for the New York Times for decades. He was a premier labor reporter. Anywhere he was really good. He really newest subjects. He said it would his signon but he had conditions. I said okay joe, what are your conditions for he said will first of all, im going to be the spokesman id need to know what is going on. I have to be able to walk in there and not be blindsided. I am blind decided, i am over. As of course, you can go anywhere you want. Anybody would be glad to have you there. What else. So i said well dont lie pretty nice i dont like. And he said he would be surprised what happens to people. The under pressure really get here and maybe the ark misled are misleading, that is as bad as lighting line. So you got to be straight and i said okay i will be straight. What else. He said will never have a press conference unless you have some news. In a civil, reporters like to schmooze around and he said look you dont understand. Reporters are guys who are trying to make a living. And we make a living as you get a news story with your name on it and he gets on the page of your paper. You call a News Conference and the reporter thinks this is my story. Then he comes and you dont have any news. What is he going to do. He is going to start as question to try to make you Say Something stupid. And then that is the news. And how bunch of things like that. So i learned a lot about the press. And while sometimes people write things you dont like, on the whole if you have a constructive attitude, and have them get the facts straight, youll be much better off. And then theres a guy named bryce in the white house who was the political counselor and congressional relations guy. He took me under his wing to a certain extent. They had rules. He said never make a promise unless you can deliver on it. And it turns out that is really hard to deliver, try all the harder. Because people only deal with you if they trust you did and if they trust you if you do what you say youre going to do the will trust you. And his word was, trust is the coin of the round. So always try to remember that. In the Labor Department i had some big, my first big battle in congress. I learned something about that. The great warming thing. And i went from be director of the budget and there you have the whole groups in from you. That was great. Then it became secretary of the treasury the time when we were read in the International Monetary system. So lots of dealings with people all over the world learned a lot about how to do Something Internationally. So that was great experience for me. Morning was fun. I enjoyed the people. Some are still friends today. But of course when i was secretary of state, the teutonic place in the world changed. When Ronald Reagan and i took office, the cold war was as cold as it could get. And when we were left, is all of about to shatter. If there was a huge thing to be involved in and wash and fold. Host in your book, issues on my mind, you have some goals for leadership in a couple of those youve already expanded on. On these rules, your first rule is to be a participant. George yes. That is what is democracy is all about. Early on when i was working in the primaries, Ronald Reagan gave me a tie. Under tight says, democracy is not a spectator sport. So be part of it. Maybe part of the politics be willing to serve. And be a participant. Host rule number five competence is the name of the game and leadership. George if you not competent youre going to get in big trouble. I did have experience with that. I told you when i went to washington as secretary of labor i was kind of an innocent in politics and i had a bunch of political appointees slots to fill. And i realized you are trying to work with a diverse constituency. So stayed pending the best management guy this industry relation Labor Relations deal. Everybody told me his name jim. Subjecting so that i have a real labor guy. Somebody negotiates contracts. It wasnt for the rankandfile. So we found a guy named bill to do that. You better get somebody who really knows manpower training. Somebody who has worked in the area knows how to deal with discrimination in the workplace. So lawyer knows the labor market. I get a lot of these people end up. President elect nixon that it would Show Congress in his administration so i said to be our hotel, and will have a little meeting. And we will take him and introduce him to the press. So have a meeting. Then i introduce them to the press. Jim has an was the first one and he is him all kinds of questions. It is pretty obvious the gym is a real pro. He knew what he was doing. Some guy in the back of the room was head of the said mr. Hudson, a democrat or republican. In my innocence, i had never even asked him. They said i am a democrat. So as i remember, it was dazzling. In his sing back all and sinema democrat. No it like that. Less guy was jeff, our nominee to be that of the bureau of labor statistics. He was a statistician. And another who is very close to present nixon something that he wanted and i wanted. So that finally we have a republican. He said the same i asked the question, he stands there but a cow chewing its cud. And then he says, like us to have to say i am an independent. [laughter]. So i get back to my hotel and my phone was ringing off the hook. All the republicans on labor committee, and ten. I cleared them of their clanking republicans and jacob and javits was out there too. He was a republican. All my guys did terrific. There were competent people. Amen some of the people who objected and called me and said you know, like you guys. And jim hudson succeeded me as secretary. He later became the investor its japan. The first of the. It was a brilliant Northwestern University and so if i had ruled all of these people are because they were registered democrats, would not have had the competence. Im not saying that i shouldve asked the question and then something about it but, anyway. If you have competent people, you will do much better than if you dont. He first job his former team. Get people who are competent in those slots. Sue and George Scholz was one of several Hoover Institution authors we interviewed in 2013 pretty fun them all in our website booktv. Org. Up next another former secretary of state, as and to be director of the Hoover Institution, and this portion of the program from the library in 2017, she talks about her book democracy. Stories from the long road to freedom. It. When i think about democracy, its actually kind of mysterious thing. People are willing to trust these abstractions, constitutions and rule of other willing to go to the polls and elect people who represent them. Rather than going into the street or rather than whining to family or clan religion. They trust constitutions and rule of law. That is a very mysterious thing. I think is a kid, growing up in birmingham, alabama, i was perhaps one very early on felt something brief in even very more mysterious. I thought where you couldnt go to a Movie Theater restaurant if you for a black person, segregated. No kind of a secondclass citizen. I saw black citizens absolutely devoted to the institutions of american democracy. I have one incident in the book that encapsulates it for me. I was at six ish years old. And my uncle alto and her mothers brother, had pick me up from school and was election day. And there were long lines of black people waiting to vote. I said to my uncle, this must mean that that man wallace, George Wallace cannot win. I knew in my own six yearold leg, he probably did not want him to win. So my uncle said, no, he said we are a minority. So he bowen. Hello. I said, and why did they bother. The man posted because they know that one day, that boat will matter. I went around the world, the secretary of state i sought long lines with afghans or iraqis for south africans, and latin america. People are voting and sometimes the first time. They know that one day, the boat will matter. And we are blessed with this extraordinary gift, democracy. Americans in particular were blessed Founding Fathers understood in institutional design that would protect our liberties and our right to say what we think. To worship as we please. To be free from the secret police at night pretty to have dignity that comes with having those who are going to govern, you have to ask for the 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 not them. One of the marvelous legacies of the United States of america in the building which we said, the library was present, one of the most marvelous legacies of Ronald Reagan was that he never forgot our obligation to speak for the voiceless, and never forgot our obligation to build right thing in supporting the suggest one of the civil finance that we have. And he delivered. As he believed that the United States of america is an idea. It is an idea that universal. And so that is why i wanted to write this book. [applause]. Host when you are secretary of state, you are in a position to rule the worlds opinion of the United States with actions. Its only been 600 day since we have had the Trump Administration empowered. I wonder if you ever disagree to her hasnt been any change in your mind as to how americans are viewed as we transition from president obama to present trump. I was in europe for too long after the election in the first thing that i sent to all my friends in europe was just settled down. [laughter]. The United States of america is engaging in a little bit of a democratic experiment. [laughter]. We just elected somebody has never been in government. Reporter . This never even sniffed the government. Reporter and that president is going to take some time, a bit of a learning curve but american has institutions that are absolutely firm in concrete and will hold america and check. So if you look at the president , thinking is getting used to the fact that actually it is not as easy as it looks in their writing that the american presidency is not just one person. Its an institution, constrained institution. The Founding Fathers were very terrified of executive power. They didnt want to create another team if they were leading one. So they created a congress, two houses as a separate and equal branch of government. This article one of the constitution as the congress will constantly remind you of nate in the executive branch. And today, a congress is made up of 535 people, most of them say they should be president of the United States. He has courts which he learned well challenge the president. He has governors, 50 of them. Half of whom they think they should be president of the United States. And they have legislatures. By the way he has a press as well. And civil society, and americans who are ungovernable. [laughter]. Until the job of getting to be president is one thing. Once youre there, it is quite another. So the morning everything has been steep i think we have seen some things that really the world likes and what they see in america. I think the decision to strike the syrian airbases, after the chemical weapons attack by solomon is in people, was a very important corrective. We had great laid out a redline for five years ago. And it has been possibly have done nothing. That eroded american credibility. And that single strike, the administration said this far and no further. Theyre just some things that are intolerable. I saw Something Else to in the way that the president did that. He said like not survive the watch babies choking on chemical gas read what he was really saying was as president of the United States, i cannot sit by and watch babies choking on chemical gas. So i think, theres still a lot of water to pass under that bridge. And were still learning. In many ways but its like to get up and not just react every time. Thats very good things have happened. One thing i will say is an american, we have only one president at a time. We have to do everything we can to try to make our president successful. And thats where i stand. [applause]. John im sensing that a very large percent of our group here thinks doubts and rage about tax dollars why we would be putting money into foreign aid. So the question is coming from the former secretary of state, to think theres a foreign aid, is really important for the market people to grasp. For me, its a little bit the same argument i would make about democracy. In promoting democracy. You can say lets just Pay Attention to our own affairs. Then build our bridges and rebuild our bridges in pennsylvania and so while we fully bridges in afghanistan pretty you can say theyre not in great shape so why are we trying to send girls to school in nigeria. He states all of those things. It but i think there are really two very powerful arguments against that type of thinking. One is that moral argument and oneness a practical argument. In the moral argument this. American is an idea. And if life liberty and the pursuit of happyness are universal good for us. It cant be good for us not for them. Condoleezza and we are at our best when we leave from both power and ourselves. No man child should have to live in the direst of poverty in the worst of circumstances. Because there are also a compassionate nation. But actually believes that as many problems that we have, we have been given extraordinary empty. If you go to some of the places in the world, i dont care how bad it looks in United States america, it is much worse pretty we 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 iberia. [applause]. We are too good to be that way. The moral argument is that i am christian. I have been told that what you do the least of my brothers, you do for me. Whatever tradition has wherever that impulse comes from, for compassion, america has had it may have to keep it. As a moral cited. No practical case. Democratic states that can deliver for their own people, dont invade their neighbors. They dont traffic soldiers who were ten and 11 years old. No traffic in the human traits of the women end up in brothels in Eastern Europe and southeast asia. They dont harbor terrorists as a matter of state policy. As democracies dont fight each other. We know that. Its called the democratic peace. So there is a reason that we have belief that we are better off when other people beyond us beyond the borders, can lift with decent governments to try to cure take care of them. I think there was a time when foreign aid was just given for a strategic, the soviet union was given money so you money to somebody else. Maybe a little bit of guilt about colonialism whenever. With this 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 challenge is a good example of this. Millennium challenge says to countries you will receive large foreign aid packages from the United States only after governing wisely, their fighting corruption and if youre investing in your people. And if youre doing those things, then we will give you foreign aid. Ill give you one example. The millennium challenge compacted. They wanted to do, a lot of farms in the third world are actually quite inefficient because they are very small farms. One of the problems of combining them is nobody knows what the title is pretty slim going to do plan to titling for you but was a lot in the book the women cannot hold landed in their own name. So the United States of america said if you want to see a dime of this assistance you will change that law. They change that law. So when you go abroad and you look what america has done in the aids relief and humanitarian crises or in the kinds of programs that we run all of the world. We have the largest donor of food aid. It recognizes the most powerful country in the world also ought to be the most compassionate. It is good for us to. When you create responsible sovereigns and 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 extensive ways including by military force. Civic center universitys 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. They specialize in range of Public Policy fields. A look at written by Hoover Institution fellows continues with economist thomas soul. He appeared on cspans Author Interview program goes in 1990. To discuss his book preferential policies. I was fortunate enough and once as having grown up in the south them i was just between Different Levels of education. So i was a top student in my class in north carolina. And i was the bottom student in my class in harlem. It was way behind in next to the bottom. Very painful period of adjustment. But there was no racial and issues involved. All who are ahead of me were black. And then for a time in my life, i went on my own i was 17. I returned to college full time and is 25 so the time in my life, i went into an environment that was very difficult and once again, i was way behind. I was in danger of flunking out of school. I was at harvard. An incredible, for the first time in my life, full time soon your fulltime student harvard. Without a high school diploma. [laughter]. Little difficulties. I was standing general things. Major it in economy. All my degrees are in economy. Again, an enormous adjustment to make. But there was limited tell me that these professors have an entry of those white professors in this way doing that. The forcible i did that in harlem. And over, and is doing bad there and i overcame it. But what happened. I graduated from harvard. I thought earlier you went to howard. I did go for a year and a half. So when i went to harvard i went there for fulltime for the first time in years. Host so what years did you go to harvard. Thomas i graduated in 73. See can understand how the students would find in talking about black man racial. He said that professor x never gave a black student good grade. I got a b . Theres great consummation of a of the myths had fallen. But it is true that there are some things going on. C1 can you give us an idea of the kind of external focus is that you are talking about. Thomas political purposes. Just a couple of days ago, i was just told by someone, that theres a campaign demonstrations, the whole thing. Those black girls did not want to participate in that. They were threatened with violence pretty thats not unique. The stanford, some hispanic students have complained that the establishment has threatened them if they dont want to go along with what they wanted. They claim that only 15 percent of the spanish students have ever attended a single event sponsored by the hispanic environment events which speaks boldly in their names. So you have this kind of thing going on. And once you let in students who cannot make the academic standards, going to end up letting others in. You going to have to create courses that dont need to be there. Sue encouraged me on the names. Harvard law school black from the law school the entire black woman, is living. Thomas he has taking unpaid leave until that time as they hire a woman of color as he says. But is also saying, that my blocky does not mean in color. Means those who are really black. Not those who think why did look black. So it is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill those positions. Thats not uncommon either. I know black woman who it for example, is a phd. She is a book published, contacting another book. Couple of very nice places. She is a of time giving any job. Getting a job teaching at a college. The recent is that she got shut down by people who dont like her ideology. Law school i learned recently, is a woman is being considered for tenure position and all of them and voted for her and all of the women voted against her. She not follow radical feminism producer you getting these ideological things. Theres all of these mailing of the words. Theres is extremely narrow ideology harmonies where people have the power to enforce them. Host how would you describe this pretty. Thomas i think my political biases on black politics. I havent been a register member of any political party. Im disenchanted. Host why. Thomas i guess really because what they do and how they do it. Theyre really quite clever at the things they do with the things they do really dont benefit the public. That is issues in general. Host hasnt changed over the years. Thomas its been for the worst of it has changed. I think some hopeful signs is trying to limiting the terms of the congress. I would like to see it limited to one term. If you are going to allow the house of representatives for example, spent four years in washington, would rather than changed to 14 year term rather than to twoyear terms because the problem is reelection. As long as they have to reelect him after his all that money and they will sell out the public to get the money. Its really quite simple. Consider the money to congress in congress appropriate enough money for industry to pay them back a thousand dollars on every dollar pretty cant get the kind return on your investment any places. So theres no sign they will stop doing that. They will stop offering money in the economy will stop giving money. Host im looking at the cover of your book. Preferential policies. We have about 20 minutes left of our discussion. In history for your favorites. Unnecessarily politician. Who your favorite people in history. Thomas teaming historical gears are people who i look up to like when is going up. Host over the years who have you followed, like Winston Churchill. Thomas i think Winston Churchills greatest men of the 20th century. I find it horrifying that most American High School students do not know who Winston Churchill is. If anyone man, the one man would be Winston Churchill. He saw enormous dangers that led to world war ii pretty 30 had been heated at the time, there mightve been 40 Million People who would not have lost lives. But even at the 11th hour, is enough for him to pull britain through. Had britton not full through, in that case, highly unlikely that i would be sitting here alive. Host is your favorite american. Thomas Abraham Lincoln against. Ibrahim we can find resident one that i admired in unqualified ways. In different respects i was a if your john f. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Anyone out domestically ragan and fdr, they recognized international dangers save the life of this country. Without which all of the others didnt. Host you have an ideology. Thomas i suppose, im a big believer in maximum freedom. I do believe the hoodlums should be kept in schools because of some reading of the constitution. I think people have to recognize that all people of their lives to others in society. They cannot simply demolish it because it is unjust. Because anything human is unjust. And what he going to do to make it to better within that context. So my tendency is to want more freedoms in the individual and less, i dont want people making decisions you dont pay the price of their decisions. And thats what politics is all about. He jump in price pretty likely in the book, one that the reason, the politicians didnt pay the price of it. That was enormously cost to the white population in the black population for the politicians but then, do not pay any costs that. They do their full salary irrespective of all that. It was somebody who discriminates to have to lose money because the examples are given the book, people tend to back off when they start losing big money. Harlan was all white community, and became a blocky Community Despite organized efforts. People were losing money. I think the Civil Rights Era is about bike but trying to promote more free markets because that makes discrimination the most costly it can be. Host one of the most interesting tear, is about india we say they are the most diverse country in the world hundred 90 different languages. 500 different dialects pretty and they more than the melting pot than the United States is pretty. Thomas good goodness no. Theyre polarized. One of the tragedies we have organized groups in the United States. To create in the United States, enormous handicaps in which indias labor and many parts of africa are laboring. Due to all kinds of historical and geographical reasons. Now the United States having escaped all of the spring having been blessed for having one language and culture over a distance and in europe, to moscow to madrid. Having had the blessing, were now going to for the down the drain. Not being aware apparently of what is happening. What happens when people speak different languages and radically different debris at least try to be in the same society. Host back to the campus. The relations that on campus. If this keeps up what will happen. Thomas there already on some college campuses, unions being formed. There already harassments of minoritys unseen 20 or 30 years ago. And theres reaction on both side escalates because what you do give a lot of leverage to the crazy elements in all the different groups. In israel, summons on the radio, he causes it is really man was killed any thought right now between the arabs and jews, after be put aside. One man buried one man is leveraged to prevent millions of people on both sides working out some kind of livable arrangement between the two of them. Of course what you get this rachel heights, the power in the hands of the demigods and hoodlums to prevent fast members of people who may be decently disposed not to be able to do anything. Because theyre polarized by the crazies or whatever. Host back to the campus again. What is creating the prejudiced buried other than the elites, they have their own and what is it among people it creates the differences that they dont get along. Thomas differences have always been there but think god long before. Blacks and whites were difference. She didnt find all of the black students huddled together at lunchtime but the same table the way doing many campuses today. All the black students i knew and white roommates. I would say that the ones that i knew were all popular other than me. Best of the situation today. The fact that you do have those agendas. Its the fact the black students are forced to come out into the demonstrations and was not. The fact that you have students there were tremendously alienated because he suddenly find themselves in the situation were academically its all they can do to keep your nose above the water thinking that friedman there similar to tell them, this is all due to the white power structure. In the light students are sick of hearing that. If you cant do that, dont give us the strength. And then is called insensitivity. This also suffering forcing. But theres in the keep feeding each other. Plus an ugly incident happens on campus. Invariably, the first thing that will be set is a must now have a large minority faculty to students and town subject the way students to the sensitivity courses for ethnic courses or what have you. That is not going to make things better. It will make things worse. It is to get worse, and keep doing that other ugly files and i dont see where its going to end. I see it fully leading to bad things. Host what would you do if you are an administrator at college or university. Okay youre bringing in 20 years after the fact. Twenty years ago i said dont do it. Twenty years ago i said, if you do it, this will be the consequence. I was not the only 100 people simply did not want to hear it. In a really unsympathetic to the administrative card you made this mess, you get out of it. Now partially, to meet nobody wants to know what i had to say about it so its not an led issue for me. When i come to princeton. I said no. No one is ever asked me in all these years come to the university do this pretty here or anywhere else. They dont care what i have to say about this. They have the word and dont want me confusing the issue. The others will say other things. To watch the entire book interview, good booktv. Org and search his name. Weve open our archives look at arthur programs with fellow zoos from stanford universities Public Policy think tank. Historian Neil Ferguson to discusses his autobiography, also a fellow within the institution in mr. Ferguson appeared on weekly Author Interview program afterwards in 2015. So this is the first of the two book autobiography. Not only has buckman written with his cooperation but also with his suggestion. Us was authors, implies the handsomaaronwhen he suggested tt more than ten years ago, i said, yes, i will be willing to do this but on condition that you have to kind of except that you offered it to do this. I need access to private papers. I will write what i think is the truth. Which is incidentally the basis on which i wrote the previous books for an agreed to that. Theres lots of compromise. I think i would not have taken it on in any other basis. Host did you know him before hand. How to define you. What was the moment. Summa i met him. We met at a party in london. We were talking about one of the books that i had written and he had read it. So we met on that basis. I forget exactly when but sometime after that the subject came up and i think he was attracted to the idea of a scholarly biography being written. I was the first person that had been considered for this job. Niall actually he initially said no. And he wrote me a very Henry Kissinger letter. Host r an email. Niall it was a letter. He said what a great shame. Just when i had decided you were the ideal man to do this and just as i hundred 50 boxes of my private papers that i thought were lost. I am afraid that i had hoped that as i was looking at those boxes of papers. And i decided i should do this. It is an extremely difficult thing to write. His controversial, is undocumented. It is a difficult thing to do. These papers, particularly the early correspondence in the diary extract, within a few hours i really have to take this on. Host this is not a man who is undocumented. His rent is on documentaries print is also shared some information. Anything you wanted this was written. Niall is by training a historian. An historian knows that the memoirs, are from the histories and biographies. His cover mostly has really next to nothing before 1959. So half of his life, in effect they had not risen about. Its essentially through these interviews and documents and very few documents there. I think the idea was that this biography based on this archival sources, has simply did not exist. And although there were a whole bunch of books he can find in the libraries, that to be biographies of kissinger. Most of whom are not really based on terribly much more than hearsay. I think the argument was a compelling one. And as it turned out the materials were very rich. I was lucky because the whole. Really from his earliest days growing up in germany i jumped in the moment which he was in the security adviser link 1968 had largely been neglected by prior writers. Host are often described as a conservative historian. Do you think he chose you for that reason. Niall think is more important than british. Because i think theres some advantage to be an outsider the work of American History. One characteristic feature, and in the extraordinary hypocrisy can be dated back to the early 1970s. In his raged more as the sins. In some ways, of the generation of 60s, but the generation that came of age during the vietnam war, the generation. On sunday who can, this in history. Host my generation. Niall memory of amelia from woodstock in my attic. The question of conservatism m, conservative means Something Different if grown up in the uk. Its not republicanism. Now that i live in the United States, im a conservative know all of the way that Henry Kissinger was a conservative. As a young academic. You often feel liberal of your european consume some things can completely shocking to you. Kissingers conservatism, is really a european variance. So is mine. That may be one of the reasons that he thought it would work. Host when you say european conservatism. And you find things that are shocking, is that in the International Security realm or social issues. Niall social issues. Some things i regard as not being in the politics were are the main politics. Our National Security issues seems to me, is often the case that people get confused into thinking theres some kind of argument going on. When a National Security. I been critical in recent years about president obama. In the book classes ocean 2004. Of the ovation of barack and the way it was handled. Soy suppose, have been brought into the debate, the Foreign Policy from the moment really a step foot in the u. S. I probably approached it rather naively. It is hard to be in the position. You never expected to be in one side of the other. I think the National Security issues, are more independent. Host im not sure what the convergence and he look at issues like rds or rock itself that there were people on the left and faced humanitarian challenges and people on the right face isolation. Im not sure what an independent is who may be it case by case. Niall resume to recognize account to be a simple partyline on these National Security issues. Interestingly i find that kissinger is a young man, was running the same position. He was a small conservative, he said himself. He self identified as a liberal 50s or 1960s. Harvard. Harry called walter supported in the 1964 republican convention. He always had a very unusual relationship with right the republican party. The conservatives as well. Makes playing on his a controversial figure. He had as many enemies on the right particularly in the debate in the 1970s about the soviet union was a sellout. Host so the book is the idealist. Rather take on kissinger even those kind descriptions is described as the ultimate. See choice of the word is idealist, is really not a notion of idealism, more of a hunches idealism. Can you explain provokes home, what you mean idealist when it comes to kissinger and why and traditionally, communism. Was absolutely not what you may be thinking. Its. Niall is true that most people think of Henry Kissinger is a realist. In the names that throughout our ms. Margaret he wrote about it. So it may be is so surprising that people fall into that trap. But in the book, it is a trap. He was not really realist. He argued the United States file selfinterest. He was not one of them. Often critical of him. Theres something wrong with this notion. When i started to read his writings, i began to think the nominee people have done was really struck by something. They were critical of realism. The book about the congress, and critical, that things that bismarck were highly critical of the 19th century. It was kind of funny and then in kissingers intellect and developments. Three things bart really striking. One, being driven to germany in 1938, made him not surprisingly appeasement of the policies. The dictators. He appeases his real is pretty very interesting essay. Have a narrow selfinterest in Foreign Policy disregards that human rights abuses. A zoning screens in the 30s, suspicious is what he saw as a realist. Number two, i got to harvard to try to get rid of this rather pushy graduate, activity hes in go away and read the manual and come back when youre finished and underestimating him, he did. I put it into his thesis. He was deeply influenced by this. But in the problem that the one hand was such a thing as freedom, free will, free choice. At the expressive freedom of real but on the other hand, he argued that there is some kind of plan for the world of humanity, ultimately perpetual peace. And then a discussion of the thesis and whether they were reconciling these two religions. Ultimately the extrinsic choice, is a real one. In freedom, is this experience, intellectual experience. In the third thing, perhaps a crucial one in the cold war concept of his early academic career was his ideas injections material of oral history and the theory of the soviet model. Unaccomplished material theories. If our growth rate is higher than their grocery, then we will win the cold war. So kissinger, was idealist. Where was he in harvard of the 1950s. I think its what made his contribution fundamentally distinctive. And it made him stand out from the pack. Systems and analysis in something of absolute pretty. Youre watching the tv on cspan2. And we are looking at others programs with fellows from Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution. A Public Policy think tank founded in 1919 by stanford alumnus, president Herbert Hoover. Up next, john you, go to the office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department during the george w. Bush administration spoke at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2012. About his coauthored book taming globalization. Host limit just briefly describe and explain how, to me encapsulates a lot of the issues and globalization. Its a case of a Mexican National rain across the border and committed murder. He can seek access to his consla. Get assistance from translators and so on. Texas refused to reconsider its decision, even though it had not provide the warnings as required by a treaty. The country of mexico win to the International Court of justice to seek relief, saying the United States violated the treaty obligations. The International Court of justice found against the United States, and said the out had in fact violated our obligations under the treat where and issued an order to the out to halt the execution and the other aliens on death row in the United States who also were in the same situation. President bush issued an order to at the governor of texas, i trust hell newell the address to put on the letter. President bush issued an order to governor rick perry asking him essentially 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 short through 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. And 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 its very complicated but that one case summarizes a lot of issues in this book. The first is that globalization has caused a love of changes in our political and legal system. We mean a few things when we say globalization 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, bills of dollars of goods and Services Also cross our borders. In the last the economic report 0 of the president , 30 of american Gross National product is either related to remember ports or exports. And of course, billions of dollars move with the press of button between accounts here and abroad. Globalizeddation refers to the ease of music and the rise of the internet and creation of new kind networks that make it extremely easy cheap for people to communicate and for things abroad to affect us here at nome a way they didnt use 50 years ago or 25 years ago. So if you look today at the american stock markets, they move up and down in reaction to what is happening in greece, whether greece will be able to pay back its bonds, has a direct and Immediate Impact in the same day on the dow jones. Thats something that probably wouldnt have happened 30 or 40 years all b put the speed and quickness of communications makes that possible. We also the first to admit that globalizationings not undie lite. It makes bad things possible. So for example transnational criminal networks, drug smuggling, pollution, terrorism, a lot of problems 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, but people are refer to it as many Different Things but the basic idea is its outside the power of a single nation state to effectively regulate thesing toes knee. Used to be in the power of country to affect most of the goods, services and capital and to control problems linings pollution like produce and crime within its border but because of the ease of communication and globalization, is lies outside the power of most nation states to effectively regulate the problems. Theres a ride of a new kind of gloverrance, Global Governance and what two features. One is that International Agreements now try to regulate worldwide that to effective hi regulate Something International law has to have a scope that that it didnt used to have. To regulate check cap chemical weapons worldwide, the Chemical Weapons Convention even hem calls held by research laboratories, by industry, by private persons, fall under the ambit of the Chemical Weapons Convention. One thing youll see is just 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. Wouldnt be able to do their job unless they had those characteristics because in order to effectively regulate and enforce new kind 0 International Law, 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 Council and the International Court of justice get the Chemical Weapons Convention has a secretary yet a or the world trait organization as foams of courts and regulatory bodies that sit outside the control of any one country but also have, because of that independence, 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 the independent of any nations. So, just to give yaw an example, the United States and other countries in world were ever to reach an agreement pout Global Warming, it would have both of these characteristics, Global Warming treaty to be effective would have to be able to reach into Energy Production and use, and 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 and would have to create International Institution that would have to decide how much each country was allowed to produce in terms of energy, how many pollution it was allowed to make, and also to measure whether people are in violation and issue sanctions and no one would trust that institution if it was directly under the control of the out or of the European Union or of china. It would lose its legitimacy and it independent function and the regime would not function unless you had an independent institution separate from the control of nation states. I thick were still at the earl statemented but its been going on and accelerating and our view is that as globalization ties the United States and our Economy Society 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 at the book, taming globalization, is how does the United States political and legal system respond . Can the United States cooperate with these International Institutions, these new kind of regimes and how . Thats the fundamental tension and issue at the heart of the book. Because some of the new kind of regular layings and institutionsunder intentioned with the way they United States emphasizes public power and run into the peringtives of congress over control of domestic law and things like taxation, but also the peringtive of the executive prerogative of the executive branch and judiciary. Treaties are not limited by the same restrictions on behalf of federalism that apply to congressional statutes. There was famous case called missouri verse holland and it was thought that congress could not regulate the flight not could not regulate and protect species of birds for endangered species reasons. The court and the lower court struck down statutes that tried to protect birds. The United States then entered a treaty with canada called the Migratory Bird treaty and congress tide exactly the same thing that the court said it could not do under the domestic powers, and a missouri vs. Hole lap the Supreme Court said, yes, the United States could do that and the federal governments powers could be broader to regulate things domestically that it cooperate do via just a normal congressional statute. Another example would be in the area over separation of powers. If the courts played the same role they play with international afared as domestic, the powers of the courts will grow. Called into areas and matters which traditionally they have not been involved with but because International Law and International Regimes and these International Institutions are faking more and more things that used to be under the control of the National Government or states, it will by nature draw thecourts into the kinds of delicate decisions but politics and Foreign Affairs they used to try to stay out of. We welcome our look at book buss hoof Hoover Institution fell low i author shell by steele. This took place at the freedomfest in las vegas in 2017. Mr. Steele was the to talk pull out his book shame, how americas past sips of polarizes our country. I wrestled with the title for a long time on the book, many different themes i tried to introduce in the book. And i couldnt find that sort of single thing. Finally i came upon the with my wifes help, the word shame. And that word seem to bring together all the theme is was trying to work with in the book, and so host what was the central theme . Guest it is the idea is that america arguably the greatest country in all of history, also committed one of the greatest sins, perpetrated that sin over centuries, dehumanized an spire race of people, relentlessly, year in and youre out, for a very long time. So its a profound evil amidst sunning greatness and now the greatness is what finally delivered us from what we were doing wrong. But on the other hand, it is the shame that we will now have to deal with. And so its maybe were still too close to the 60s when we first acknowledged this shame to understand it important. Think its one of the most porch events in all of American History certainly, how does a society that believes in free tom, grounded in freedom, deal with having betrayed it. And so the book tries to look at insuring different aspects of that irony. Host in my reading of it, the shame months to the 1960s liberal movement in your view, and its that is what caused our current political porlarization. Guest yes. Thank you. Thats true. Host is that a fair assessment. Guest 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 go together bring become american democracy and liberalism has dominated american politics for the last 5060 years simple by simple reply because it took propriety over this terrible shame and said well save america from it. And we will end racism and sexism and we will overcome all of those things and we will the people we hurt, we will have great societies and wars on poverty and we will redeem them and bring them up to par with arch else. Well correct that and that will restore our legitimacy as a free society. Host and in your book, the he nword is used pretty liberally. Guest uhhuh. Host and you say that some people some groups coopted it. Didnt necessarily want to be, but they coopted the word. Guest yes. Host for their own political purposes. Yes. Yeah. Took it over and almost made a romance around it and sort of ascribed to that word a kind of power and a truth that had never been there really before. But did serve their argument. Much of the argument coming from minorities in america has for the last 50 years, since the 60s, has been now you have two americans. Now you have admit 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 consideration 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 the Swimming Team and the story that i was in the only black kid on the Swimming Team and the 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 me knowing anything about it, this wonderful tim they were going to have on the lake, and i was never told about it. Well, the implication is he collaborated with racism. He was my friend. He was a good coach. We were we liked each other. But he wasnt going miss mother said no blacks can come, and so he honored that and he plotted with the parents of the other sveumers and so forth so that tide 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. So i talk pout at him as this is the situation of this sort of of profound hypocrisy that americas now 0 in, now looking at minorities amy Swimming Coach looked at me. He called me every name in book and said 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 it mind he minorities humbled, paul yetic, begging for some relief from the stigma of racism, and that is minority power. That is the power minorities have wielded in American Life now for 50 years, and so that little incident of quit thing Swimming Team i did not quit because of what the excluded me. Drew up in segregation, id seen it all the time. Was id be here all day talking about all the incidents of segregation i enjoyed. So but i knew he was compromised, and so thats what in a sense it ended up amounting to. Host what was your parents life like in 1940 chicago . Guest my parents were two very Exceptional People. Im going to actually wright about them in the future. The father was a black from the south, third grade education, talk himself to read and write. My mother 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 very different. Once you got to know them, you saw that probably my father was better read and spent more time reading than my mother. But they for. The life was 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 without ever complaining, without any come punches, they were founding members of cores, tigers of racial equality. Drew up as what they call aer ce baby. Was a core baby so i marched all threw childhood and demonstrated and that was the ethos that i came out of and they lived their entire lives fighting for civil rights and they were true. They were admirable people. Host were they wrong . Guest were they host wrong . Guest they were not wrong. They were right. And this is opinions to something, they were not wrong. In their day, this was a deeply, blanketly, racist society. I grew up, i cooperate go here, couldnt go there never ate in a restaurant until i was 17 on the Swimming Team because blacks couldnt go in a restaurant. Cooperate get a job there segregation was everywhere. They were fighting a real, concrete, up unapologetic enemy in American Society that said, youre going to stay inferior, be treated that way. Forget about it, or like William Faulkner said, youre probably right but good slow. Well, obviously eat never heard of patrick henry, i give me freedom or give me death. My parents were give me freedom or give in the death. They were never 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, america is a different place. America is not virulently raysy. Racism no longer stops the dreams and hopes of any black person in American Life. You can do anything you want. You can be the president , ceo, dishwasher, 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 it you have that opportunity. The opportunity is what i 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 stunt their lives with bigotry. Theyre fighting now basically for the rewards, for all of for theyre manipulating white guilt. Theyre using the story of black victimization to manipulate the Larger Society into entitlements and aen racing of black leader who do nothing but shake down american corporations. Not the civil right movement of my parents. Its not the one i grew up in. Its a very different one. Host what your connection to Stanford University and the Hoover Institution. Guest im a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, always been very happy about. The great, great institution, great people there. A great environment, and colleagues and its meant 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. Just search Hoover Institution and book. Tonight on booktv in prime time, Stanford University professor jennifer ebber hart offers her insight on implies said racial bias. And author Kate Anderson brother talk bud at the relationship between the former president. Consult your Program Guide or visit booktv. Org to find out more. During a virtual author event hosted by town hall seattle she looked how women experience and manage power. Heres a portion of the program. This is the photograph of taken in 1950 by the photographer art shaye, and as you can see she is in her 40s, she is getting ready and in a bathroom, wearing very high heels, i dont know if you can see them. Putting up her hair and somehow the this photograph is always obsessed me and its the contradictions of it the fact she wearing heels and is naked. Wasnt really didnt technically give her permission for this forecast but she did leave the door open, which is strange man who was the photographer kind of sitting right there. And he says at the heard the clicking and she was like naughty boy and didnt care you see the photo her not caring that the world is seeing her in this bill mat moment and thats intimate moment and that projected there, and i guess the two things that inspired this book from that photograph are both the idea that maybe its okay to at a certain point in your life to show yourself in that kind of intimate, unguarded moment like the real self, the real you. And that was one thing about the photograph, and the other thing about the photograph that interests me is something that simone was really interested in, which is kind of showing women in all their contradictions, the kind of weird, jarring, fact shes putting her hair up and wearing heels but is naked. All the contradictions of who she is in that moment. She is like a brilliant feminist intellectual and just like a woman getting ready in the mirror and all of that kind of contradiction that guess into being a self, kind of interested me in this book. And so the second thing that inspired the book related to simone is something she said, so one of the biographers asked her, talking but her relationship with john paul and for these who dont know, she was very they had an open relationship. Very tormented. She was extremely obsessed with him her whole life but they sort of mule actually had this open relationship but she basically wanted more of him than he wanted of her. She was an unequal relationship and would right in a letter saying without you i am mutilated. She said her relationship with him famously was her greatest achievement, which irks a lot of people because she was such a Brilliant Writer and philosopher. So her biographer asked her, she said, what do you say to feminists who say that your relationship with sart roe was at odd was her feminism and she said, im sorry to disappoint the feminists, but i just dont give a damn. I live how eye want and its too bad so many of them live no theory and not in real life. And i just i found that quote so something. Maybe that concept of disappointing the feminist mart by because i myself have disappointed the feminists for many decades and also the idea that of that gap between theory and life, that you could be somebody who lived a sort of subjugated yourself in a relationship to your but incredibly powerful in your life and intellectual achievement and that is at the heart of this book which really obsesses a lot over those questions of how i look at my own life very frankly in this book how sometimes you are strong and successful and sometimes youre not. To watch the rest over discussion go to booktv and search katie roi phe or her book, the power of notebooks. Were grateful to all of you for being here and for valuing the past, present and future of thoughtful reading and writing. The stories of history can teach us how to live in the present and plan for the future, and perhaps no era in our history is more instructive to us right