Were to see them as adults to try them as adults than it wouldve been to do the same with young white girls. We have all this information already its all part of the mix. These are big issues. But i do think number one thing i would say is rehabilitation, being serious about it and being suspicious of any time someone uses that tough on crime approach in their campaign. We are out of time, can we give todd and alex a round of applause . [applause] thank you everyone. You are watching booktv with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. Booktv, television for serious readers. Its wonderful to have you here, my name is rogers on time, im the director of the Reagan Institute the dc office of the Ronald Reagan president ial foundation and institute. I hope you all have been enjoying this reception. In honor of her own director of scholar initiatives doctor anthony ames and this Exciting Book launch i want to extend a special welcome to kelly. Anthonys wife and experience the completion of writing the book i imagine that labor wasnt only anthony. Grateful to you and i regret that the other member in the Reagan Institute element is adhered. In all that time for him was probably 10 minutes ago. Its so great to have you here. I also want to welcome stephen get a distinguished rag and scholar, doctor henry awe are here at the Reagan Institute working on reagan scholarship in large part due to henry now, not only is he a leader in this front for his great work many respectful students of henry but for this program. Henry hatched this plan and allowed me to be a person to help realize it its great to have you here this evening. We are here tonight recognizing doctor aims for the launch on his first book a voice in their own destiny reagan stature and Public Diplomacy in the nuclear 1980s. Up here you will have the opportunity to get one in just a little bit. And especially significant here at the Reagan Institute because it marks a milestone how are reagan Postdoctoral Visiting Fellows Program which funds a oneyear fellowship for scholars anwho study the reagan era they come here for a year their lives dissertation for manuscripts and most importantly get it published. I want to acknowledge here tonight our third class of fellows here in the audience. No pressure guys. [laughter] anthony as the model, he set the bar, no surprise to anybody that we are here celebrating this accomplishment phd in history from Georgetown University and jointly eoconferred from Kingstown Lodge and aa published widely and a credit to inthe Reagan Institute. May 1, 2020 to go back in time a little bit. We offered anthony a slot to be a member of the first class of inaugural class of visiting fellows. Anthony accepted the offer and hes excited to convert his phd into a book. But he did so in less than three hours after receiving the offer and i have evidence of it here which made us all feel great for an inaugural class but i want to point out that his excitement his enthusiasm and energy about the work we do here has not waned in the three years thats of sending the email. He stayed on the team completed the visiting fellowship and leads our scholar initiatives program. Its worthy of great celebration tonight which means i get to grill you on stage and talk about this book is all form of celebration. Please join me in welcoming. Doc anthony for a sion on. Anything you want to say in your defense after that introduction . I think i will have about 45 minutes to do that. Lets start with this, im a child of the 80s. I probably would have written on nukes. May be a connection between Michael Jordan and Ronald Reagan but my childhood, explain to us what brought you to this subject in this book . I wish there was an ah ha moment, maybe a random Margaret Thatcher on the street or discover the day after when i was nine years old but it was iterative. Which is kind of a boy answer but started when i was at Kings College london i have been misguided goal of becoming a 19thcentury polish historian who doesnt speak polish. That was soon to be realize that couldnt be reality but these Little Things you go to the Imperial War Museum you force your wife to watch wargames on youtube. [laughter] starts to make the book come into focus you have a course with particularly great professor one of whom is here today, toshi higuchi, this book wouldnt be even close to done or hopefully near as good without his guidance. Those little moments make a difference. And then i will make one pitch the importance of digital archives. Factors archives being digitized that was such an important thing to get me researching in that direction, something that i like to do. We just had an internal staff meeting here. We are looking to make an amendment. [laughter] one thing that goes to the title you call it the nuclear 1980s. Early on in the book you say that Nuclear Anxiety motivated westerners to become politically active. Theres flashpoints of the nuclear 1980s work critically stem lighting revolution on how the diplomacy related to the public sphere. Explain the rationale why you refer to the 80s as the nuclear 1980s. The difference between the nuclear 1980s and maybe the acute anxiety and that missile crisis. Lasted 13 days. The anxiety of the nuclear 1980s lost almost the entire decade and given historian fraction start the decade a year before the decade began in 1979 with the meltdown at three mile island, the dual a decision undertaken by nato allies to deploy what we know as intermediate range Nuclear Forces in europe and simultaneously negotiate with soviets and arms control. The highstakes game of cold war geopolitics plays out on the closed doors behind washington and washington dc and the kremlin on issues like strategic Defense Initiative, peacekeeper missiles but theres also a cultural component to it. When the day after madefortv movie and ibc premiers in 1983 hundred Million People walks, most watched Television Movie in history at that time. Im sure most network tv stations will kill for that today. When protesters stormed to new york in 1982 and june 1982 over a Million People in central park, doesnt really hold a Million People but thats the biggest protest throughout the United States and that at that time maybe it depends aathis becomes a cultural moment. Heres another one how many people have read dr. Seuss or read their kids dr. Seuss . Last night. Was at the butter barrel book. 1984 where the wind blows, when the wind blows. These moments are really cultural phenomenon. The way it wasnt quite the case aato no surprise otreagan himself the creator of pop culture and kind of a broader symbol of the age. The decade is really wrapped around Nuclear Issues in a way that hadnt really been the case. We have great people in the room who are involved or not diplomacy take how reagan was part of that the driver of this. He was talking about this sort of thing, prior to becoming president. This is remarkably consistent in terms of his approach to the cold thwar. We are not going to do arms control we do inanything we are going to godo arms reduction bu also buildup to four stats this is the sort of thing that you outline and others but when you become president now in the public or allies have to contend. Take a moment and explain how in many respects reagan was the trigger of all of this course a couple years into his presidency and then they are responding to his approach to the cold war. T the first thing i want to say because you will read a lot of books about reagan being a nuclear abolitionist. I think we need to get the order of Operations First right. The first thing reagan cared about a¦. [multiple speakers] make sure your order of operations is not in disagreement. [laughter] first and foremost, he was about the security of the american tpeople. Then the abolition of Nuclear Weapons. If you go back to the 1970s fairly popular radio show you listen to and couple people have listen to. What hes advocating for is returned to nuclear or strategic superiority. Siding directly the eisenhower years. Siding directly paulb aawhich is going take the policy of containment and add Nuclear Dimension to it. What reagan is talking about this all throughout the 1970s. When he gets into office this is the way hes going to go. He doesnt mention nuclear abolitionism until 1982. Its only at that time where i believe he realizes those two things could go handinhand. Talk about the different camps. The personalities that really like the way reagan approached nicholas of superiority signed onto that but in terms of arms control and arms reduction they were not looking to embrace that approach could start with castle weinberger and down people from the community and present danger. They were skeptical at best of that approach. You do a really nice job in the book of highlighting the nuance there and differences within the reagan team. Those camps have been growing really since what we know as the strategic arms limitation talks have gotten way earlier out of the 70s but really begin to differentiate themselves in pretty stark ways and the Reagan Administration what we see . This is going to be somewhat of a simplistic breakdown. We see people like Richard Perle weinberger, who really dont necessarily see the benefit of arms control. Restoring american strategic superiority. They see that as potential to limit a pathway to restoring american strategic superiority. You can say what you want about salted certainly one as good of an agreement of the Reagan Administration either negotiate or select perfectly for George Hw Bush to carry over the finish line and you have whats called the state department side. I know any number of folks in this room and the broader conversations, the battles of the state department and the pentagon continue to echo today, more probably towards arms control what it can do to restore strategic superiority of the United States. This idea that the Nuclear Parity is the way to go often a public line that you hear, something that dates back to the 70s when nixon and kissinger were talking about nuclear sufficiency the way to wage public concerns. I wouldnt buy that. I dont think it should come as a surprise a president who was hard lined and fully committed to American Security would settle for sufficiency. A different password i believe supremacy. [laughter] the state Department Says theres a way we can use arms control to our advantage. We can get the better side of this deal and reagan i dont want to say plays one off the other he really does take kind of a relaxed managerial approach to letting ndbells to get out. But he is a man of his own mind which is something that in the literature theres a debate, is ragan a man of his own mind or is he a man of his advisors. Ng we will get to that, dont you worry. In some ways im packing the a aunpacking the losubtitle. Talked about nuclear 1980s we just discussed ragan, we will get to thatcher in a moment. You describe significant importance of Public Diplomacy in this book, its really interesting to me we work here every day we havent talked much about the book ironically. If ragan was communicating he was continuing to carry out the great communicator even out of office. But you call it Public Diplomacy once he enters office and and great value to that. Talk about the importance of Public Diplomacy and how it plays in here and in your book the argument you make and was ragan a natural list given what he had been doing in the decades prior . One of the things i wanted to focus on and i was thinking about theres a lot of people who write on the end of the cold war. A lot of the focus is on kinetics. Military hardware Nuclear Weapons. Different things that are traditionally focused on when you talk about the end of work. But the cold war ended without a shot fired it and it was surprisingly peacefully. I like world war ii or vietnam, so the question is what actually moved people to accept their was the end of the cold war because its not just when the president of United States its over. The people on the streets actually have to accept that its over. Public diplomacy is over. We talk about ragan as the great communicator there has to be an apparatus behind that communication can just walk out of my comments and expect your words to be carried all over the place. In the 1970s what we know as the u. S. Information agency the budget had been pretty minimal especially compared to the pentagon budgets. A bunch of Reform Efforts name will exchange the u. S. Information communication agency. And what we saw is that the white house was disconnected from usia field offices. The idea is we should cultivate a favorable impression of america over the longterm but we should give too much thought to the immediate Foreign Policy goals of the United States. Reagan comes to the office he says wait, those two things arent mutually exclusive aa out a week and this cold war on terms that are favorable to the United States. So he brings in his friend charlie wick to head up the usia. Tell us about charlie wick. Really colorful character. Charlie wick is a big bandleader Winston Churchills literary agent. Wellknown figure in hollywood very good friends of Ronald Reagan the families spent christmas together. They were necessarily a fan of charlie wick later on aaearly on that started to change when he doubled the budgets, that e started to give change when usia had some sway in the administration. Of the president best friend says you guys should start cooperating with the agency he leads, generally people listen. So usia started getting more cooperation. State department the National SecurityCouncil Department of defense with this s cooperation you start to see a transformation of Public Diplomacy to a much more effective force. This is a tangible example of how they amplify or extend ragans speech or communication or policy coming out of the state department in a way to have this impact. Today we are all skeptical you can have a Government Agency that can be impactful in the communications room. Theres probably a few ways to go about this. Theres the acute example, moments like let poland be poland. Or the response to the shootdown of the korean airliner when the soviets shot down the passenger plane flying from south korea over soviet airspace in 1983. Charlie wick was able to marshal a media storm around these s issues. The technological aspects to farm the modernization of antijamming equipment and satellite second reach across the iron curtain. Upgrading voice of america watching the first satellite tv station known as world net. It isnt around anymore. It wasnt really that successful but it brought Satellite Television into the public consciousness. This is a medium we can use to elevate the president spread the president s message as a beacon of civic values. You quote here, this is the part of the discussion i provoke you a little bit. Call you out make you set the record straight. Reigning guardhouse who argues ragan can see the president s role is essentially that of an actor. And connecting that to your conversation your point of echo because i do think somebody who acted and understood media and Motion Pictures would have some insight in terms of how to prevail in Public Diplomacy. But, really . Guardhouse, take us to that, start off as the armscontrol negotiator. Probably there was nixon and carter hand. But lets take guards help thought of it and use ragan words how anyone could have done his job without being an actor. The way i see it and anyone whos done a good amount of research on ragan or arkansas is one his mind really sets on an issue is when he is speechwriting. When hes starting to actually engage with the owidea of how a i going to present this to the public which i dont know if that is such a bad thing for a president to think about how my going to present a complex issue like aaarmscontrol intricacies of Nuclear Weapons to a public who supposedly the ones that werent employing this on behalf of. He took it to the American People, something very different than nixon nixon wants to keep armscontrol private hes worried the American People are going to get upset about his approach ragan says the American People want armscontrol we are going to hash it out im going to persuade them that this approaches is fothe right one. Got a great quote before. Lets get to the fourth piece of the title which we have discussed but really comes to in your discussion Public Diplomacy there was a fault line that was between ragan and thatcher. Talk about thatcher coming the argument in your book and Public Diplomacy. The one thing ill say about the title is the publisher says lets put as many Google Search words and. If i had known i was gonna be grilled on every single one. [laughter] i think its one thing to think about when you think about the end of the cold war as we think theres two superpowers. Thats largely true if you look at military not at economies. If youre looking at information lets take the dying construction diplomatic information military and economic. If we are looking at information there are three superpowers. Bbc as a much higher reach than really any u. S. Broadcast agency. The english Language Training programs around the world are actually more sophisticated and more spread out. Than those of the u. S. The state department and usia say the british are the Gold Standard on Public Diplomacy. Where they do differ as on something called fdi. Few people in this room probably know it. Student Defense Initiative on the 40th anniversary they come to an agreement on sdi but what ragan says with sdi is what if we ditch mutual destruction and just invest heavily in new capabilities about missiledefense and we will usher in mutually assured survival. Thatcher had just come through three years of incredible protest activity incredible opposition politics from the labour party saying but stick with the terms and we know what offense of base deterrence lets get to the u. S. Muscles into the uk all the sudden shes wondering, the Nuclear Submarine lot, so we bought from the u. S. Going to work as we start investing in strategic defense, to the british have a different of morality and politics in america is this maroney versus very pragmatic and so my we argue differently to the American People. Fights in the 1980s as a moral climate on the one hand one person very much responsible is Ronald Reagan, he speaks very clearly states sitting on a hill, or majority voting block evangelicals help bring them into the office. Jimmy carter spoke highly of his refaith. There is an upswing in faith and politics morality and politics not to mention more conflicts in congress than ever before. , on the opposite side you have the catholic bishops for example who are reimagining what the relationship to the state should be, what their views on military aspects of the u. S. Engagement the world should be, this is really a post vatican revolution after vatican ii the u. S. Clergy becomes more fully progressive and get to the 1980s they make statements about the immorality of Nuclear Deterrence essentially saying the Nuclear Freeze is the way to go, we can talk about that later. Very close moral airlines. Its not just that one sensible alley is carrying the dates that sat morality politics comes a focus of the 1990s. How is that fissure of a Public Diplomacy between thatcher and reagan resolved and addressed ultimately . Theres a meeting in december 1984 december 22nd 1980. Youre never allowed to forget your anniversary if you remember aa. It was easier when you can make your anniversary a password now we are told we cant do that. Thatcher and ragan the get together cant david say how are we going to hash out this fbi thing. E we are getting killed on the public to mossy scientists are coming after us the europeans dont really believe this is the way to go the gremlins look into shops thinking the licking their chops thinking they will have our lunch. Him four points. Has to be consistent with deterrence has to be consistent with armscontrol are the abm treaty. Has to be consistent with the e terms has to advance armscontrol. One of the other points she makes as we need to play up the technological aspect the innovative aspect and play down the reality. Part of that is because even though thatcher preaches what she calls victorian values which are very much in line with ragans value set its not something she really walks out in public. Its not something that really convinces the British Public this is the way to go. In part because there is also a challenge to the Traditional Alliance between the church of ecengland and the conservative party. The church of england is also becoming a little more progressive in the same way the catholic bishops of the United States aathis kind of moral disillusionment in the uk something that thatcher is trying to fight but also scared of and ultimately somewhat resolved because ragan cant refuse to back down. Is like this is the way we are going to go. At the end of the day she says okay, im making my bed on Ronald Reagan im going to stick with him. One more thought then we will open up to the peers for question. Strikes to me that it tirelies ultimately on the diplomats. Ragan was quite confident and comfortable with doing that. Whether morality or some other argument. Thatcher was not the leading skill set. At the end of the chday, that wasnt where she was going to be most impactful. Thats right. One of the key requirements of Public Diplomacy in the 1980s ne is to centralize in washington dc around the figure of the president because those new Technological Capabilities that can do so. Margaret thatcher didnt win hearts and minds in the same way that Ronald Reagan did. Its quite different across the pond. This is the part of the program where i ask you to clarify the record on an area whence perhaps ax to grind. Then we will open for the group. You have this language in the book you talk about that there was this how he referred to it . A carter ragan continuity theory. T that somehow what ragan was doing in 1981 when he entered office and doing the military buildup and confronting the soviet union actually aawith what carter was doing. Tell us more about that and i we really saying that on a key ragan legacy aato continue what jimmy carter was doing . I dont think i would have a job at. [laughter] i call the carter ragan continuity thesis. That refers to that refers to a trend on literature in this arrow. Carter and ragan carter started out like ragan ended up. And in the middle they were about the same. Carter started off with dougs ended up lihardline somewhat reactionary. Ragan comes and hes hardline the reactionary. Then ends up dove stop the justifications for this this is in the Foreign Policy theres also in some Domestic Affairs when you consider faith issues and whatnot. Ragan accelerates. He pumps a lot into it. But what ragan has that carter doesnt really have is a well thought out approach to how my going to take this defense buildup and apply it to Strategic Engagement with the soviet union. Is a proactive approach to defense buildup that suggests agency personal agency matters, which appeals to americans. Rather than reactive approach to defense buildup when other peace that comes out of there which is something particularly interested. Out of that is the idea that whether or not individuals drive history or structural cause if you adopt the continuity somehow its structurally and inevitably going to view this way as opposed to individual driving. Thats what really is required. Dead on gopher questions on the audience. Be kind but you dont have to be y easy. Anybody have a question raised her hand will provide you the microphone. I wasnt that i have to call on somebody. Okay professor you are in trouble. [laughter] you mentioned carter, that ragan was someone who knew his own mind. He was able to focus. Im curious to know that if you go back to the beginning of your research, whats the most important thing that you learned about ragan in the course of your research, may be disagreed with him later came around to agreement with him . Or generally how did your view of ragan evolve . I think we just laid it out when you ,start researching ragan it doesnt show up. Which is where most diplomatic historians go to lets look at the w,National SecurityCouncil Nixon always have some colorful thing to say about this group or that group or how the chinese are doing this or that or the russians are doing this or that. Ragan does not show up that way only get to the speechwriting files when you start looking ats the aathis is exactly what you should read this is what im thinking. When you get to those things you realize he wasnt just a puppet of his aid and highranking senior advisors and officials. The idea that president s are controlled by their team is something that pretty much hits every president at some point. Its probably something thats particularly applied to republican president s. If you look at historically almost every single one of them hw bush is the exception, gets that and nixon are the exception gets that leveled upon them but certainly eisenhower certainly ragan aa so ragan actually is the one who is thinking through this. Not just 1981 to 87 but from as you and i have talked i think you go back to 1940s. Im content with the 60s. Henry is convinced it starts in the 40s but weve got a meeting of the minds there. He knew what he was doing. Other questions we have a couple more minutes left . I havent read the book but look very much forward to it. I work with president ragan from 1980 and the Campaign Working on the strategy as director of arms control until 1987. I just wanted to ask you, when he used the term the empire he had very concise expression of moral judgment there was no moral equivalence to the soviet style in the marxist way of life of the declaration of independence and someone. Thats one of the hallmarks. Charlie which was important so was bill casey. Very important. Extremely important. I consider the best of the 10 National Security advisers i work for with four president s because he was mr. Reagans brother. He was not an expert he helped something that ragan did better than anything then all the president s i worked for he listened. He loved to have discussion of different viewpoints. I wonder whether you got a sense of those extremely firm unbreakable moral aawhich was an insurance policy and nonkilling way protecting and reducing arms it was easy for you to start seeing those kind of things remembered this coaster books. Persons or policy. Your files were absolutely essential. Im sure anyone who researched in the ragan administration anything to do with Nuclear Policy has to look at the files. Part of that comes to talking to people who interacted with ragan and i will say this, i got it from two sources not just two sources but two sources very different ends of the spectrum. Said the same thing. First George Phillips the last week of his life and was remarkable that here i am at my age i get grumpy when i have to give five minutes my time so i dont really want to give any time to and hes hundred euros all giving two hours of his time to someone hes never met but just feel that the writing of this period continued investment in Academic Work is worth it. Theres a generosity that amazed me. But schultz in our conversation the nittygritty details work what came out it was his discussion of ragan as a person as strictly committed to his sense of morality that didnt waver in the wind. Sure he knew how to communicate to different groups and audiences that was one. Second, which would be highly unlikely i imagine that people know who she is a woman of Helen CaldecottHelen Caldecott was the head of the physicians for social responsibility which was one of the key groups in the Antinuclear Movement in the 1980s that really aai was interviewing her to get a sense of what was the Antinuclear Movement strategies what was the broader Political Foundation for that movement. She talked about a moment she had a meeting in the white house that was facilitated by patty davis who was ragans daughter. She said yes he didnt really see eye to eye on anything. I wasnt really shocked we didnt come around it wasnt greg kovich. But she was struck that he wasnt just a soloist political actor looking for this expedient route. She was deeply committed to her moral worldview but so was he. So it was that kind of like we got one person you probably expect George Schultz to say that still adds to it. And helen kelly you wouldnt have expected. Ladies and gentlemen, join me in thanking doctor aims. On this remarkable achievement. Doctor aims will go outside to the prefunction space we can pick up a book and have it signed by a distinguished author. Congrats. Thank you. I was reading the chapter i was like this is dark. I wish i hadnt read such a dark chapter today. The whole book is not that dark. There are a lot of beautiful tender moments and i think the book is really helpful. I kind of leave it on i really helpful note and and it on a¦ the book is also contending with a lot of my own part memoir so you really get to experience my experience for wellness and having this condition and multiple child sexual abuse survivor all those things are like the first time i really talk about it we. Had to face a lot of things. It was really intense. But if you read me you know i go many different places. Watch the full Program Online anytime booktv. Org. Watch nonfiction authors discuss their Books Television for serious readers. Functional online anytime