Transcripts For CSPAN Truman 20240705

Welcome back to the stage at trumans Vice President of policy and programs john simmons. Vice president simmons hello, everybody. I hope everyone had a great lunch. We are at a portion of the program in many are eager to hear. Please welcome the moderator for our keynote address. Monique good afternoon, everyone. Im delighted to be here today to introduce our keynote speaker Rachel Maddow and moderate q a motion of the conference in a little bit. This is a very special experience for me. I do not think i mentioned it to her when i was chatting with her back there. But, i moved back to austin a couple years ago. Because my father was sick. Sadly, he passed away in october. I remember him telling me a few years ago. He thought everything was extremist attacks on our country except for rachels show. When truman asked me to do this i would like come of court of course. I am a huge fan. I am very grateful to truman for asking me to do this. Lets introduce our speaker. Rachel maddow is the host of the Emmy Awardwinning Rachel Maddow show on msnbc. It was the most successful show in msnbc history. Most in the audience know how great the show is. I know i do. And how talented rachel is. Did you know she is also the recipient of tons of awards and recognitions like enemies emmies . She was named breakout star by the Washington Post in 2008 when the show launched and it named one of the top 10 political newcomers by politico. Com. Last year along with michael yarbroughs she executive produced and launched a podcast called Rachel Maddow presents alternate part historical nonfiction series that explores the story of the 1944 great sedition trial. It even caught the attention of stephen tilburgs hamlin entertainment that is about upping a feature film. It is the second podcast from maddow. Maddow is an author of books including drift the unmooring of American Military power. That debuted at number one on the New York Times bestseller list in march 2012. Maddow received a bachelors degree from Samford University and earned her doctorate in Political Science at oxford, university where she attended on rhodes scholarship. She lives in new york city and massachusetts with her partner. Lets welcome to the state Rachel Maddow. Rachel hello. I get nervous when i can see humans to whom i am speaking. So, these are my reading glasses. I am sorry. Any subtle motions, if something is happening and you are trying to get my attention, i need big big movements. Thank you for that kind invitation, or, introduction. One thing i do not do often is give speeches. Thats because i get nervous seeing humans. Its also because when i have given speeches in the past, im never invited back. Thats because i give weird speeches. This is your warning that this will be a weird speech. I am sorry in advance. I can tell you now you will have no idea why i am talking about most the things i am talking about. It is a story about bad guys, but bad guys you have not heard of that do not necessarily matter to you. It says some unkind things about our namesake president harry truman, which is probably a bad choice for this room. [laughter] but, stick with me. It wraps around and there are no commercials. 1789 was the french revolution. 1889 was the 100th anniversary of the french revolution. There was a worlds fair that here. They had paris hosted on the centennial. What parents billed for the worlds fair in 1889 was the eiffel tower. Parisians thought it was absolutely hideous. They were so glad it would only last for the duration of the fair. But, thats how we got to the eiffel tower. The worlds fair is also how we got the space needle in seattle. Yeah. Seattle had nothing to do with drug use. It had to do with the 1962 worlds fair. They built the space needle as a centerpiece for the fairgrounds for that year. Of course, we still have it today. Its obviously awesome. We dont really do worlds fairs anymore, not in the same way we use to. But they were a long time. In 1939 the worlds fair was in new york. That was the fair where the world was introduced to some weird new thing called television. They debuted that at the worlds fair. Also, nylon. Also, view masters. You can just amongst yourself which has had a more important impact on america in the years since. At the 1939 worlds fair stretched into 1940. Thing about what was going on in the world at that time. There was an interesting reflection of it at that worlds fair. Nazi germany started invading country after country in europe. The National Pavilions of all the invaded countries, one after the other, started going black, taking themselves down. The first time we got those National Pavilions at a worlds fair where countries have their own area at the fair to build things and show off what was great about their country, the first worlds fair that did that was in chicago in 1892. It was 400 years since columbus sailed to the new world. The discovery of america. They had all of these really racist anthropological exhibits to show what the world was like for white people got here. Before white people got here. They showed off the firstever ferris wheel at the 1892 chicago worlds fair. Chicago was super proud of how that fair went. So much so, it to this day is on the chicago city flag. Chicagos flag is like white with two blue stripes and then it has four red stars. One of the stars is for the worlds fair. In perpetuity. Its that important for them. Thats awkward because at the worlds fair the mayor of chicago was assassinated. A disappointed Office Seeker went to his house and killed him. They had to change the closing ceremony. It was sad. A lot of things about that worlds make it stand out. The National Pavilions where countries from all over the world would have their own country specific lavish exhibits to show off who they were. That was the real innovation. That here. That year, to represent the british empire, the british colonies at that fair in chicago constructed a huge thing. Not like eiffel tower bid, but big. It was a fake buddhist temple, a fullscale temple. They called it ceylon court as in ceylon, sri lanka. It was a temporary building constructed just for the fair. It was massive. 18,000 square feet. Like, castle sized. It was built with rare hardwood. Not a single nail was used in the construction. It was all held together with pegs. It cost 1 million to build it in 1890. Like 33 million today. For this big, beautiful weird thing that was just there for the fair and after the fair slated to be demolished. Which, of course, seems like a waste. At least, it seemed like a waste to a rich real estate guy in wisconsin. After the worlds fair was over in 1893 he paid to have this 18,000 squarefoot temple dismantled, packed onto railcars , 24 different railcars. He shipped it to wisconsin and then had it rebuilt on the shores of geneva lake in the town of lake geneva wisconsin. Once this big 18,000 squarefoot temple was assembled on the shore of the lake, the real estate guy decided he did not like it. So coming he sold it to a rich chicago banker. The rich chicago bankers sold it to the maytag washer machine family who made this 18,000 squarefoot fake hardwood temple held together with pegs all taken from the worlds fair part of their estate in lake geneva, wisconsin. Where it fit right in. Lake geneva, by the 1920s and 30s was a real showcase for the ostentatiously rich of the midwest. The maytag washer machine family had their huge fake buddhist temple brought in by rail car from the worlds fair. The Wisconsin Historical society will still till this day happily so you postcard images of a big sri lankan temple incongruously perched on the banks of geneva like. Other rich people in like geneva had also bought and shipped the denmark pavilion from the worlds fair. Also, the norway pavilion. Also for some reason the state of idaho had a whole building at that worlds fair and somewhat in geneva disassembled it, put it on a train, brought it to lake geneva and reassembled it. It was a thing. Like epcot center. It was a place where everyone was kind about doing themselves. You had the families that owned the morton salt company. They built a 13 bedroom mansion in lake geneva with a 30 foot ceilings. The crane family of the plumbing fixtures fortune built a 22 bedroom palace in lake geneva that was a rich socialite novelist main named jane eyre fairbanks. She built a mansion theyre made to look like it was stamped out of gingerbread. Still today, lake geneva is among the swing he asked addresses swankiest addresses in that part of the country. Theres a mention in lead geneva on the market today that is like 35 million and comes with a whole separate house on the grounds just for the owners model train set. If that is you and you have the money to spare, lake geneva is for you. In the 1930s lake geneva was definitely that eras equivalent of the show off lifestyles of the rich and famous kind of place. And, it was also, no jews allowed. Lake to nouveau is about 70 miles from chicago lake geneva is about 70 miles from chicago. In january 1941 the Lake Geneva Chamber of commerce put an ad in the Chicago Daily news that said come to the switzerland of america lake geneva, wisconsin. Write the chamber of commerce for complete information. Catering to a gentile clientele. Real estate transactions were what they called restricted in lake geneva. That meant restricted to nonjews only. A lot of places where in that boat in the 19 United States in 1941. Lake geneva was one of the only places advertising it explicitly. They were saying overtly in chicago newspapers. Come here, chicago money. Here, you can get away from the jews. A few months after that ad ran in the summer of 1941 a new York Magazine relocated its whole staff and operation from manhattan to lake geneva, wisconsin. The explanation offered by the editor was the new cities mayor was too antigerman. The editor told Time Magazine he decided to move his magazine out of new york because mayor laguardia yelled german bombers are coming. The decision was explained in blunter terms to a far right newsletter called america in danger. In 1941 they said for some weeks before we left new york, our mail bags were rifled. New york has a jew postmaster and a jew guardia as mayor. The editor told another reporter he wanted to get his magazine out of new york and into lead geneva specifically instead because there was about to be a civil war in the u. S. In 1941. He said as long as roosevelt continues to drive america towards war against hitlers Midwest Farmers will rise up and lead civil war and win. Because, Midwest Farmers where the real heartland stock of america. They did not want to fight the blood in europe. They was soon approaching when they would rise up, take up arms come over throw the u. S. Government to keep america from fighting hitlers. Since that day was coming soon he figured it was better to be in wisconsin, the winning side of the civil war, particularly against the east coast. Sort of overlooked now, i think even by people looking at the history of that time. Lots of the more radical americans that did not want us to fight in the Second World War predicted we would have a civil war here if roosevelt did get us into it. Some of them were saying publicly they feared that might happen. Some were plainly rooting for that. So, as the magazine moved from new york to lake geneva, you can see, if you can find old copies of it, that it charts the change of the magazine physically. It got kind of swanky. It covers were glossy and printed in color, where at the time because it was expensive. It was printed on really high quality paper. I benefit for us looking at the history now because it survived. It was a magazine that was long with lots of pages. Interestingly, it had no visible means of support. It had no advertisements. It did have psas telling readers like, how to join their local America First committee. Which was a big mainstream organization advocating from keeping america for keeping america from joining world war ii. But, it did not have anything that looked like a paid advertisement at all. How was it being funded . This was the magazine that put Charles Lindbergh on the cover and henry ford. Politicians like the influential republican senator gerald snyder. The editorial slant was very aggressively and emphatically aggressively and emphatically that the u. S. Should not join the war, that it was pointless for our allies to try to fight germany, in particular, which was so much stronger than everybody else militarily. It also hinted and sometimes flat out said, particularly in its cartoons, that may here in america, it was just the jews trying to get us into the war, not because it was good for america but because they have their own nefarious purposes. Although there was no indication that there were all that many paying subscribers to this expensive magazine, it was nevertheless printed and mailed out in huge quantities. The magazine was sent in bulk to u. S. Army bases and u. S. Army airfields and even the combat ships in port. This magazine was called scribners cocommentator, and it showed up in bulk at u. S. Military posts as far afield as the philippines, alaska and the panama canal zone. And every issue of this thing was like, hitlers winning, possibly hitlers is right. The u. S. Has no reason to fight against him. That is being shipped out in bulk to u. S. Troops. Who was paying to produce this . Where was it coming from . In november, 1941, a committee was convened in washington to investigate nazi propaganda operations inside the u. S. A writer for that magazine was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. There were questions about the distribution of the magazine, particularly as it was being sent to u. S. Troops, questions about who was backing it financially. When the writer got his subpoena, he went on the lam and there was a National Manhunt to find him. He explained he was on a sudden impulse vacation in the deep south and had forgotten about the subpoena. He was later tried and convicted as a secret Foreign Agent on the payroll of the japanese government. Publishers of the magazine were also invited to testify. When he was questioned as to how the magazine was funded, he had the worlds most amazing story. He told the grand jury under oath that the way it was fun it was through anonymous giftwrapped parcels of cash left as presents for him at his front door in lake geneva. He said, on one occasion, he found, inside his front hall, a parcel that was 15,000 in cash in 20 bills. He had no idea who through it who is threw it through his window. It just came. Then it happened again, another 15,000, also in 20 bills, also wrapped up in giftwrapped like a present, this time left just inside his front door in lake geneva. 15,000 then would be about 300,000 today. There was more. He said one day in lake geneva a man on the street walked up to him and without a word handed him a parcel, 300,000 in cash. Never seen him before, did not know who he was. The man handed him the money and he walked away and thats how they paid for the magazine. It was amazing. Another 6,000 found wrapped up like a present on his desk one day. He asked, how could leaving his door unlocked he said he left his door unlocked in safely geneva. He said that is how his magazine was funded. Angels, maybe, some otherworldly bad otherworldly benefactor. It was like winning the lottery without even playing. He explained he was not curious about who is dropping out this cash and did not see why the grand jury would see it as odd either. He explained he was producing a magazine of such compelling quality that it did not surprise him that anonymous benefactors would do this. But if it really was, like, santa leaving honest gifts leaving anonymous gifts, the prosecutors leading the grand jury inquiry had questions they wanted to ask him about that, because one of the big an big anonymous influxes of cash seem to coincide with the publisher visiting new york. He checked into a hotel in new york, the Hotel Pennsylvania, stayed one night, then took the train back to wisconsin the same day, and when he arrived back in wisconsin, he went to the bank and deposited 15,000. The prosecutor said to him in front of the grand jury, hey, it does not look like santa in this case. It looks like he went to new york and got 15 grand and brought it back and put it in the bank. He said, no, no, no. The whole trip to new york thing was just a lark. It was a big misunderstanding. It was a mistake. He insisted that was one of those gift wrapped parcels of cash that arrived like a stork that had dropped a new baby just randomly dropped off at his house and on that occasion, for whatever reason, it seemed like so much money. Its not safe to deposit in wisconsin. I will go to new york, put it in a new york bank, and come back. He said when he got to new york, he changed his mind. He felt silly so took the money back to wisconsin and deposited it there. That was his explanation. Youll be shocked to learn it does not appear his story was true. When the war was over, in 1946, one of the prosecutors investigating nazi propaganda efforts in the United States, he went to germany to interview captured nazis, because now the war was over, right . These were highranking nazi officials who had overseen the hitlers governments go efforts to spread nazi propaganda in the United States and promote american fascist groups here. While he was in germany. He was doing this questioning and there were no dose officials who admitted there were no dose officials who admitted in fact they were santa. They were the leprechauns, the storks. They had been providing funding from the German Government in cash for that american magazine in lake geneva, wisconsin, and for another broadsheet publication in lake geneva that took the same editorial line, but was even more antisemitic. It was nazi funded antisemitic propaganda to try to undermine the american war effort to promote fascism and antisemitism here and prevent america from joining the war against the axis powers. It was all based in this antisemitic town in wisconsin. One nazi official admitted to the prosecutor he was the one who approved the German Government providing the funding. A second nazi official testified that after his boss approved it, he was the one who physically took it to the Hotel Pennsylvania and handed it over to that publisher that night in september 1941 when the prosecutors already knew the guy was there. Doj brought the nazi witnesses from germany to washington to testify in this case. The guy who admitted hand delivering the cash, the guy who admitted to proving the cash delivery, was brought to testify at the trial, and this was core to the substance of the case, right . The jury was to consider which is more likely, that this kind of door number one, this progerman, prohitler, inexplicably lavish, expensive magazine was funded by random anonymous giftwrapped parcels of money thrown through windows or door number two, was it more likely that it was funded by the German Government when two government officials admitted it was them . Funded by leprechauns or nazis who admitted they did it . Which is it . The jury chose door number one. Must be leprechauns. They acquitted the publisher of the magazine of probe of perjury charges. The jury said he did not believe the jury said they did not believe he lied when he explained to the jury about random giftwrapped parcels of cash. They decided that was real. First of all, this is a true story. This happened. The trial was march 1947. The reason the jury acquitted this guy is because the defense convince the jury that the nazi witnesses must have lied in their testimony. According to the defense, the nazis must have been tortured when they were questioned in germany and it was only because of the said they gave this false testimony falsely claiming the German Government funded this magazine. There is no evidence at all other than the defenses claims that this happened, but as the defense, it worked as a defense, it worked. The magazine guy was acquitted. If you widen the lens, you see why that might have worked. As i said, the trial was in march 1947. A couple month before that, in january and february 1947, newspapers in the u. S. , dozens, including the New York Times, had been running story after story after story about accusations that nazi prisoners were being abused in american custody in germany, being tortured by american interrogators in germany. The line was that the americans were behaving worse than the gestapo ever did and were giving these nazi war crimes defendants the third degree and accusing them of things they never did an exacting false confessions from them by thirddegree tactics. Those accusations were false. Americans were not doing that to german prisoners, but the allegations were scandalous, and they got a lot of play in the press at the time. Those false accusations of nazi prisoners being abused had been invented in germany by pronazi defense lawyers who were defending accused german war criminals, and i say they were pronazi lawyers because they invented these allegations not just to get their clients off the hook but it was part of a broader strategy. They were trying to rehabilitate the image of the nazis, discredit america and the allies, trying to make it seem like the axis and allies were equally valid, and it was just the germans who had lost so they were now getting a bad rap. In the most sinister formulation, and this was argued not just in germany but also by americans at home, the most sinister formulation of this argument, the claim was that Jewish American investigators and interrogators were inventing terrible claims about germans out of spite. Jewish american servicemen were out to get german soldiers for revenge because of what the germans had done to the jews and just because the germans were christian and jews were terrible to christians. So the accusation was, under cover of the u. S. Military, jewish gis were torturing german veterans for their own sadistic satisfaction, and that was all complete bull, but German Defense lawyers and American Defense lawyers sympathetic to the nazi defendants, they all advanced these claims, and the accusations were amplified by the conservative press in america and by americans here at home, including some americans serving in the u. S. Senate who were trying to get political advantage out of it by attacking the army and the administration. By aligning themselves with these scandalous false claims. Edit all contributed in that moment in time, in and it all contributed in that moment in time, in late 1946 and 1947, in pardons and commuted sentences for nazi war criminals in germany even though there was no evidence that americans had been brutalizing nazi work prisoners nazi war prisoners. It worked and after months of those false allegations circulating in the press in Congress Press and congress, this prosecution of this weird nazi funded magazine from lake geneva, wisconsin, that prosecution contributed to its collapse. It fell apart for the same reason, false claims that the nazis must have been mistreated by terrible american interrogators who were out to get them. It was a deception to rehabilitate the images of the united of the nazis and smear the United States and particularly Jewish Americans. Its a really ugly story. And in the moment, in march 1947, it was this embarrassing loss for the Justice Department. The nazis who had conspired with the German Government who had taken orders from berlin and had obviously been on the german payroll got away with it. Their editor went on to a long career at Readers Digest after running the other magazine for the nazis. By the end of his career, he was retired in writing genteel racist books about failing tropical islands. You can still get them today on ebay. The writer, who was convicted as an agent for the japanese, did a short prison sentence and then went onto a long political career on the american hard right promoting american support for apartheid and later holocaust denial. The nazi funded propaganda operation that operated in lake geneva wisconsin geneva, wisconsin in that rich, wellconnected, deeply antisemitic town, that just disappeared from history. You can buy yourself a 35 million today. The prosecutor who recovered all this, who got this evidence and brought it back to america, what happened to him is he was fired by harry truman. Did i read the wrong room did i read the room wrong . [laughter] sorry. When this prosecutor had gone to germany and questioned nazi officials about the work they had done in the United States, the americans they made plans against the u. S. Government. The prosecutor came back with an understanding of how nazi germany had operated inside our country, came back with a list of americans on the german pa yroll or who have been working with them, and on that list were two serving senators or members of congress, one of them a democratic u. S. Senator that was a close friend of president truman, was friends with him when truman was in the senate himself, and that year, 1946, truman openly endorsed and campaigned for precisely one democratic senator who was up for reelection, and it was his friend, the center the senator. His name was burton wheeler. The prosecutors report on what he had learned from captured nazis was brought back to the u. S. The report was submitted to the attorney general, tom clark, who is go on to be who would go on to be a Supreme Court justice. The attorney general said to truman that his friend, senator wheeler, was on the list of americans who had worked with nazis inside the u. S. Senator wheeler went to the white house to pay truman a visit. We know from white house records at the time that they had a two hour, oneonone meeting. At the end of that meeting that same night, president truman summoned his attorney general and told him to fire the prosecutor, the guy who had written this Justice Department report, told the attorney general to bury the report and keep it secret, even though the prosecutor had previously been told it would to be made public. That same night, he fired the prosecutor. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the that despite lots of false claims at the time, nazi prisoners were not systematically tortured or brutalized after the war, much less subjected to some kind of sadistic revenge plot by Jewish Service members. We know the nazis were supporting profascist efforts inside the u. S. , bankrolling profascist authors and publications, supporting violent u. S. Fascist groups who stockpiled weapons and planned to overthrow the u. S. Government. Today, we know the nazis the nazis had confederates inside the United States, including a surprisingly large effort they ran in congress using nazi agents. We now know that those members of congress were powerful enough they had friends in high enough places that they used their own clinical influence to get themselves excused from account ability own political influence to get themselves excused from accountability. How does this help us in the National Security context today . Two points on that and then i will sit down. The first point is this. It would be great to know why president truman did what he did. Why fire that prosecutor and order the burials of that report . We do not know the answer to that for sure because we know president truman never explained himself on this point, and depending on how you are feeling on president truman, you could come up with a range of potential expo nations that range from very bad of potential explanations that range from bad to very bad. One of them came from a newspaper columnist at the time who actually did break a lot of actual truths about the story of the time but also suggested in one of his columns that may be president truman ordered this prosecutor fired because of a grudge, because the prosecutor also had a hand in prosecuting the old corrupt political boss in missouri to whom truman owed his start in politics. And i do not think theres any evidence to support that was president trumans motivation. I do not think it is there. But in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that did circulate in the press at the time, first with drew pearson and then more widely and that itself is bad. Leaving that out there, not offering a contrary, reasonable expo nation, that does feed reasonable explanation, that does feed the idea. Another only slightly less bad explanation was that truman fired the prosecutor and buried his report in order to protect his friend, senator wheeler. This one i think there is strong support for. Wheeler was trumans friend and had been up to his neck in the nazi scheme in congress and was all over the prosecutor post a report from germany and it was right after wheeler met with truman at the white house for two hours that truman ordered the prosecutor fired. Wheeler also previously advocated the Justice Department that they fire another prosecutor who had been working on the same investigation, which would make this the second time had used his political influence to get a prosecutor fired from this case, a case in which he himself was in the crosshairs for something very bad. And its really bad that the Justice Department gave in to that kind of pressure, but they did. And its really bad that senator wheeler used that kind of pressure in the first place. Its also bad that president truman helped him do it. If president trumans friendship with wheeler is why he did what he did, why he fired that prosecutor and buried the report, thats a conclusion that does not reflect well on truman. That said there is a best Case Scenario that you could conjure for him, which is that, by late october 1946, after the prosecutor had been fired, the big marquis nuremberg trials big marquee nuremberg trials had come to an end. Ambassador kennen. In late 1946, maybe this was not the time to be prying open a can of worms about us and the germans and americans with ties and sympathies on the nazi side, particularly americans in our government. It was shortly after the end of the war but we were on by then to fighting communism is our first imperative in what would soon be called the cold war. That was a war in which we wanted west germany to be on our side as an ally and so maybe that informed trumans decision as well. We do not know. We do not know because it was never explained. We know from files at the Truman Library that the firestorm press criticism over what truman did, over him firing that prosecutor, has had residents with the public. There are stacks of angry telegrams from members of the public and civic groups all over the country expressing disgust with the president that he had supported this senator, anger that he fired the prosecutor, demands that truman reversed his decision and let the prosecutors report be made public. President truman never responded. He never explained himself. He just bore the firestorm and let it pass, and maybe that is fine. Maybe thats fine if it is one ephemeral scandal during a long presidency with a lot going on, one firestorm that rages in a moment but then ends. If you think of National Security challenges as oneoff challenges, if you engage each one is unique, a product of its time, inexorably tied to specific, contemporary contemporaneous context never to be repeated, thats fine. Let it blow over. Do not explain if you dont have to. The may become 80 years down the road at the conference but maybe, 80 years down the road, at the conference of the Truman Center for international policy, some American News person with arcane interests will be pouring over your decisions again looking for some help from history for today, because may become 80 years down the row, our country will once again be contending with hard questions about whether it is in the National Interest to criminally investigate and prosecute high ranking influential political figures. Maybe we will once again be contending with questions about whether a politician steeped in scandal and voted out of office, which burden wheeler was in 1946, maybe we will be contending with that politician has been punished enough by his political loss or whether it would serve justice and the National Interest to put him on trial for serious alleged crimes even after he left office. Maybe, 80 years down the road, we will be contending with questions of the propriety of Justice Department investigations into hostile foreign powers involving themselves with political contests and political figures in our country. Maybe we will be facing what seemed like new hard questions about how much the public should be allowed to know about those investigations. What we should do with the report to the attorney general laying out the findings of such a congressional investigation into a foreign power interfering in our elections and with our politics. When the Justice Department under roosevelt and under truman contended with ultra right american zealots and paramilitary groups bent on overthrowing the u. S. Government and members of congress who were sympathetic to them [shouting] why did you promote the lie [shouting] [applause] rachel coming to a substack newsletter near you. [applause] as i was saying, when the Justice Department under roosevelt and truman contended with ultra right american zealots and paramilitary groups bent on overthrowing the u. S. Government and members of congress who were sympathetic to them and did not want them investigated and prosecuted, im sure they thought, in the 1940s, that that was a oneoff, that that could never happen again. As such, government actions around this controversy, up to including up to and including controversial orders by the president himself at the time went unexplained and undefended because im sure it seemed at the time those things were only of temporary interest, of temporary importance. They did not need to stand the test of time. They were like buildings constructed for the worlds fair. Who would ever think they would still be standing . They would still mean something to all of us all these years later . If we have learned nothing else in National Security, let it be known that there are no real oneoffs. There are no black swan events. There was no one american fight against fascism. There will not be just one president or expresident indicted. There have been many and there will be more hostile foreign governments that, yes, interfere in our elections and our politics, and there have been many and there will be more americans eager to help with that. Principled decisionmaking means not only responsibility to the full circumstances at hand in the moment. It also means theres a responsibility to the americans 80 years from now who will be contending a new, contending again with Something Like this mess we are in today. At the risk of calling out the pitchforks and torches in this room, i will leave you with this. Do not be like truman in this case. If you are going to do something really controversial, like firing that prosecutor and burying that redhot report, please explain yourselves. Your country needs you to. If not now, than 80 years down the road. Thanks. [applause] disco discourse of far right extremism in recent years and the kind that translates into domestic terrorism. Many of the people who carry out the attacks are portrayed by some as vulnerable or brushed off as oneoff incidents but the repeated rhetoric that we hear from politicians points to a larger system of extremism. What does the country do to combat this type of violent extremism that seems increasingly in grade increasingly ingrained in the democracy . Amb. Thomasgreenfield it has been a discussion of a lot of the conference already today but i do think the one thing that history offers us in terms of combating that spectrum of extremism that you are talking about is it cannot just be one thing. If you are fighting global imperialistic fascism where you have a fascist dictatorship invading other countries, part of the response probably has to be war. If there are people engaging in acts of violence in the u. S. , no matter what they are motivated by, violence is a crime and needs to be prosecuted as a crime. If you have politicians using their first to mimic rights to advocate extremism that leads to violence their First Amendment rights to advocate extremism that leads to violence, you advocate against it. So there has to be a range, depending on what youre contending with, but i think it is helpful for us to talk about and recognize the way these things interact. That violence and extremism and efforts to delegitimize a democratic form of government that feed each other and that they have to be attacked together. Monique i want to dive into something that one of the panelists was talking about earlier, and that was on National Security. Then we will move to questions from the audience. They emphasized the importance of having a variety of voices in the room when making decisions relevant to National Security. Despite the evidence that diversity does strengthen decisionmaking, diversity initiatives have been mired in culture wars, criticized for perceived wokeness. What are some arguments for supporting diversity in National Security enforcement and decisionmaking . Rachel part of this antiwoke messaging is completely unreconstructed from early iterations of this, antireconstruction or antiPolitical Correctness. Every eight years, we have a new version. The arguments are always the same, which is that white people are the real victims and white people are put upon and christians are the real victims and are put upon and those organs are the same going back generations. The best counterargument to that is always to that has always been reality, that you are not building the strongest workforce you can, the strongest brain trust you can come if you are only tapping part of the population to build it, and that he reducible truth, which is true both in terms of gender and race and religion and other forms of that he reducible truth, which is true both in terms of gender and race and religion and other forms, is provable. It is never disadvantaged an argument. We need to be prouder of that side of the argument and recognize the counter arguments are not novel but are the same that have always been made and in some cases you can learn good techniques, arguments, tactics, even baraga political ads from the last time we saw this even borrow political ads from the last time we saw this, whether in the 1990s with the clinical greatness panic the Political Correctness panic or elsewhere. Monique we have a few minutes left. Rachel can you see people in the audience . Monique i cannot. I thought i saw charlotte clymer. We can go ahead and move because we have a large audience. Hello. Rachel, i want to thank you for having senator Michaela Cavanaugh on your show from nebraska. She was a state senator in nebraska who promised to filibuster through the entire session when a trans hate bill was read, which unfortunately passed this week. My question is to have you brainstorm and its about we have seen you fighting rearguard movements and having heroic women stand up like Michaela Cavanaugh did. How do we vmart how do we be more proactive, even on the left , if we claim to be prochoice, an ally of the trans community, why are we not investing in the states were now 75 million women have secondclass second secondclass citizenship . How do we brainstorm how we can get more attention to fighting these battles and getting the money and effort and resources into the states that do have a lot of Michaela Cavanaughs that do not get on your show . Rachel thank you for that question. I am not a political strategist and i would not take political advice for me if my life depended on it. Just as an observation, i would say that i sort of referenced that lottery slogan, you cannot win if you do not play. You cannot win if you dont fight in these fights, and i think that it does attract energy and allies and resources when you fight, and when you fight and when you occasionally win, you can trickle down that you can triple down on that so went you can triple down on that, so when you have people like senator cavanaugh in nebraska arguing and, even if you lose the fight, it will attract attention, allies and resources. Those of us in the News Business covering this culture war we are having in this country need to find the stories of people who are making good arguments and standing up whether or not they are likely to win. Theres a space for activism all over the country that does every single time you make that argument, whether or not you win the fight, you are exposing people to reason linear thinking that might convince them and might persuade them to do the same thing themselves. So it takes leadership i think. Thank you. Sorry. Again, not a strategist myself. Thank you so much for being part of trucon. So happy to be able to have the opportunity to see you in person. I am fan girling now. I am from florida and theres a certain political figure thats apparently ruining our great state. I recently heard that there are some rumors that this certain politician is planning on running for president and continuing to be state governor. What do you think are the political applications if that is allowed to happen . Rachel the question about Governor Desantis staying as governor while running for president. Just as a pure matter of messaging, it seems like a bad move to me. It seems like the sort of thing you do when you think you are running but think you are going to lose. [applause] but that, you know [applause] i dont know. We will see. Theres an interesting its not an exact parallel, put in the 1920s, the politician who fdr was most worried about excuse me, in the 1930s, the politician fdr was most worried about was he we long, the populace was huey long, the populist governor of louisiana, who was assassinated. When long decided he wanted to run for president , he ran percent and won his seat and effectively stayed governor of louisiana. There was some ostensibly there was a new governor but it was still long. People convene the state legislature and people convened the state legislature and gave him all the bills to pass and that is one thing american fascists loved about huey long. He had no apologies about grabbing hold of every lever of power build him, never letting go, regardless of any mores or laws supposedly keeping him from doing this supposedly holding him back. That is a bad sign in a boyfriend and a politician of any stripe. A preschool teacher with those instincts would be a bad teacher. So, yeah. We will see, but as a shortterm matter, it seems like an insurance policy for him. Monique we still have time for at least least one or two more questions. Rachel oh. Hey, rachel. How are you doing . Happy pride. When Tucker Carlson was unceremoniously kicked off fox news, you did this segment on the history of demagogues with big microphones in this country, whether it was coughlin, limbaugh or glenn beck. I think it is clear that Mass Communication in this country is irreparably broken maybe. How do we get back to where we need to be with the way Mass Communication affects us . Rachel thank you for that question and for watching that segment. I was really wound up about it. Part of the reason i tried to put that news in that context was because i feel like its important for us to recognize that lots of different generations of americans, lots of different types of communications technology, different media environments, have produced terrible people who do lots of bad things for the country. We always have megaphones of different stripes and people who master them in ways that are malignant. And the answer i think is always the same way, his competition way, is competition, but i dont think theres a way to regulate speech or media munications in a way that makes them safe. I think that, within reason, the First Amendment protects even terrible, terrible speech. Again, within reason. And if you are worried in particular about whats happening on tv, we should develop and cultivate better talents on tv. The same goes for radio and tiktok and twitter and all of the other means by which people are having an impact. I just cannot think there is a magic i dont think theres a key to unlock it. But its also true that, to the extent there is a sort of fascist style, in broadcasting in particular, its attractive. It always works, you know . It is always associated in western countries with antisemitism. You need some so supposedly some supposedly other who has ruined things. You have minority groups that can be otherized from the mainstream population that is being lionized being blamed for decadence, for moral decay, and you need that as part of authoritarian messaging. It always works the same way, and the answer is always to compete and to make sure that human beings get to speak on their own terms and their whole humanity for who they are, because you cannot reduce somebody to an insect or parasite if you see them as a human, and thats in our religious traditions and rhetorical traditions and political traditions. Monique we have time for one more question. Rachel when you say that, people get very desperate. We cannot see you. Monique no idea how many hands are up. Hi, rachel. Very excited. Also fangirling. Florida chapter. Really excited to have you here and i also appreciate your very thorough reporting. Thank you for that. I want to actually go back to your speech. You spoke a lot about politicians, you know, perpetrating or keeping u ltraright ideas persistent, and when i think about i know a lot of times in this country we go back to world war ii and our role there and what we did to put the nazis on trial, to really criminalize, as you said, the violence. And so, i was a fellow it was actually a fellow truman member that brought this to my attention, about the current racist views we still deal with, and thinking about the work that has been undone from the reconstruction era and how that has started to it really has not been dealt with, so now we are still dealing with this idea, racism. We are not shocked. We feel it. And so what you are touching on here in a Human Security and National Security context is my jam. So if you could speak a little bit about that, because i think, in our own country, we did not do the work necessary there, and i recently learned that dr. King actually also had a Foreign Policy lens in his what am i trying to say . I am flipping out, because she is like, what . Long story short, if you could speak a little bit about that and, maybe, as National Security professionals, how we can in our own spaces start to peel the onion back. Because that is needed. Its been needed for a long time. [applause] rachel thank you for that question. You know, as the nazis came to power in germany, one of the things they did is they sent a very promising young lawyer to the university of arkansas. Came over germany, prospectively an Exchange Student but he was here to research and write a book on american law that was about race and citizenship, because the germans, the nazi party, looked at the United States is the biggest and most powerful country in the world that had racespecific citizenship, where you were defined legally according to your race and the benefits and the responsibilitys of citizenship were accrued to you on the basis of your debts what was perceived to be your racial makeup. And the nazis were inspired by this and used kriegers research and the book he wrote about american not just american jim crow laws, but also about American Indian treaties and other laws about American Immigration policy, involving an involving Asian Americans in particular, they used kriegers study of what we did here as part of the basis for the nuremberg laws they and veiled in the 1930s that defined german citizenship in they unveiled in the 1930s that defined german citizenship. They needed a way to write about german race and citizenship they felt would stand up in a court the way it did throughout the jim crow south in the United States. So we gave them a great idea there. And the idea that, you know, we fought them, we won, we were right, they were wrong, at a fundamental level, thats true, but at a deeper level, our own failures are not only something we did not deal with but fueled the worst of what we have to fight. And so that reality about what our inheritance what inheritances we have offered to the world, the ways that our position in the world has bevels on its edges and is not so clean, that to me is guiding in terms of not being too selfcongratulatory about these things and understanding our work here at home should humble us but also should be something that we should recognize has influence around the world. So thank you for the question. I think Human Security and National Security is the right way to look at it. Monique thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. [applause] and thank you to everybody for seeing us. Thank you for the speech. I am peeking out at this moment. We are going to take a coffee break and then please come back