Student volunteers. Please turn off your cell phones. And now, please join me in welcoming senior associate director dr. Barbara ballard. [ applause ] thank you very much. Ill say good evening and welcome to the Dole Institute of politics. For the Third Program of the 2020 president ial lecture series. Tonights guest is professor of communications, robert roland. We would like to thank our cosponsors, the university of Kansas Department of Communication Studies, the department of history, and the department of political science. This evenings interview will be conducted by Dole Institute associate director audrey coleman. Joining us tonight as an honored guest is ron marks. Hes our spring 2020 fellow. Hes a former Senior Analyst for the cia and intelligence expert and intelligence counsel to Senate Majority leaders robert dole and trent lott. Would you stand, please . [ applause ] thank you. This years president ial lecture series was created and developed by dr. Robert roland. He is a professor of Communication Studies at the university of kansas. His areas of expertise are rhetorical criticism, argumentation, and the public sphere. He presented the keynote on rhetoric at the reagan centennial celebration at usc and the regan library. He has won Numerous National awards for his research. It is with pleasure that i present him to you, and so i will simply say, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome dr. Robert roland with a warm jay hawk welcome. [ applause ] dr. Role achbd, its a pleasure to be with you tonight. Thank you for being here at the Dole Institute. Always at the Dole Institute. Its always great to be at the Dole Institute. So lets get started with our conversation. This is going to be fascinating. Youve studied president reagan as a scholar for many decades, but when did you first take note of Ronald Reagans oratory and rhetoric as a political observer . I did that as a young faculty member at baylor, so roughly 36, 37 years ago. I had bought into all the stereotypes that reagan was a farright ideolog and a mere actor. Then i did two studies. I looked at reagan against i was also a debate coach at the time, and i looked at the Reagan Carter debate in 1980. There was a single debate of that cycle between the two of them, and it had a format so good that theyve never used it ever again. [ laughter ] in the second half of the debate, they had two rebuttals, so you stated your case and then the other side had a chance to state their case, and then you responded. And i noticed immediately as i was going through the transcript that reagan was much better in the rebuttals he was good, he was always good, but he was much better in the rebuttals, and carter was terrible. And i then counted the evidence usage and i counted refuteateive arguments. Reagan was a mere actor. Except i was an active College Debate coach at the time. I could not get my very, very good College Debaters scripted in rebuttals. And it occurred to me that the only possible explanation for this was that reagan was genuinely smart. [ laughter ] it took me a while to accept that. Then i did another study i did a study looking at all his speeches in the 1982 midterm campaign. I had actually a graduate student who had come and been a great debater at ku, a National Debate champion, roger payne. We together looked at all the speeches and they all sounded the same. Now, i knew as president that reagan had many speech writers, he had to, and i thought how could all his and the texts were very different. How could they all sound the same . And it occurred to me the only possible way they could all sound the same was that if reagan were personally involved in the speech writing process. And then i thought, hes not only smart, hes a good writer, too. Since then i have spent a great deal of time with president reagans words. And one thing i had a colleague, a friend who was at pepperdine who would go to the Reagan Library and go to what are called the handwriting files, theyre also speech writing files. The handwriting files are the files from speeches that have reagans handwriting on them. When you see them for the major speeches, it just changes how you think about reagan. So, for example, ive written about a book about his speech at the palace of westminster on june 8th of 1982, a speech where he real enunciated a theory of the cold war that people did not take seriously at the time but turned out to call the way the end the cold war actually happened. In that speech he either edited or wrote more than half of it. Hes a really good writer. Hes an even better editor. And when you see that again and again and again, it shapes your views of something. Now, im i will say, as a citizen, im a lifelong liberal democrat, but, you know, ive looked at the words on the page that he was just plain smart and a really good writer and even better editor. And this is the the old idea of objectivity, people dont like it. Maybe we should. Because that idea led me to totally change my views of Ronald Reagan. So youre talking about him as a writer. What about as a communicator . Where did this talent from communicating come from . If i had to say more than well, two things. More the two things id say is he had a gift for narrative and for expressing his vision of the American Dream, and the American Dream is our most important secular system. Myths in the sense, we study in rhetoric, theyre not false stories, theyre our most important stories, and the most important story we tell as a political story in the United States is the American Dream, which is certainly about the great heros. Its about lincoln. Its about madison. Its about washington. But more than that, its about the ordinary people who have lifted up this nation generation by generation as things have gotten better, hopefully, and weve also become more inclusive. Weve had some glitches in the American Dream. Ill just say that. But reagan had a real gift for telling that, those kind of stories. There is a famous story and he was in some western, and as an actor. And people other actors wondered where he was. Well, he was he was back in his dressing room rewriting his speech to make it better. Better than the hollywood writers. It kind of tells you something, doesnt it . His other gift was empathy. A sense of the audience. And he had a genuine understanding of the American People that i think flowed from, you know, he grew up, you know, really poor in the in the depression. His father was an alcoholic. He had a rough life. But it was a life that led him to empathize with people, and he just had a genuine gift for understanding the way that people are reacting and then expressing it through the American Dream. Would you talk a little bit about his speech, his appearance on the National Stage in the 60s and why how did his message change between 1964 and 1980 when he ran for president . And theres an eerie similarity here between reagan and obama. Reagan becomes famous as a political figure from one speech. He gave a speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964 that was very wellreceived on national television. Its one of those moments where goldwater undoubtedly thought, that was great, but how do i speak now . [ laughter ] and the eerie similarity is with the 2004 Democratic National convention where someone convinced john kerry to invite a state senator barack obama was a state senator running for the senate, and he presented his keynote address, and it was it was he was so unimportant that the the Major Networks, which still actually had News Coverage during the convention all the time then, the Major Networks didnt cover obama. But 17 or 18 minutes later on cnn, et cetera, they were saying theres a future president of the United States. So the eerie similarity is, one speech brought them to the national attention. Now, the second part of your question was about how reagan changed. Reagan had been first he had grown up come of age as an adult as an fdr democrat, and he loved president roosevelt. And fdr, in a way you can hear fdr in his words throughout his life, although shifted toward a small government perspective. But the optimistic vision of the American Dream. That sounded like president roosevelt was always present in reagan. Now, when reagan married nancy, nancys father was a farright conservative, and when reagan started giving some peoples for ge and was on the radio, et cetera, he really he was really on the im not sure that we would say it as the right wing of the of the movement today, but it was then. And but then reagan ran for governor of california in 1966. And what became clear to people who studied him was that he governed as a pragmatist. I mean, he was a conservative, but he was a pragmatic conservative. So he took efforts to restrict welfare. He thought there were people cheating, but he also took efforts to raise social programs for people he thought deserved those social programs, and he and so he governed as a conservative but a pragmatic conservative. And, frankly, thats pretty much how he governed as president. There are people who one of the leaders of the cato institute, which is a libertarian, very far to the right, wrote about the reagan revolution and summarized it after reagan was done as saying there was no reagan revolution. That and so you see that, you know, when reagan was just on the radio, he played to the audience. When reagan was governor or president , he served he served the country. Now, again, i say this i think you should take this as my real views because i never supported any of reagans domestic policies except firing the air traffic controllers. I think he had no choice there. I mean, i didnt agree with it. But how he governed was as a pragmatic conservative. And, you know, its just hes its funny how the stereotypes maintain. He is, from my judgement, with his words and deeds not the man that many people remember. When hes delivering a speech, theres this theres some stories of what you talked about, some very technical logistical way of a very specific way that he would deliver his speech. Can you until us about that . Youre talking about the cards, the 5 by 8 cards, and this is this is early on when hes running for office. By the time he becomes president , he has teleprompters, et cetera, but when he first starts running for office, first he was his own primary speech writer. And i have seen copies of the 5 by 8 cards that he would give his stump speech off of. And what they had were key words. And the stories that are told about reagan and his staff were that he they were republican operatives of their time. So they were in the bar at the hotel at night. And people would people would ask, well, wheres ronnie . And ronnie was up in his room working on the cards. He was getting his stump speech until it worked just the way he wanted it to. Thats his sense of empathy with the audience, but its also his sense of getting the words right. Its the ideas that are the most important, but getting the words about the ideas right. And the thing thats amazing about the delivery is that in order to deliver the speech, he needed to be able to look at the cards to remind himself where he was. And by the way, that also allowed him to go off text if something happened and he could respond. But he also needed to look at the audience. So these are primitive contact lenses of the time. He had one for reading and one for distance, and somehow he could do that. I dont know how anybody could do that. Now, people always say, well, he was able to do that because he was an actor. Now, i have to say, im not sure those people have seen that many of his movies. [ laughter ] because he was a much more effective political leader than he was an actor. Because as a political leader well, let me just tell a story. The famous Warner Brothers story that when he announced he was going to run for governor of california, one of the Warner Brothers said about reagan, no, no, no, Jimmy Stewart for governor, Ronald Reagan for best friend. [ laughter ] yeah, but reagan had the last laugh. Because Jimmy Stewart was a much better movie actor, a much better movie actor. But Ronald Reagan had something to say. Ronald reagan didnt need the script writers, he had something to say. After barack obama appears on the National Stage, when did you start hearing echos of reagan . When did the wheels start turning and you and you thought there might be some comparisons to be making there . Well, that its its probably the its probably obamas first inaugural is the time i first thought that, but i in a way, i should have thought of it after the Convention Speech. Because he is an almost well, hes an unknown state senator. I mean, he no one knows who he is. Hes written this. And the speech is so important in his life that when he was elected president , 51 months later, think about that, 51 months. Hes unknown. You think rhetoric sometimes doesnt matter. Well, it mattered then. And he caught the national attention. Remember he wrote the audacity of hope and went on a book tour. It was the kind of book tour he would sell out arenas and then theyd rent other rooms to have people listen to him, not even be there in his presence, for a book like that. So at that point we see the echos of reagan, but in the first inaugural, i remember listening and thinking, well, thats thats almost hes echoing reagan. In that speech. And let me mention ive been talking about i talked earlier about the importance of the American Dream. And if i had to say one thing that dominates rhetoric over a very long period of time would be ownership of the American Dream. Because the American Dream is an optimistic narrative that in the worlds oldest democracy, that if we Work Together and we work hard that we can build a better life for our for the next generation, for us and for the next generation. And its also a narrative about we all get a say. So things are going to get better. And you can see how Franklin Roosevelt developed that. Its leonard silk writing in the New York Times listening to reagans first inaugural where he famously said, in this present crisis, government is the problem, government is not the solution. Although people forget that inducte introductory phrase. Leonard silk said reagan seemed to be having a direct dialogue with president roosevelt. Well, a few years later, 2009, not 1981, peter baker of the New York Times wrote about obamas first inaugural, that he seemed to be in dialogue with president reagan. And what we see is an arc about ownership of the American Dream that if it comes down to a single thing is, is whether there is more emphasis on individual initiative or whether there is a balance between individual initiative and a sense that when we fall down, when we cant do things ourselves, that government ought to be there as a backdrop. And we see that in fdr in the new deal, and we certainly see that in barack obama. Now, let me let me give you a couple an example of this, if i can, of the pragmatic liberalism and pragmatic conservatism about about government views. So, let me give you a quotation, a couple of quotations, and you tell me who theyre from. Our government should work for us not against us. It should help us not hurt us. Got to be reagan. Thats obama. In his 2008 Convention Speech accepting the democratic nomination. Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill, its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched. Defense of the market. Its obviously reagan. Nope, thats obama again. And here is another quotation. Its the role of the government to work with us not over us, to stand by our side not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it, foster productivity, not stifle it. Obviously obama. Thats reagans first inaugural. Thats just a few paragraphs after the statement where he says, in this present crisis, government is the problem not the solution. Did reagan really think the government was the problem for dealing with the soviets . Thats not the way i remember it. I remember a massive buildup, a buildup that was sending a message. So what i see im not crazy, obamas a pragmatic liberal. He wants a lot more government than reagan. Reagan is a pragmatic conservative. He thinks government is too big and he especially wants to reduce regulation. But theyre both pragmatists. And when you view it that way, their visions of government are not as different as people remember. You mentioned, though, Ronald Reagan does a lot of his did a lot of his own writing, as did obama. Did they employ what kind of speech writing support did they have . Did they have any particular individuals who might have been influential during their process . Well, sure. You know, Peter Robinson he he was a great speech writer for president reagan. Peggy n peggy n peggy newnam gets all the credit. She didnt come on board until 1986. She wrote the challenger address. Which was a truly great speech. Peter robinson has a story that he tells that gives you an idea of the importance of the principal, the president. He talks about writing a speech for george h. W. Bush and h. W. Bush was going to give it in houston. And on the on the airplane there, h. W. Bush takes the speech, which hes demanded to be on i think 4 by 6 cards, pulls out the cards, throws out a bunch of them and reshuffles what you have and that was the speech. Now, i find this entirely credible because ive heard i heard george h. W. Bush was a very good man. But ive heard a lot of his speeches and they did seem to be composed in that fashion. [ laughter ] now, if Peter Robinson were here or any of the great reagan speech writers, what they would say is that their method of writing a speech was to find out what reagan wanted to say. To go back to the mother lode to mine from things that reagan had said before, and thats how they put together his speeches. Because reagan was his own best speech writer. And i think youd say exactly the same thing is true about president obama. That president obama, im thinking now of the race speech, and if you think about a difficult political situation, the race speech is about as difficult a campaign situation as you can possibly be in. Talking about the most impossible issue to talk about. And he had he had he had given instructions, and he gets the speech draft, and David Axelrod its his memoir that i have this story from. Talks about how obama had stayed up until 2 00 or 3 00, whatever it is in the morning, and then he sends a draft to axelrod. And axelrod responds, this is why you should be president. And what obama had done was give the ideas, have a speech writer do a first draft and then made it sound like him. And if you remember that speech, you know, thats the speech where he ends by telling the wonderful story of his Actual Campaign adviser, supporter ashley, who had been in i think it was in South Carolina and been working. Even i just tell the story, i will cry because she its just its so obama. And the point is that obama was terrific at giving direction and then making the words his own. You know, i think reagan was a little bit better of being staying scripted. Virtually my kind of a criticism of obama, when he would be interviewed, you could see him thinking about the question and actually responding in real time. And unfortunately in our politics, thats not smart. Unfortunately, thats not smart, but it tells you something about the mans mind. You mentioned the challenger speech. Can you give us a couple of examples of, you know, from each president how they handled a crisis. What crisis was it and how how did they address crisis . I think the challenger speech is its interesting because we we had this catastrophe. Peggy newnam drafted it and reagan gave the speech, and apparently he comes out peggy newnam says in her memoir that he came out and president reagan said, maybe not so good. And, of course, the speech is remembered as one of the greats of his presidency. But a few days later, president reagan gave a eulogy for the challenger astronauts in houston. And if you look at president ial eulogies, the eulogy in houston is much, much better. The challenger speech is great because it wasnt time for a eulogy yet. It was time to hold in the pain. Not express the pain. In houston, president reagan and he knew how to give ceremonial speeches. He used the moment to comfort, to do all the things a eulogy is supposed to do. And in a way i think we see something very similar from president obama. We did not see a great deal of emotion from president obama, but then we have newtown. And we see him cry, we see him angry at our inability to protect children that, frankly, the rest of us do. So i think what we see is, again, that empathy with an audience that it was true for both of them. You know, they have different politics. They have different policies. But that sense of the country and by the way, obama was very aware of that with reagan. In the audacity of hope, the campaign book, he ran in he didnt know he was going to run for president. He decided to run for president when he went around the country on the book tour and there were these enormous crowds. Then he met with axelrod and others and they convinced him, this is your time and you should take a chance. Remember, originally, Hillary Clinton was an overwhelming favorite. But what obama did in the introduction to the audacity of hope is talk about the power of reagans message and why and especially the narrative and how enduring it was. And i think he clearly had that in mind with his own rhetoric. You may remember, this is really a detail. That in the 2008 campaign, it was about now 12 years ago that he said in an interview that Ronald Reagan had changed the country in a way that bill clinton did not. And you can imagine that one person in particular was really, really irritated by that. Bill did not like that. You know why bill was irritated . Because he had to know it was true. But i think that is an indication that obama thought had thought about what reagan did. I have one more indication of that. When obama had a speech writer working on the draft of the 50year anniversary the speech he gave in selma, the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday, he told the speech writer, according to the washington post, he wanted them to draft something as consequential as reagans farewell. I think obama had a sense of how that reagan had changed the country and that in a liberal way, a pragmatic liberal way, he was going to do the same thing, too, and he did. Looking at their speeches and their rhetoric, how would you characterize reagan and obama . Their visions of the role of the presidency. Do you get a sense in their language how they what what their role is as president and what what are they trying to do . The president s who have most influenced this country for long periods are the ones that give us a Broader Vision of this nation. And ive already mentioned the American Dream and reagan has an individualistic interpretation of the American Dream that emphasizes the entrepreneur, et cetera, the government getting out of the way, and obama said in the speech that launched the 2012 campaign, every 100 years theres a really important speech in kansas. I do not well, its because t. R. Went there. Thats why it is. Thats when he announced the theme that would carry him to election. The idea that everybody does their fair share and everybody gets a fair shot. You know, in a way he was an he was stating in his moderate, pragmatic way that the problem of income inequality long before the current democrats were focused on that. So, a big part of it is the American Dream, but then you also have a vision of what the governments supposed to do. And in reagans america, government was supposed to protect us from the soviets, et cetera, but government was also supposed to get out of the way. So, a president is giving us a narrative of the country moving forward and a broad ideological vision. By the way, individual issues, unless its a scandal and somehow scandals dont seem to have the same influence they used to. Ill just leave it at that. You can fill in that. Well, we could just have a major gap there as you fill in things. But they give so its the narrative and its a broader ideological vision because individual issues the public isnt very knowledgeable on individual issues. Let me just give you one example of that. The Affordable Care act. The individual mandate, which we know has been called socialism, right . You know who proposed that socialist idea originally . Its a man named stuart m. Butler who works for that farleft, except you have to go all the way around the world because he actually works for the heritage foundation. It was the conservative Reform Health care plan of the late 1980s. And so what we have is a broad ideological vision. Reagan, small government conservatism. Obama, more pragmatic government liberalism. And then a definition of who the nation is based on who we are as americans. And on that ground, obama and reagan are pretty similar in having an inclusive vision of america. Now, let me give you some quotations. Let me before i do that, let me say reagans policies were not in the main good for the poor and many of his policies were especially they did not help people of color in particular. But his words are a little bit different. So let me give you a couple of examples of the inclusive vision that reagan and obama both had. We shall reflect the compassion that is so much part of our makeup. How can we love our country and not love our country . In loving them, reach out a hand when they fall. Heal them when theyre sick and provide them opportunity to make them selfsufficient so they will be equal in fact not just in theory. Equal in fact not just in theory has to be obama. Reagans first inaugural. Reagan describing the United States in the farewell address, ive just told you who it was. In his mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocked stronger than oceans and teaming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace. A free port that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get there. Reagan was not a fan of high walls. Well, let me let me give you let me give you obama. Whether we come from poverty or wealth, wealth we are afroamerican, irish american, christian or jewish, big cities or small towns, we are equal in the eyes of god. But as americans, that is not enough. We must be equal in the eyes of each other. Except thats reagan. Thats reagan from his final major speech. Thats 1992. Thats the houston speech. Thats the speech only sum of you will remember pat buchanan giving a speech that night where he talked about a religious war for the heart and soul of america. Reagan didnt believe in that. Reagans vision, not his policies, but his vision was inclusive, and, of course, obamas vision was equally inclusive and as as we saw again and again, let me just quote from the 2012 Election Night speech. What makes america exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on earth. The belief that our destiny is shared. That this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. And that freedom, which so Many Americans have fought for and died for, comes with responsibilities as well as rights, and among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism. Thats what makes america great. Its the liberal democrat talking about duty and patriotism. Their values arent very different at all. Now, their policies are different, but their values are not very different at all. Their narratives are shifted by how much government you have. But in values, in their vision of america, theyre pretty similar. One more question and then well turn it over to the audience. Next were going to talk more about the Communications Landscape today and how its shaped president ial rhetoric. But do you think, i mean, give the technology of the landscape, given social media, how do we reinvigorate some of these the traditions of president ial rhetoric that you might say are positive. Do you have any advice for us on how to encourage the kind of rhetoric that youre discussing . Well, two things. First, if either of these figures could be on the public stage, you know, president reagan is gone and president obama cannot run. I would not bet against them. I wouldnt if Michael Jordan had to hit one shot, would you vote would you bet against him . I would not. And these are the two most successful political figures i mean, reagans the most influential republican since teddy roosevelt. And since the civil war, only two democrats have won consecutive president ial elections with a majority of the popular vote. And Franklin Delano roosevelt did it four times and barack obama did it twice. And barack obama did it while overcoming racism. So when youve got a person of that of that accomplishment, i think theyd do fine. In our Current Media environment, i think we ought to remember some of the things that president reagan said in his farewell address. In addition to that empowering description of the city on a hill, he talked about the idea that we he didnt phrase it quite like this, but that we needed to reinvigorate the public square. That we needed to have Greater Public knowledge. And that we needed to reinvigorate public ritual. And it should be a ritual that respects the values of this nation. If president obama were here, i think hed say weve often not lived up to the framers. That is that provides us a direction to aim. And so we could try id say i guess we should try believing in facts again. Thats a great idea. [ laughter ] there are john adams famously said, facts are stubborn things, indeed. And perhaps they could be stubborn again. And maybe we should believe in living up to the the framers didnt live up to them, but if president obama were here, hed talk about the United States belgi being a nation that we were always in search of that more Perfect Union and we moved toward it gradually and we get closer to that. And the answer is not to give up on that journey, but to redouble our efforts to do that in a way that includes all americans. Where everybody gets that fair shot. And a fair deal wouldnt hurt, too. Thank you, dr. Rowland. Lets take some questions from the audience. Do i see any hands . Headed towards the back. Hi. Oops. Is the mic working . Just one moment. Well switch them out. Test. There we go. Hi, my name is jacob, if that matters. I have a question a bit about reagans shift from hollywood into politics. Im aware that he was a democrat in a hollywood that was at the time largely republican. He was even s. A. G. President at one point, i believe. At what point did he decide to make the switch to the Republican Party . To my knowledge, he might have been one of those i didnt change, the Democratic Party changed. Was that the familiarity with nancys familys politics. Would it be more disingenuous for him to run as a democrat and as a president because the idea that his values dont quite line up with the policy creates a cognitive dissidence and i wonder if Party Affiliation has anything to do with that. You actually answered your own yes. He actually said at the time i didnt leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me. So if you look at his evolution, he he would not be the only person who as he got older and more wealthy became more concerned he would say that the Democratic Party moved too far in terms of regulation. Im sure thats exactly what he would say. Now, youre right, he was actually, in fact, he was president of the screen actors guild. And he was he at the and i think also the rise of the soviet threat after the second world war, he was extremely antisoviet throughout his entire adult life, and i think that played a role in his switch as well. Next question. Okay. Also in the back. Hello. My name is brenna. The first part of this discussion sort of centered around this idea of president ial mythology. And however upon election, that sort of mythology has seemed to kind of decay, so what is essential in writing speeches and creating this, like, rhetoric pattern that can kind of phoenix out of a first terms ashes and allow a president to do, as you say, reinvigorate an audience to believe in them after an entire four years of having their reputation kind of slandered . Well, i guess i have to say that its clear slander isnt what it used to be. [ laughter ] in american politics today. The i think there are two approaches to this, and i would distinguish between the reagan obama approach and the bill clinton approach. Bill clinton was a tactician. And i dont think there is im not sure there is anybody who has been in modern times as good a, you know, a tactical president , a retail president. He could charm anybody. So you will remember, some of you, that when there were questions of morality, there were quite a few as i recall, and thats when he would he would shift and endorse Something Like school uniforms. And that was good in the moment at responding. Now, it did not, however, lead to major legislative accomplishments. Now, a reagan or an obama, they really only had one message, and so they stuck to that message. So in 1981, in the first part of 1982, it looked inevitable that reagan was going to not be reelected, and then poor Walter Mondale discovered the economy had come back and he was running against Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale was a strong candidate, but this is, you know, in the you dont want to draw reagan in your in your tournament bracket, ill just say it at that. [ laughter ] and i think for obama, his message really didnt change except in one way. There was one thing about the 2008 campaign that he had said something that was true about us as a people but was not true about washington. He said famously, and it was the concession speech from New Hampshire, although it was so successful it was almost like a victory speech. This is the yes, we can conclusion to the New Hampshire speech. He says, we are not as divided as our politics would appear. And when he became president , he discovered that in washington we were every bit as divided as our politics would appear. And so what that meant was that after the republicans retook control of the house, he got nothing done. Its astonishing. We did not need any additional stimulus in 2010, but by 2017, we desperately needed to cut Corporate Income taxes. Despite the economy coming up every year since 2010. But while obama had discovered it was very hard to work in congress because of that level of partisanship, his core message after especially after he shifted, where the enemy was not partisanship but the enemy was that we werent giving everybody a fair shot. When he shifted that message, and it started in after we had a near disaster with the debt ceiling almost collapse. After he was through that, his message shifted, and then with the exception of the two days after his disastrous first debate, he was always ahead. And went on to a relatively easy victory. So i would say that its not a matter of shifting a message, its finding a truly transcendent message that really fits American People. And both, you know, reagan and obama in a way, they always said the same thing. Its just that in both cases they were attuned to their time. One more thing about reagan. Reagans message was also attune paw it was the end of the cold war and his message was particularly adapted to the soviet the genuine soviet threat that existed then. Other questions . Up here in the front. Do you see any of these rhetorical skills in the current crop of candidates running . Well, no no one running, in my mind, has the gift that either obama or reagan had. I think all of the democrats Bernie Sanders not as much, but the other democrats all are trying are enunciating a message a great deal like president obama. To me, the component thats missing is the tying it in in the narrative and the value terms the way that president obama did. Its not that their policies arent very similar to obama, their ideology. You often hear on interview shows people say theres a major question about what the democratic message should be. You know, and i find this confusing. Barack obama, you know, he won two consecutive terms with all the problems we know about. You remember when he was elected and the onion said, black man gets worst job in america because of the crisis that were in. Its a humorous cartoon story in a way that was totally true and yet he triumphed again in 2012. What i dont understand is after fdr democrats had the sense to use fdrs message for another 20 years. It is not clear to me why democrats are in search of other message since they just had this generations, you know, the equivalent of Michael Jordan as president ial rhetor. Any more questions . We have plenty of time. Dont be shy. Im julie. Ive enjoyed all of these sessions. Theyve been great. I you mentioned some of reagans speech writers. Who were some of obamas speech writers . Obamas speech writers are not as well known, you know, because i think obama was, himself, the most important speech writer throughout his time in office. You know, and so he had he had ive got theres a balk on my bedside table by one of obamas speech writers, and to be honest, i forget the name. I remember he talks about his hopy changing time in america. In a way i think thats because this is a this is a little bit like the conservative ideolog who only has only can listen to the fox news channel. The obama speech writers only needed to channel the things that obama had said in the past. And then they were set to say that again. And so i think i think theyre not remembered in the same way. As the reagan speech writers. Another ive mentioned Peter Robinson and peggy newnam and tony dolan, who is was the first author of the westminster address. Actually, the author of the second draft, but the first reasonable draft, and hes, by the way, working for trump now. But the thing to remember about reagans speech writer was the only one that really mattered was reagan. Any more questions . Can i point to a couple more eerie similarities . Please. I think of them eerie between reagan and obama. Please. Ive already mentioned that each came on stage because of a single speech. They werent widely known as political figures. And then they gave a single speech and suddenly they were talked about as a future president. And i also mentioned that when they left office, activists in their own party said they were total failures. By the way, some people said that at the time for reagan. At the time of the Washington Summit in 1988, george will wrote a column where he essentially said, well remember this as the time we lost the cold war. Thankfully he wasnt exactly right. George does not revisit that prediction. [ laughter ] so, they were both also extremely cautious about using force. Remember when the barracks blew were blown up . A terrorist incident in lebanon. And what reagan did was not double down, but pull forces out of lebanon. Quite a lot like when obama drew the red line and then and then and then the red line was crossed and he thought, what am i going to accomplish by a missile attack in syria . And he didnt do it. He demanded that Congress Give him legislative support and congress, a, would not give him legislative support and then, b, criticized him for not for not agreeing with them. Its very like what happened to reagan. Both were quite tough when they needed to be. You know, i think we remember the libya bombing raid that reagan sent at at gadhafis personal apartment. And Osama Bin Laden discovered that barack obama really meant it when the first day in office he said, find bin laden. So i think what we see is and by the way, both thought that americas most important weapon in Foreign Policy were ideas. In the westminster address, reagan said, democracy is not a fragile flower. Still it needs cultivating. In the noble prize speech, obama talked about the meaning of the american idea and how we need to move forward. And by the way, one final thing, and its curious. They both had good friends, the speaker of the house from the other party. If you havent read about tip oneals friendship with reagan, its almost sweet. Tip oneal would come in and he was giving reagan, you know the what for because he was a good liberal and i agreed with tip. And reagan would say, tip, why are you talking this way to me and tip would say you are so nice when we have a drink together. [ laughter ] and tip would say, its not after 5 00 yet. [ laughter ] and reagan said, it is somewhere. And obama and boehner. Remember when he got boehner to make a camio in the video he produced. The similarities are striking, i think. Last call for questions. All right. Thank you, dr. Rowland. What a fascinating discussion. Thank you. [ applause ] well look forward to well look forward to seeing you all next week for the last installment of our president ial lecture series on social media and contemporary rhetoric. You wont want to miss that one either. So join us again. Have a great evening. Denise from worcester, shes great. Youll want to see her. From George Washington to george w. Bush, every sunday at 8 00 p. M. And midnight eastern we feature the presidency, our weekly series exploring the president s, their policies and legacy. Youre watching American History tv all weekend every weekend on cspan3. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. Next, yale law professor justin driver talks about the 1956 southern manifesto, a document written by congressional members who opposed the Supreme Courts 1954 brown v. Board of education decision, which ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional. Mr. Driver analyzes how Strom Thurmond and other contributors use segregationist and other legal arguments to draft what they called the constitution of declarational principles. Justice elena kagan offing introductory remarks. Good evening and welcome to everybody, im jerry libben, im a Vice President of the Supreme CourtHistorical Society and delighted to see everybody here tonight in our second lecture of the leon silverman series on dissents in the Supreme Court. We are very privileged tonight to have as our host Justice Kagan. She will be introducing our distinguished speaker very shortly. Let me just tell you a few things about Justice Kagan you