Prof. Harbour ok, we are ready to begin. We have two classes left this semester, today and then after thanksgiving. I want to welcome cspan and remind you, in terms of what we have been doing this semester, that, thus far, we have proceeded in a topical way of different aspects of the american presidency. In the first half of each class. In the second half of each class we have had individual case studies. This will be different because we are simply focusing on case studies. Today, we are going to talk about bill clinton and george w. Bush and time we will talk about barack obama and donald. There will be so little to talk about when it comes to donald trump, i worry about the silence. W. H bill clinton and george on the docket today, there were a few things that warranted some talking at the start. Some older folks like us to acclimate our psyches to realize that, to you all, bill clinton genuinely is a figure of history. None of you have an active recollection, or even a childhood recollection of bill clinton in office. Which actually is kind of amazing. Even w is kind of a hazy figure to you. None of you all were older than probably was anybody older than 10 when w left office . No. Even w is kind of a childhood figure to all. That just in itself just gives a sense of, especially for us, how quickly history can move. And how things pass from current day to historical. A dimension of that that i have been thinking about too is, in the midst of this moment of generational angst and change ok boomer is prevalent in the culture. Himself, barely a boomer himself. Prof. Harbour i remember truman. Pres. Reverley the thing that is so striking to me about that, is that bill clinton, in 1992 the transition from bush 41 to bill clinton, was much kind of like this generational moment that we are in now with millennials and boomers. This moment when the baton really changed hands. Bill clinton kind of an archetypal boomer. Clinton and w born just a month apart in 1946. 41, archetypal member of the greatest generation. At the time, it felt like this burst of energy and momentum, and change, very selfconsciously for clinton. It was a lot like 1960 when jfk takes office. The first president born the century after eisenhower, 1960, in its own way, not unlike 1901, when teddy roosevelt, much younger than william mckinley, takes over and there is this burst of energy, enthusiasm, momentum. And then the thing that is also difficult in the category of musings for you all to capture in your minds, is how different the world was in 1992. The cold war has ended. In the midst of a small recession, but not a grievous one. There was this general atmospheric sense of optimism, almost easy optimism in a way that is very hard for us to quite calibrate in our minds right now. Just given the state of the world. That prevailed all during clintons presidency, in part because of him, and in part because of things that were going on. Certainly the climate that w inhabited when he was elected, that is white 9 11 was such a shock to the country. It was such a shock to him. He thought he was going to be a domestic president that got to just focus on an era of easy progress. Obviously, that has changed so much. That was what the world felt probably, in 1992, when bill clinton came along. So, remarkable to think that for us, this is a figure of history. Interesting to reflect on the generational change that was afoot right then. That we are at the tail end right now, so strange to think about how different the world felt, and how much more optimistic once upon a time. Lets talk about bill clinton growing up. What we have tried to do with each president in each case study is talk about their background a little bit. We are always interested to find out what you think about what they are growing up, how it mightve impacted their presidency in some way. What sends out to you . His work ethic. Just always having that feeling of when to become president , always working his way through school from georgetown, to going to oxford in england, then yale. I definitely see him like ambition. Health care and other stuff like that. Another thing worth mentioning is that he grew up in a middleclass family. Both of his parents were traveling salesman. When he was growing up, there were still some segregation. We were transpiring into an era that united the country. Both his parents, despite racial tensions in america, [inaudible] also he went to Catholic School , as a young kid. He went to Catholic School but perhaps did not absorb all the teachings. Anything else . We have seen other president s have difficult relationships with their fathers. We talked about Richard Nixon and lyndon johnson, for instance. For clinton, what he saw in his home growing up. The kind of views and arguments. That had to have some impact on him. His attempt as a young person to try and negotiate the differences between the adults in his life, to try to handle that. I think if you read some of the literature of children who grew up in alcoholic homes, some of them develop a certain attitude about how to try to mediate conflicts. To think historically too, to think about growing up in 1946, like clinton and w, he grew up completely under the shadow of the modern presidency. The presidency is this incredibly powerful office. Just an ever present reality in the life of clinton and george bush when they were growing up, which is different than prior president s. I could see how that transpires because he was more of a centric candidate. He always tried to negotiate with republicans and he actually was the first president since 1969 to get a budget passed. That kind of also transpired to the presidency. Anything else about clintons growing up in arkansas . [indiscernible] it kind of pushed him to find that more moderate sense and be the new democrat. What about his political career . I think he modernized the Democratic Party. Before, it was a bit more businesslike and he modernized it. It was more like the middle class. Middleclass people came into the Democratic Party. I know he was known in the party as the comeback kid, so we did change it a lot. In that vein, a thing certainly to think about. It is a notable difference between george w. Bush and clinton. One of these phenomenons that we talk about plenty over the course of the fall, is clinton not born into affluence. Born into poverty. W born into tremendous wealth and privilege, and it is just a good reminder of the fact that those who have become president have come from all different types of backgrounds. Your observations about his trying to change the Democratic Party remember what you read about his leadership at the Democratic Leadership Council . Before his election, republicans had won five of six president ial elections in the country. The Democratic Leadership Council tried to move the democratic Leadership Party to the center of the political spectrum. He tried during parts of his presidency to do that. Today, plenty of concern that the Democratic Party of 20192020 has shifted too far to the left. The Republican Party has shifted too far to the right. Similar during the late 70s and 80s as bill clinton was becoming politically active that there was a concern that the party of mcgovern, who lost the 72 election in a landslide, had shifted too far to the left. Clinton, along with especially other southern democrats, worked hard to try to create structures and policy positions that shifted the party more towards the middle. Even today, mayor bloomberg Just Announced his presidency. He is more in the center. There is a shift going back towards that center in the Democratic Party, because they are getting a lot of people concerned. An individual so far to the left like Elizabeth Warren, bernie sanders. I have seen in the debate, they are trying to rally support. We talked about president ial elections in an earlier class. We pretty much covered the 1992 election and the disadvantages George Herbert walker bush had in terms of people being unhappy with his decision to abandon his promise not to raise taxes and the state of the economy. And clinton having some real advantages in that election. Lets talk about bill clintons first two years in office. An interesting factoid about the 1992 election. Think regionally for a minute. Remember, a threeway race. George h. W. Bush, bush 41, bill clinton, ross perot. What part of the country were all three of them from . They were all from the south. Yes, they are all from the south. Think about how striking it would be if we had an election in the next cycle or two where everyone was from one part of the country. Especially from the south. Lets talk about those tough first two years in office for bill clinton. Some of the achievements, some of the shortcomings. Some of the politics coming out of that. One thing with Foreign Policy, we kept having to deal with the massacre in rwanda. The u. S. Not intervening soon enough. Also, the ethnic cleansing in rwanda bosnia. And those countries too. With Foreign Policy, he wasnt that great. I think when you think about the balkans, one of the legacies of the Clinton Presidency is, even though he did not have full congressional authorization, he eventually did take action in the bosnia crisis. And later in the kosovo crisis. In each case, by military and diplomatic intervention, it put an end to ethnic cleansing. We have a dayton accords and everything in his first term. There is some lasting legacies there for his administration. You could say that he had some success with Foreign Policy in north ireland. The good friday agreement, the good friday accord sending mitchell there. That settlement existing to this day. As you read in newspapers, part of the debate in the United Kingdom regarding brexits what to do about the borders there with northern ireland. Even though there was all that burst of energy when clinton was elected, a generational change, the politics of the era are marked, i think, by the pushback against him. For me, people in the Republican Party, for many conservatives in the country, for older americans, particularly for older republicans who had five or six president ial victories, many people did not see the Clinton Presidency as legitimate. They talked about his evading the draft. They talked about marijuana use. Things like that. For many people on the right, there was immediate content for bill clinton, particularly when you look at the rise of talk radio and personalities on talk radio who would unrelentingly go after both bill clinton and Hillary Clinton, leading to stories about people being killed mysteriously, people disappearing mysteriously. You had the very sad suicide of vince foster, a clinton friend. In the first year of his presidency. Accusations on talk radio that somehow the clintons were behind that. Politically, he inherited a Great Movement against him. We have talked at other points about this concept of, the Permanent Campaign. The way that beginning in the 1970s and the 1980s and then reaching a point of perfection of the art in the 1990s. Present incame ever the act of governing. Once upon a time was the case. We talk all the time about some things that are the same ever sense america was founded and some things that have changed with regards to the presidency. The Permanent Campaign would be a great example of something that is different. And had a marked effect on the Clinton Presidency. Certainly his administration participated in it, and very willfully. But the idea that once upon a time, politics was about elections and an election would wouldand politics obviously never completely stop, but i would be a genuine and bona fide effort to try to work across differences and build consensus a little bit outside of the hot glare of the political lights. Of differentnt means of communication, quite literally cable tv, it became easier to continue to mount the campaign, even once an election was finished. Himself, and his administration and his political apparatus perfected that art. In the same moment, the republicans were really perfecting the art, as well. They never missed a moment to critique him or find wedge issues that could derail him haveaspirations he may politically and policywise. Similarly, the Clinton White house was working against the Republican Congress in the same way. Earlys talk about some missteps in the first months of his presidency that meant he had no honeymoon period. Do you remember reading about any of those problems early on . Gettment announcements the him bad press . He repealed the ability for lgbtq members to join the military. He got a lot of pushback from congress, and what ended up happening was he tried to negotiate with congress for the dont ask dont tell policy that is a pushback from congress saying, stepping back on the politics. Still transitioning from a very conservative time to more liberal to the liberal aspect of social issues. He didnt actually repeal their ability to serve, he made an announcement that would make it possible for them to officially serve. There was great pushback from the military and key people in congress. He was keeping a campaign promise. He did that early on, and maybe in terms of what you know about attitudes today, seems like 1000 years ago. Public opinion has changed so much on this social issue in this last decade. Very different set of attitudes existed. By doing that so early, you get the pushback and then his decision to adopt something called dont ask, dont tell, which was politically defeating community that wanted an open opportunity to serve, and people opposed to them serving. It turned out to be a disaster for him, politically. What about some appointments that created great embarrassment . This goes back to the issue we talked about one day in terms of president ial transition periods. The importance of clearly vetting people and finding out about the individuals you are appointing. What happened with the appointments to the Attorney Generals Office . Ironically, ties into a controversial issue we have today regarding immigration. Appointments to be attorney general, the individuals appointed had to withdraw when it turned out they had employed as dandies individuals who were employed individuals who were illegal immigrants. Realized there kinks innce to find the armor and embarrass the president early on. It is a similar thing democrats have done to republicans, as well. But in a different era, it may be political appointees have might not cut as much political scrutiny as what was happening in 1993. In terms of the organization of the white house, i think you have read about how early on things were chaotic. Meetings would go on forever. Schedules were constantly messed up. Early on, one democratic member of Congress Talking to another democratic member of congress, if you are unhappy about an announcement from bill clinton today, dont worry about it, he might change his view tomorrow. There was no strong chief of staff at that time, no discipline process, that comes later in his administration. He got a lot of bad press from that. Keep in mind, the historical context. Republicans have been relentlessly holding the white house with just a couple exceptions, since the days of Richard Nixon. It was republicans that really created the concept of the modern chief of staff. Jimmy carter in 1976 had famously pushed back on the idea of the need for a chief of staff, and wanted to try to run things a little bit differently. Ultimately, that did not work out so well for him. He used more of a routine chief of staff model. Bill clinton is the first democrat elected president other than jimmy carter, all the way back to lbj. The chief of staff model that eisenhower had used so well. Really mastered it. It was not quite in the dna of the Democratic Party when they took the white house in 1992. A sequence of embarrassments, some driven by disorganization, eventually prompted prompted clinton to change his mind and start to embrace the strong form chief of staff model and that his what has endured all the way foroday for both parties republicans and democrats, though it is under pressure again with donald trump. Before we get to some of the political defeats of his first two years in office, lets talk about some early policy victories for bill clinton in those first two years. Nafta. That is right. During the readings, what i got was al gore went on larry king and debated ross perot. The arguments they were having got more support from the public. Going back to that new democrat idea that he had of free markets, which goes traditionally against democrats like lyndon b. Johnson and fdr. Washe nafta victory purchased with Great Republic significant democratic opposition. Clinton pursued it and it was an early victory for his administration. Like some things with bill clinton and his administration, at the time and the years quickly after, by and large to most americans, seemed like a good thing. It has subsequently, like free trade in general, begun to be viewed with a much more wary id y the country. Any other policy decisions that were successful . Going back to Foreign Policy. When Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate president bush, he did not act on it, an airstrike on intelligence in iraq. [indiscernible] that incident is one of a series of things that ultimately george bush sr, bush 41, and bill clinton to the point of being genuinely good friends. These two people who were hot political adversaries, losing a president ial election is pretty tough for the soul. They wound up being genuine friends later in life. It was a remarkable thing. And with great democratic managed to get through Congress Something he had passed and something Herbert Walker bush had vetoed, and that was the family leave act. The United States being the only industrial, wealthy country in the world that does not provide an Extensive Program for family members who have children to have leave and get paid. The act did not require that people who took lead to get paid, but at least it gave them leave. At least if you worked in an area where there was a certain number of employees. Reward to a longtime democratic platform position. Anything else . I know gun control laws. You have any Clinton Administration a ban on assault weapons. Things continue to get debated on that, because eventually that ban was not renewed. One other thing deficit reduction. Remember, clinton had campaigned on big middle class tax cut. The economy was out of the recession. The Federal Reserve was more concerned about the deficit. Clinton put to congress a controversial proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest americans and cut spending in some areas. That passed on a purely partisan vote. Dick cheney excuse me, not dick cheney, al gore in the senate had to break the tie vote. That act infuriated republicans because it involved increasing taxes, but it is important to his presidency later on, because it helped reduce the deficit he had already inherited. Mr. Reverley to put things in a macro Historical Perspective, when we talk about eisenhower, you probably remember that one of the things that was especially relevant about eisenhower was, was that he came in the wake of all of fdrs reforms and social programs. The Republican Party at that point was very tempted to just actively oppose things like social security, and the expansion of the federal government in general. And eisenhower, a republican, and his administration, chose to essentially embrace the innovations that the fdr administration had made. And acquiesce and even enthusiastically acknowledge that america now had a large federal government. The fact that an Opposition Party had embraced, the republicans had embraced that democratic idea, went a long way to essentially locking in the idea for generations to come that the federal government was going to be a large operation. Engaged in lots of social endeavors as well as more classic National Security endeavors. Similarly, bill clinton comes in the wake of the reagan revolution. The effort to significantly reduce taxes, the effort to at least control the growth of the federal government, especially with regards to social programs. Bill clinton, the first democrat to be in office since that reagan revolution, similarly like with eisenhower, essentially embraced the reagan revolution. A democrat, rather than taking office and immediately try to swell the federal government and instantaneously raise taxes very dramatically, took a more middle path. That, interestingly enough, like with eisenhowers embrace of fdr policies or policy framework, clintons embrace of the reagan policy framework has essentially been the default setting for america subsequently. One. Harbour except for big exception involving his greatest political defeat in the first few years, health care. He hoped to be the president who would provide the United States with a comprehensive, universal system of health care coverage. To join much of the rest of the world. He appointed his wife Hillary Clinton to lead that effort, and it leads to total defeat. Why was it defeated . How was it defeated . What went wrong . Because for bill clinton, i think for him, that in his mind wouldve been the crowning achievement as president. To be able to do that. To succeed where other president s had failed. What politically went wrong . Yes . Student going into it, his staff advised him not to come up not to because he campaigned for National Service and welfare reform, not health care. They warned him going into it. Prof. Harbour ok. Yeah . The 1994 elections. Where he had to compromise with republicans. [indiscernible] prof. Harbour this failed effort allowed republicans to paint him as a typical democrat. Not a new democrat. Think of the politics of it. A Large Commission that met under conditions of secrecy. So that even democrats in congress were in many cases cut out of the loop. They had their own ideas, and instead, this commission headed by his wife, develops a complicated plan, 1300 pages long, that involves a combination of some marketplace forces, all kinds of government regulations, managed competition. A plan few people can understand. And immediate fierce opposition to it. Even though at first Public Opinion was sympathetic, the ads organized by a coalition of Insurance Industry people, the harriet and louise ads, help to erode support for that. And eventually it is defeated. Mr. Reverley in the category of the Permanent Campaign, these were ads by Republican Forces appealing to the American People. It was not just a conflict within the halls of congress that ultimately defeated the Health Care Reform aspirations. It was the Permanent Campaign being waged across the country and over the airwaves that eroded the support too. Prof. Harbour the commission seemed to exclude major stakeholders in the health care industry. A major part of the american economy. Feeling excluded, they struck back. Note that when we get to the Obama Presidency next week and talk about the passing of the Affordable Care act, is his efforts early on to enlist support from people in the health care professions. The 1994 election. A bloodbath. For the first time in 40 years, republicans would get control of both houses of congress. Mr. Reverley to get your brain ready to contemplate 1994, think about 1992 again. A president who is 46yearold 46 years old and a new generation. Democrats in control of both houses of congress. It feels like a new day, certainly for those strongly sympathetic to what was going on. But a new day was coming. And all sorts of great change was going to be ushered in. However, bill clinton, for all his appetite throughout his adolescence and early adulthood, for all his political experience in arkansas, he did not actually have any washington experience when he showed up at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. That is what came to bite him in those first two years. He was not able to nimbly navigate with a democratic congress. A democratic president was not able to nimbly navigate with a democratic congress. Prof. Harbour after that 1994 election, all because of People Experts and of people writing newspaper articles, talking about bill clinton would be a one term president. He was through. Republicans now ran congress. Newt gingrich, the new speaker of the house, was kind of a prime minister, and clinton was going to be irrelevant. How does bill clinton navigate that situation to make a comeback . Or how maybe do republicans make some tactical errors that help them make that come back . He is going to get reelected in 1996, how is that possible . What goes on . Mr. Reverley so there is one very sad event during which bill clinton performs very admirably. It begins to change sensibilities. Student one aspect is that Hillary Clinton [indiscernible] he comes down and is like, we are going to do this. He is a republican centrist individual. He says youre going to have to run the government in a centrist aspect. The third way. They kind of advertise that. Prof. Harbour another term, triangulation. Triangulation. They hit on a clever strategy. The president would tactfully separate himself from some aspects of the democratic agenda, but still oppose aspects of the republican agenda. He would play the two sides off against each other and in a sense, he had republican help. Having achieved control of congress, they pressed aspects of their contract with america. They started to develop budgets with big cuts to medicare. To cut back on education and environmental programs. Clinton resisted and would veto those budgets, and in the fall and winter of 1995, 1996, you had government closedowns. Think constitutionally for a moment. If the government closes down, you could say both the president who has vetoed it, and the congress are responsible. But Public Opinion counts for a lot in terms of how people perceive this. Overwhelmingly, clinton won the Public Relations battle. Clinton emphasized, i am trying to balance the budget, but i dont want to cut education and medicare, the environment, i want to help children and old people. The republicans took a beating in Public Opinion. Also at the time, that fierce talk radio assault on bill and Hillary Clinton began to rub much of the public the wrong way. Suddenly, he is standing up to people who want to cut popular programs. This is the way to come back. Along with the economy taking off. Mr. Reverley the political winds are changing and the economy is beginning to boom. We have the early manifestations of the internet age, beginning around 1994, 1995. Which to you all seems like neolithic history. The concept of the World Without the internet. Something i think future historians closely looking through the Clinton Presidency will Pay Attention to as well is something that happens in the spring of 1995. The Oklahoma City bombing. An act of domestic terrorism in which countless lives were lost. A horrific bombing. Before that happens, bill clinton had struggled with some of the atmospherics of the office. Had trouble with the broad American Public thinking of him in the president ial terms. That people conceptualize say, Ronald Reagan. In the face of a horrible tragedy, he was that source of solace, that soothing presence. That the country craved at that moment. That, as much as anything, could be the pinpoint spot to really identify as when the bill clinton who left office with an Approval Rating above 60 began to emerge, it was there in that spring of 1995 in Oklahoma City. Back is fighting bill clinton is fighting back with vetoes. Republicans kind of failed on their promises, the contract with america, because they failed to reduce government size and overall bring down taxes and so for. Prof. Harbour from their point of view, the contract said they would pass and oppose certain proposals. A lot of those proposals were vetoed by president clinton. They also made some internal changes in the rules of congress in terms of how committees work and seniority, and how long you could serve as chair and things like that. They did fulfill many parts of their contract. Down the road, though, particularly by the end of the presidency of george w. Bush and when you get early into the obama era, you have the emergence of the tea party. The Tea Party People are going to go back and critique the Republican Party itself, particularly the party of george w. Bush in terms of some of his programs. Out there in the public, there would be dissent from the Tea Party People that the Republican Party did not deliver. Mr. Reverley if there is a thing about american politics that history often teaches, it is how quickly sentiments can change. Bill clinton, elected in 1992 with momentum that felt historic, and then humbled in 1994 with the rebuke felt historic, then reelected in 1996 in what, in recent elections, probably counts as one that was just never really close. Runs against bob dole, who had been a longtime senator, Vice President to gerald ford in 1976. But the 1996 election, which in 1994 you mightve thought, this is when bill clinton is going to get his comeuppance. He never achieved liftoff, and republicans seize control of congress. There was no way is going to win he is going to win in 1996. In 1996, remarkably, in part because the economy is booming, and in part because clinton and morris strike on triangulation, in part because he achieved president ial gravitas in the wake of Oklahoma City. 1996 is a cakewalk as president ial elections go. However, to his great chagrin, he did not cross the 50 threshold in the popular vote in 1996 either. Even though the election was relatively easy and straightforward for him. Ross perot fitfully ran again in 1996 without quite the enthusiasm of 1992. That was enough to keep clinton from getting more than 49 of the vote. Prof. Harbour after his reelection in 1996, in 1997, he strikes a deal with republicans in congress. A budget act that will reduce the deficit even more in the future. The balanced budget act. That, along with a booming economy of the 1990s, will lead eventually to a balanced budget. Which has long since disappeared. Mr. Reverley a rarity. A rarity. A unicorn, the balanced budget. Prof. Harbour in 1997, things look great for clinton, dont they . He has won that reelection, he has that economy going for him. He has that deal on balancing the budget. But when you get into 1998, there is what we talked about last time when we talked about major president ial scandals. Right . Linsky the lewinsky scandal, the eventual impeachment of the president. Politically speaking, what are your conclusions about that whole episode in terms of political lessons . Yeah . Student just admit it. Dont try to cover it up. It will get you into more trouble. Prof. Harbour the famous line about the affair. Something that will always tarnish him along with the impeachment. His legacy is never going to be able to escape what happened in that respect. Student just the use of executive privilege and how that [indiscernible] and again, honesty. Student in the political aspect, it kind of backfired. The impeachment and trials and so forth. When the 1998 election came, republicans lost. The pushback on republicans because he was so popular. Prof. Harbour going into 1998 off year election, the assumption would be that the republicans would pick up seats in the house of representatives. Actually, they lost seats in the house of representatives. There is a lesson here that is similar to the lesson of 1995 and 1996 and the budget showdown overreaching in politics. Republicans understood the public was against impeachment overwhelmingly. When they finally vote for impeachment, clinton is at the high point of his popularity. There are not the votes in the senate to remove him from office. Overreaching. And he survives, with lasting implications for his legacy, in terms of matters of personal integrity. Anything else about the last two years in office . Or his legacy in general before we move on and talk about george w. Bush . Student i did have a question. [indiscernible] the events we had in 2008 with the economy crashing . Mr. Reverley whether the clinton era repeal of various banking regulations contributed meaningfully to 2008 is a question that plenty of people feel very strongly about. That they unquestionably did, bill clinton and others would say that they were relatively unrelated. But it was an era in which, clinton rather than like we were talking earlier, someone somewhat embracing the reagan revolution, rather than tightening regulation across the board, saw fit to loosen regulation. In an reaganesque fashion. So that is one potentially deep legacy of the clinton years, that people will debate for years to come. The relationship with russia, the former soviet union, is not something we have talked about a great deal, but the dominating issue in Foreign Policy and Global Politics for two generations was the cold war. Which by 1992, and clintons election, have largely, its long tentacles had drawn to a full close. People debate now whether clinton and his white house could have done more to help russia onto a strong road of democracy and reform, or whether what has transpired in russia since was just an inevitable phenomenon. But that is certainly one aspect of clintons eight years in office. That russia, stepbystep, kind of drifted towards where it is now, rather than turning into something else. A big thing is, and here Andrew Jackson in a way is maybe a parallel, but so much of bill clintons personal conduct while he was in office felt debatable. And people probably would not debate it today. It felt like it was a very debatable thing, and people took partisan sides. Whereas in the longer lens of history, it seems less like something that anybody would strongly defend. In somewhat the same way with Andrew Jackson, in his day, his policy towards native americans felt debatable. And in retrospect, it feels very much not debatable. Prof. Harbour certainly for anyone who is president of a Major Corporation these days, or a president of a university, if you are in that powerful position have even consensual sex with a younger intern, you are going to get fired. Are you going to resign in disgrace . Clinton got through that. He had the economy, and maybe some different attitudes than what exists today. Yes . Student clintons legacy [indiscernible] extramarital affairs. [indiscernible] there is put in the there is plenty of evidence in other president s like fdr or jfk . Prof. Harbour a lot of digging back to other president s. We do have a time issue here. We need to talk about george w. Bush, who certainly grows up in a very different environment than bill clinton. Right . Grows up in fantastic circumstances. Mr. Reverley born one month apart, but almost in, not even almost, in profoundly different circumstances. Prof. Harbour born into luxury, a famous american family. Going to the top institutions without having to worry about getting scholarships or working his way through the system of higher education. In terms of working while you are also trying to study. Something i know many students face today in a very difficult way. What stands out about his growing up that you think is important to understanding his presidency . Anything . Yes . Student growing up, i would say his military service, national guard. Prof. Harbour which will always be a source of controversy because he served in the Texas National guard. He did not go to vietnam. That would surface in both of his campaigns. Anything else about his growing up . Yeah . Student his father as a role model. Definitely probably pushed him to running for president and seeking office and other spaces of government. Prof. Harbour a legacy there. A set of experiences, an example, a role model. But also some difficulties growing up. We know about his first three decades. He wasnt exactly in his personal life what his father mightve expected. Mr. Reverley one more contrast with clinton that is interesting. They are born into different circumstances. Clinton born into much more difficult circumstances, is the shining star in his school days, and his early professional years. Whereas george w is kind of wayward, that might be a way to put it, deep into adult life. Prof. Harbour certainly if you read what bush himself has said about his life, he would make the observation if he were here in class today, in the 1940s, that when he embraced his evangelical Christian Faith in , it was an important turning point in his life. It is important to his presidency when you consider his emphasis on faithbased initiatives in terms of making it easier for privatesector faithbased organizations to receive federal funds to do Community Service work, to deal with addiction and things like that. That is important to his lifes story and his presidency. Anything else . Anything else about his growing up . Ok. Yes . Student im going to forget this but i was watching a speech that he gave. He said that he went to harvard and said it is ok if you guys have as, but its also ok if you have c students. Prof. Harbour student he was also a member of the skull and bones society. Prof. Harbour that is right. George Herbert Walker bush, george w. Bush, john kerry all members of that secret society. I think what is interesting about bushs image in the public though was, here is a person from such an elite background, such opportunity who, basically growing up in texas, develops a kind of style that makes him able to relate to people that you would normally think individuals born to that class could not be able to do that. That is part of his background. We know of course he makes an early run for congress, he loses that first election. He goes to work on his fathers campaign. Things like that. He is going to go into business, part owner of the Texas Rangers and things like that. But when you think about texas politics, he pulls off a stunning upset to start his victories in texas, then to the white house. Mr. Reverley well, and to put that stunning upset in context, but for bill clinton defeating george bush the elder in 1992, almost certainly the case that george w would not have had a Clear Pathway to high level elected politics. That it wouldve been difficult and unusual for the son of a sitting president to run for governor of texas in 1994. If not for bill clinton winning in 1992, george w might not have become the figure we know. Prof. Harbour one political lesson we talked about early in the semester was the danger of a Political Party underestimating a challenger. We saw that with the democrats with Ronald Reagan when he first ran for governor in california. We see that with george w. Bush when he takes on ann richards in texas, a popular governor. A charismatic governor. She makes fun of george w. Bushs father by saying he was born with a silver foot in his mouth. People do not think george w. Bush can win, but he wins. He does his homework, he focuses on certain issues in terms of education reform. Welfare reform. He pulls the upset, then gets reelected in a landslide. They underestimated him. I think bill clinton would later observe, during bushs first term of office and is talking to other democrats, that democrats underestimated george w. Bush at their risk. At their risk and everything. But, why is it that he is able to get the nomination . After all, somebody like john mccain who wanted to be president. Mccain will try to get their nomination in 2000. Mccain has all that experience. What does bush have going for him besides the family name . He was familiar. I think it was nice for the American People to save a kind of know what he stands for. I think a lot of people liked his father. I think that familiarity was a Good Platform for him to work off of. His personality, he was more laidback. He is a guy you could enjoy hanging out with while al gore seems like you would probably rather pull teeth then hang out with. He also had a centrist approach to politics. Compassionate conservatism. He is able to pull other people that somebody like mccain would not be able to grasp. Not only the name, but when a party is out of power for a couple of times, they really want to get the white house back. George w. Bush was perceived as more moderate than some other possible republican candidates. At that time, republicans controlled most of the governorships in the state, in the big states except for california. Those governors early on endorsed him. Plus, bush worked hard to cultivate key conservatives in the Republican Party and congress. He had the weight of the establishment. And in an object lesson of what money and politics can do and what they cannot do, in the 2000 race george w was the republican that could raise, at the time, astronomical figures in the primary. And that have the effect, in the political term, clear the field. Other candidates did not feel like they could compete with that kind of fundraising. Other candidates that mightve been strong, at least on paper, also chose not to jump in as robustly as they might otherwise have because of that fundraising. Fastforward 16 years, george ws brother jeb thought that playbook was going to work again. Those of you who play close who paid close attention to the 2016 republican primaries know that jeb raise a lot of money on the front end of the primary, yet that did not work. It is fascinating the way money sometimes does the trick and sometimes does not. I see more of a comparison to Hillary Clinton as opposed to jeb bush. I think there were some in touch so many i think there were so many people that did jump into the republican field that jeb bushs name got lost in getting that news attention. I think if you look at Hillary Clinton and the democratic field, you really see people like Elizabeth Warren jump in, and who has now come through in this election and has been one of the larger names out there that we are hearing about the most. A lot of people talked about why she did not run in 2016. I think it was because clinton jumped in and so many of the democratic donors knew the clinton name. Not necessarily that they liked the clinton name, but it was a household name. It was it easy name to get behind. In an alternate universe, legions of students are very confused about the progression of u. S. President s. In an alternate universe it goes bush, clinton, bush, clinton, bush, and it gets pretty wonky there. We will not get into that string theory today. [laughter] in the 2000 election you had the initiation that predicted that bush would lose the election by a huge margin. In the end results were completely against clinton. Two buckets of interesting factoid with the 2000 election. The first of which is, and we talked about this right at the start of the fall, but a quark irk ofrook a qu American History that may well have played out to our advantage is, so many of the early president s did not have male children. Washington did not, adams did, jefferson, madison, monroe, none of them had male children. If the early president s had had male children, speaking of alternate universes, we could have had a situation in which a it became expected. The first president was a male child, john adams, one of his sons was elected president. If that had been the normal pattern early on, it could have quickly pushed american politics into a very different realm. A more classic aristocracy. It is obviously very unusual for george w to be elected after his father has also been president. And john adams and John Quincy Adams was the only other time that had happened. The other bucket of interesting factoid to me is if you put the 1876 election to the side, which was contested and complicated for other reasons related to the tail end of reconstruction, there are four times when there has been a difference between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote and the Electoral College vote just carries the day. 1824, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. 1888 with Grover Cleveland losing to benjamin harrison. It will be a Common Thread in all of these. 2000 with your losing to bush, and now 2016 with trump beating hillary. , all three of those instances had weirdly involved legacy president s. John quincy adams wins in a contested one. Benjamin harrison, the grandson of William Henry harrison of hampden sydney. And then george w beating gore. That is just a fascinating thing. Probably, in some way that would be hard to completely fish together, underscores the fact that a legacy candidate has a really Strong Network to draw on that can help win an election. It then, we get to 2016 and breaks the pattern. It is fascinating that a legacy candidate is still involved, even if on the losing side of the election. Your comment about the predictions of that election, i think we should think about those predictions that go along that gore would easily win were based on running statistics about the state of the economy and that election compared to other elections. When they ran the models, gore should win. Well, he did win the popular vote, right . But he did not win by millions, he only won the popular vote by 500,000, then you had florida. We talked about the 2000 election in an earlier class. We will not cover much of that today. Bear in mind, the controversy about that recount in florida, bear in mind the disaster for al gore that ralph nader was on the ballot and picked up 97,000 votes in florida, most of which would probably have gone to gore if nader had not been there siphoning off votes. The Supreme Court decision remains controversial to this day. It represents a general problem for the judiciary in terms of the controversies we have talked about in another class. The judiciary becoming less respected, more controversial, being perceived as more political in everything. As you follow current news, i think we have to wait for a few months because there are a couple of Big Decisions out there regarding people testifying from the white house regarding president trumps taxes. We will have to see how the judiciary handles that, and what happens in terms of public response, and everything. The thing about 2000, which we have talked about in the past a little bit, like with 1996, the election did not feel to america like it was very highstakes. In 1986, it felt like a relatively not highstakes choice. The easy choice of clinton to the American People, and in 2000 it felt like george w and gore were not all that far apart. At voterok participation numbers in 1996 and 2000 you see that they have dropped off as compared to a bit of a strong uptick in 1992. 1992 actually has a highest participation level since the 1960s. In 1996 and 2000 they are in a much softer zone, but they spike back up into thousand four in a they spike back up again in 2004. Lets talk about george w. Bushs presidency. A cloud that hangs over him in terms of not winning the popular vote, but he is determined to push forward with his agenda. His agenda is a mixture of compassionate conservatism, and some oldtime basic republican themes about cutting taxes. In that first year of office he does get a major tax cut through. That will become a controversial later on with deficits. What are some of the other policies he is pursuing . We will get to 9 11 in a little while. No child left behind. No child left behind. As governor of texas, he had positioned himself as a compassionate conservative interested in education reform. Here was an opportunity to repeat what he had done in texas working with the democrats. He works with senator kennedy and others that get no child left behind, which at the time, had large amounts of bipartisan support. We talked about the roller coaster of Public Opinion in american politics moving into the future, that reform that was once popular has both people on the left and the right turning against it. Too much testing, too much money, etc. , etc. Too much federal regulations. Teachers resisting it, republicans resisting it and everything. At the time, it was an important victory that fulfilled a campaign pledge. Then you had his efforts to try to make it easier for faithbased organizations to receive federal funds. But there is also some political setbacks going on early on. Control of the senate. In that first year, a few months into his presidency, a republican senator decides to no longer sit with the Republican Caucus and he sits with the democratic group. That changes control of the senate. Chairmanship of all committees will be altered. Then of course 9 11, which we talked a bit about in another class when we talked about Foreign Policy and bushs presidency is transformed. Think about bush before 9 11. 51 Approval Rating. Focus on domestic policy, and then everything changes. The shock the nation faces and the rally around the flag, rally around the commanderinchief, all of a sudden he becomes the most popular president in Public Opinion polls up until the up into the 90s for a while. A new adventure for his white house. Observations about the foreign policies that spring from that. [indiscernible] we talked about the rhetorical presidency and in another class, but his address on television of the night of 9 11, is going to new york city, standing on the rubble, talking to the firemen explaining the people who did that would be hearing from all of us. Those were all very well received public addresses in terms of Public Opinion. [indiscernible] yeah. Not thinking like democrats and republicans coming together. Maybe like in string theory, it seems out to be an alternate universe, doesnt it. The for a brief moment, for a brief moment yes . [indiscernible] [indiscernible] the amount of power the vice presidency, or influence was able to have on bush in terms of Foreign Policy. How you manage enemy combatants and guantanamo bay, and so forth, just kind opened up an idea. To draw a parallel with clinton the way we were talking about a minute ago, it is 9 11 that really imbues george w in the eyes of americans and in the eyes of people across the country with the qualities of a president. It really seems president ial. Much like with bill clinton in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Something that he had struggled with before and it suddenly snapped into focus. The American People thought of show bill clinton from that point forward as the president. And 9 11 forward as really the moment when that happens with w as well. Ordinary people think in that moment that the person they had rallied behind would leave a 33 orth only about so popularity rating. Leaving office extremely unpopular. The roller coaster ride that many president s seem to experience during their time in office. Lets talk a little bit about the expansion of president ial power. We had a class earlier on where we talked about the theory that had developed currency that was fully articulated by dick cheney and others. Those early decisions, Congress Gives bush a blank check in authorizing the use of force against anyone who was associated with those attacks, or anyone who might attack us. Bush is going to take that as justification for later actions that are going to become much more controversial. The decision urged upon him by his advisors. To link al qaeda, the taliban, afghanistan to iraq and Saddam Hussein. Early on in cabinet meetings, right after the 9 11 attack, but had rejected that. By the time you get to 2002, suddenly bush is leaning in the direction that we are going to deal with Saddam Hussein. You have a year and a half of discussion about whether to go after Saddam Hussein invaded invade iraq, and bush signs off on that. And with all of the debate about socalled links to terrorism and of course weapons of mass destruction. We talked in another class about how that story turned out. With the invasion of iraq you have occupation. Go back and read newspaper stories about what administrative officials were saying at the time of the invasion. This will be a fast war. It will be over in months or weeks. The iraqis will put together a new government and for some of the more optimistic people supporting this, iraq would become a thriving democracy, a western ally, and by bringing democracy to iraq, the whole middle east would be transformed. Well, it did not get transformed it did get transformed in some ways, but it did not go well. We still have people in iraq. The cost is human lives, american lives, iraqi lives, the disruption by different players in the middle east. All working to the advantage of the iranians. What else about that fateful decision . For george w. Bush, the country is still behind him to get reelected in 2004. This time winning the majority of the bow. Vote. He wins by 3 million votes and defeats john kerry. He had the successful Midterm Election in 2002 were republicans had picked up seats. A big thing in terms of normal Midterm Elections. Beginning in 20052006, what is going wrong besides the fact that the war in iraq seems to be on, there is this insurgency, all of the violence, everything like that . The economy is failing. Well, the economy is slowing down, but it will be december of 2007 when technically the recession begins and you have the financial collapse in the fall of later in the fall. In 2008. What else is going wrong for george bush . [indiscernible] there are setbacks in terms of court decisions. I guess we need to talk about civil liberties. We talked about the war in iraq. We have seen in this course looking at the american presidency that in times of International Crises or war, not only does a lot of power go to the president , but something tends to happen in terms of civil liberties. And the john adams alien and sedition acts. Remember Woodrow Wilson and the laws passed by congress there . Eople who went to jail Franklin Roosevelt and the internment of japanese americans. When it comes to what happened after 9 11, you had bushs decision to treat people captured on the battlefield differently than according to the geneva convention. You have a controversial decisions about enhanced interrogation, torture. You have secret surveillance of conducted by the government. All kinds of things are going on there. Plus some Supreme Court decisions telling the Bush Administration that your military tribunals are unconstitutional. Congress is going to go back and legislate in such a way that is going to allow bush to do some of the things he had been doing. But, increased controversy. What often happens in american panicy is, years after and reaction, the shock of conflict and war, people begin recover from a kind of they have a hangover. They think to themselves, should we have done those things . Think about how we think about in terms of japaneseamericans. Think about how we think about enhancement interrogation and waterboarding. Playing forward from 9 11, the Bush Administration would contend that they had a defensible cause of action to a rationale that was strong to begin the iraq war. In retrospect it seems much more faulty. That the rationale was not strong. They really do feel that in the run up to it, it was the sensible, even the hard but brave course of action that had to be pursued. It is this endlessly fascinating quirk of history that things in a Historical Perspective can look very different than they do in the moment leading up to it. So the National Security considerations around civil liberties, in the wake of 9 11, felt, in that hot moment, i would say even most people were quite sensible. But in retrospect, they work they look very different. And that is the constant hit it constant pivot an administration in Office Actually has to be contemplating. You put yourself in the shoes of the white house at the time and they believe, and so many experts went on tv and said, this is only the beginning of more attacks. I think if you went back and looked at recordings of television, news programs at the time, talk shows, there would be experts on saying that, yeah, sooner or later terrorist organizations are going to get their hands on a nuclear bomb, and they are going to put in a container, and it is going to show up in an american port and we will lose an american city. The Bush Administration basically believed they would do anything to prevent that happening. Bear in mind, something you might not read about too often, right after 9 11 you had the anthrax attacks. The whole thing about terrorism, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, they all tied together. And for george bush and dick cheney, 9 11 had happened on their watch. Was it going to happen again . And they went in a certain direction that had all kinds of consequences that they are living with today. Whether it is in afghanistan or iraq or syria. And like with bill clinton and bill clintons legacy, it is open to speculation how deeply history will reflect on the bush years, on the one hand you have at least two things that would have been very hard to have stopped before hand. 9 11 and katrina. Both these disasters of an epic scale that is difficult to perhaps hold somebody responsible for. At least the fact that they happened, the aftermath is a different thing. And then you have got the 2008 crash. More debatable as to whether or not that was something that could have been stopped, and to what extent that was something the Bush Administration had given rise to and it had deeper roots. But just right there youve got three, if you were drawing up a list of the 20 worst things that had domestically happened to america over time, you have three contenders for that top 20 list. 9 11, katrina and the Great Recession in 2008. That is a lot for an administration to grapple with. You layer the iraq war on top of that and with it being as debatable as it is to whether that was wise. But that is a lot that the Bush Administration was saying grace over. And what history will think is a little bit hard to say. In the way that harry truman, as we talked about, left office, tail between his legs with incredibly low Approval Ratings and nobody thought that the subsequent years would look at him favorably and yet harry truman is now thought of as one of the greats. It would probably surpriseit woe everybody if george w somehow got exalted into the far upper reaches. Allsether in you lifetimes and the decades ahead is the bush years will be seen the way the country saw them up to the very end is a different question. The clinton years offer that strong contrast. They, when they were concluding, it seem like they would be looked at as this house jan era of success after success with a lot of political noise around it. That is not, at least for the present moment, the way history is inclined to think about them now. Prof. Harbour i do have some democratic friends on social media often say, in terms of donald trump, that they now miss george bush. [laughter] i dont know if that means that there will be a complete rehabilitation of his legacy or not, but katrina, a national disaster. Indeed, if you want to defend bush on this, the mistakes and misjudgments, and problems at the local and state level were darn substantial. But remember we talked about the public presidency, the Permanent Campaign trying to present the best possible photo ops for president s. The picture of george w. Bush in an airplane flying over new orleans, which has over 1000 people about to die, that is probably one of the worst pictures you could ever have. That led to people thinking this guy does not care. He rallied the country behind what happened in new york and washington. Where was he with katrina . That would be the rap on him. His popularity begins to go down when that happens. Mr. Reverley a footnote to that picture that you probably all know well of bush in air force one flying over katrina seeming very detached, a footnote to that is his powerful political advisor, which you probably all recognize the name, had kidney stones during katrina and was not really in the swing of things. Had he been able to say that is a bad idea, please dont do that, would that have had an effect. Prof. Harbour and you read a lot about how a new president doesnt make the same mistakes as president s before then. Them. Notice with both obama and trump, when there is any natural disaster, try to be on top of it. In the back of their minds, i dont want a katrina. Right . I dont want to be viewed as somebody who somehow does not care. Which clearly, someone like bush cared for people, but that appearance of neglect was a disaster. Lets take the last 10 minutes and talk about both president s and their legacies. What they might share in common and how they differ. Any observations on your part . Student the one that comes to my mind is that mission accomplish. Prof. Harbour which at the time sounded pretty great, right . Student now thinking back on it, [inaudible] prof. Harbour one of those things that at the time it looked really super. The president landing in a plane. Later on the war goes on. Student nowadays [inaudible] that ignore everything bush has done because your mind immediately goes [inaudible] peoples minds usually go to jeffrey epstein. [inaudible] prof. Harbour and his association with the Democratic Leadership Council trying to move the democrats to the center they are seriously questioning clintons legacy in many respects. One other thing about clinton in terms of impact. Thank think about that behavior and the consequences for two president ial elections. Al gore distancing himself from bill clinton when he should have ran on the economy. Clinton is popular, he will leave off a 68 job Approval Rating. People might not think he has personal integrity, but he is popular. They are happy with the economy. Gore distances himself from clinton and does not use clinton the way George Herbert walker bush used reagan when he was in when he won the white house. That scandal plays a role in that. And think about Hillary Clinton, who, in the contest of donald context of donald trump and the famous recording about grabbing people in a certain place, the hollywood access tape, that would normally finish off a president. President ial canada. But what do the trump people do . They drag in bill clintons sexual legacy. Damaged both gore because he made the decision to distance himself from clinton, and for Hillary Clinton, had a husband who cheated on her and a husbands whose behavior would come back and haunt her only president ial campaign. Anything else . Student i think there are two aspects. Personally, the way i see everything, both president s tried to push for women being more incorporated or the first jobs incorp orated in jobs and the first africanamerican female secretary of state. Then you had clinton nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Supreme Court. You kind of see this push for giving minorities a greater voice. Another aspect i think is the policy in terms of expansion of Democratic Institution and democratic ideas. Especially latin america. You saw that in the Bush Administration under secretary ryan. Those aspects that i took from the administration. Dent mr. Reverley i think at the end of bush presidency, he started the bailout of the Auto Industry and he never even mentions it. Prof. Harbour if you want to defend george w. Bush, you would argue that when that crisis to plays, he put his traditional ideological positions aside, he listens to his advisers and he undertakes this very controversial decision to have the tarp program. Which is something barack obama supported also. For bushs defenders, it helped prevent the Great Recession from becoming another great depression. Mr. Reverley and gives rise to one of the well honed transition coordinations certainly between the opposing parties that we have seen in recent times. The white house transition from bush to obama in part because of the recession. But because george w was very insistent in making sure the transition and the handoff was good and smooth, really did go particularly well and you could contrast that with the obamatrump transition which was much more fraught. Prof. Harbour that decision on the banks, completely detested by the American Public. People were hurting. A lot of people lost a good part of their life savings. Millions of people lost their homes. The idea that the banks got bailed out. And then we will talk about obama next time in the economic circumstance. He continues tarp and has his own economic stimulus plan. The reaction against that in the tea party about deficit, government, everything. In a sense, continues Political Polarization and makes things much more difficult for obama. We have that lasting animosity to this day about banks, big business, trade deals. You think of the last president ial campaign. How all the leading candidates went after various trade deals, including the pacific trade deal. The rise of populism. The rise of populism. Anything else about their legacies that someone might want to point out . Yes . Student i thought it was interesting we talked about how both candidates were very and wanted to change their party. We see that with clinton coming in and really working with the budget and raising taxes but also cutting spending. Which is something you see both parties doing the opposite. And then also with bush coming in and having no child left behind, which we all think of as bad now but at the time it had a great bipartisan support. And then looking forward to obama working with boehner and how they were pushing to try to Work Together in the house when you could see a republican backlash and see it in the election and just the trump agenda and partisanship that we see now. Just about, how i think, politics have really changed or that it is perceived that it has changed a lot. And that they dont really care about i feel at this point in time, they feel more inclined to working with the far right or far left side is working as opposed to working together for the American People. Im sure other people in the class agree with me that we are set up with it and we hope for a change, especially with the 2020 election coming up, and just hoping that on both sides, the left or the right will see a move back to working together and being less partisan. Prof. Harbour for your generation. Different from a boomer like me. I grew up with relatives in the 1950s and 1960s who were experiencing the afterglow of world war ii, economic recovery, and country moving forward after the depression. So for your whole life, two wars in the middle east, partisanship, the division, one little tiny thing. We always focus on america. America, american politics. There is one aspect of the bush legacy that is sometimes overlooked. He supported very large economic packages to address aids in africa, malaria and africa, clean water in africa that saved millions of lives. Part of the bush legacy is, for people in the middle east, over a million lives lost there, all the people we have lost. The economic recession, things like that, but there is that other aspect of that other thing. Anything else before we wrap up . Thank you, emily, for reminding me that i grew up under much more happy circumstances. [laughter] i think we need to head out. Ok. We thank cspan for being here. Thank you everybody. Mr. Reverley thanks, everybody. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer listen to lectures in history anytime. You are listening to American History tv only on cspan3. Announcer this sunday, yell law professor justin driver talks about the 1956 southern manifesto, a document written by congressional members who 1954ed the Supreme Courts brown v. Board of education decision, which ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional. Here is a preview. What was the southern manifesto . When think when people think about it today, it is enshrouded in the mist of mythology. And to the extent they think about it at all. We think of segregationists as having temporarily sort of taken leave of their senses and that the southern manifesto is a screed that sounds like nothing so much as a latterday rebel yell. Manifestoibing the and its signatories, commentators say that it was driven by fear, anger, and mental illness. Just about any emotion or condition that reduces or eliminates rational thought. We hear that the manifesto that it seethed with anger, that it was that it bristled with angry words. And that it had an ugly vehemence. People say about the signers that they were fanatics segregationists. This line of thinking finds its height in richard klugers simple justice, a magnificent work i hold in great admiration. Nevertheless, on this score, he says the southern manifesto was an ejaculation of vile and an orgiastic declaration of defiance. Incredibly evocative language. And if one reads it, it is hard to square with what is there on the page. A close examination of the manifesto undermines the perception the southern politicians were universally blinded by rage. To the contrary, the drafters all often advance legal arguments opposing immigration to contain more nuance, subtlety and sophistication in their detractors have allowed. Recovering those arguments in detail enables one to understand how the manifesto in significant ways should be viewed as the missing to send to brown v. Board of education. Announcer learn more about the 1956 southern manifesto this sunday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern here on American History tv. Wyatt and mcgrady talks about how wikipedia has changed since it was founded in 2001. As the scholars in Science Program manager, he works with academics to improve site content. This interview was recorded at the annual American Historical Association meeting in new york