Im the news editor and metro columnist here at the austin chronicle, which is one of austins two newspapers, the independent local one. Hello gets like i said, welcome to the 27th annual texas book festival. Please, before its too late, silence your cell phones and. Feel free. Dont put away your cell phones because feel free to share your experience on social media. Please tag the festival and the hashtag tag. The festival adds texas book fest hashtag fest. After this conversation, the authors be signing books and the book signing tent just down the congress avenue from us about a block. Books are for sale, courtesy of book people, your local independent bookstore and largest indie in texas. Just like us. Portion of every book supports the texas book festivals and helps Fund Programs that bring books and authors to students in low income schools. In texas and to fund grants for libraries in texas. So thank you. Your authors today. Starting with my immediate right Nick Seabrook is professor in the department. Political silent silence. If only and public administration. The university of north florida the author of drawing the lines constraints on gerrymander in us politics and one person one vote a surprising history gerrymandering in america. He in jacksonville, florida. And then to my father right. Jeremy siri holds, the mac brown, distinguished chair for leadership and Global Affairs at the university of texas at austin. He, a professor in the Universitys Department of history and the lbj school of Public Affairs professor series, the author and editor of 11 books on policy, politics and Foreign Policy and hosts a weekly podcast. This is democracy, so im going to start with jeremy. The cover line, which i guess you may be able to see on the screens im sorry, the cover line, which you may be able to see on the screen, is about americas long and unfinished. Thats kind of the key word here. Fight for democracy. But focusing on here in the book is really the 20 years, 25 years or so after the civil war itself. And, you know, the unions winning the civil war, i guess, was probably in retrospect, somewhat predictable because it was larger, more prosperous, that at some point, it would outpace the confederacy see, but it was more ambivalent about winning the peace and what it meant. And we know that lincoln had at least talked about reconciling asian as being what would have been his guiding principle had he survived to lead the postwar era. Do you think that was ever and do you think that some of the failings could have been avoided if. Well, basically, Andrew Johnson had not become president. Right. Thank thank you. Thank you, everyone for being here. Thank you, mike, for that excellent question. And its its always a delight to speak at the texas book festival. I wrote this book actually to answer that specific question like its its a question for me. The civil war large and it looms ever larger in our society because of the Unfinished Business that the end of the war. And i think the first point one has to make an answer to this question about alternative is the obvious point that we as americans forget, which is that most wars, virtually all wars dont end when main belligerents go home, the wars continue. War is incestuous society. War is about culture and its about peoples views of one another. And it far outlasts one. A few men sit a table and decide that war has ended. Another way of putting this. And i think its one thing that historians have to remind policymakers of all the time. Its much easier start wars than it is to end wars. And the civil war is a classic case of that. I think it was an unavoidable double war from Abraham Lincolns perspective, and i think he was right about. But the war did not end because in 1865, robert e lee took his his soldiers off the battlefield. The war continued. They went home into peoples communities and in fact, the fighting and the violence within American Society rose after antietam. Gettysburg, it rose. It increased in American Society and all kinds ways that i talk about in the book. But i think the key point in that is that a war of that kind, a war over the fundamental structure of American Society. And let me say this, it was not a war over states rights, despite what all these stupid monuments say. It was not a war over that right there. Can i can i can i say, shouldnt those monuments be taken down. And i want to give my son credit for reminding me to say that. By the way, as we walk by them today. Thank you, zachary, for reminding me of that. The war was not over states rights, despite what those monuments say, the war was over slavery. Slavery was the main source of wealth for families in. The south today, most families have their wealth in their homes. Then families, their wealth in their slaves. And protecting slavery was protecting economic as well as social status for so many people. Part of the answer to mikes excellent question is once you have removed for simply taken and slaves have forcibly for themselves taken their freedom those who have lost their slaves are not just going to give up. And part of my book is about that that would have been the same if Abraham Lincoln had and he knew that what was different, i think would the absence of Abraham Lincoln and the rise of Andrew Johnson is that you had leadership in washing ten after lincolns assassination that included two kinds of people, one who just wanted to move on and do nothing more, and others who wanted to take a series of half measures who wanted to take an ambivalent approach . Mike and i were talking about this before and i think ambivalent, the right way to put it, an approach to which there would be somewhat of a commitment in the south, but not that much of a commitment to that much because for most northern republicans, there was more money to be made in the west and they were tired of fighting in the south, the most northern republican said was weve put a lot into this war. The war should be over now. Can we come home and take our money and move on, move on with our lives . So those have been problems regardless. But what Andrew Johnson did the president who succeeded lincoln, who never should have been president was he blanket pardoned confederate leaders and in this state of texas just as one example a. W. Terrell how he was referred to right Alfred Watkins Terrell Alexander Watkins Terrell who had been a confederate general, is just one of many examples who then left the country to try to keep his slaves fought for a foreign army maximilians army in mexico he came back and because he was pardoned by Andrew Johnson he could run for state senate. He became the democratic leader of the senate and then he wrote the election laws in this state. Let me say that again. A confederate leader who committed treason twice secession and joining the mexico army against the United States came back and wrote our election laws because he was pardoned by Andrew Johnson. If he had not been pardoned, he would have been able to do that. And we would have had perhaps a different future. Whats the point in this that wars dont end when we say theyre over but we cannot forgive and forget either that actually the struggle continues and thats we have to deal with today and this ill close answer on this that today we have recognize that that Unfinished Business is were dealing with today the racial issues we have the questions over voting. We are we think the greatest in the world with some of the worst voter protections of any democracy, the world we provided better voter protections in germany and japan. We them there after World War Two than we have in the u. S. My fathers from india. India has been better voter protections now than we do, and thats because of the civil war. Its because of turell. Its because of that work we havent done. This war lingers and it could have been a bit better with different leadership, but it never would have been easy. And i think thats the point yeah i think the idea well i think of you know creating a, a just and free society for all people in america or even just in american south. It looks like that it was only, you know, maybe a little bit of undergrad and general sheridan kind of the oppressed that particularly like 1870 one, 73 and then then people got cold feet. Yeah. So one of the ways in which we have bad voter protections in this country so going is the way in which we draw districts. And so, you know, nicks book here professor seabrooks surprise history of gerrymandering in america. And i guess one of the things that surprising about it is how for long what we now associate with gerrymandering being, you know, done with surgical by computers and you know drawing individual houses and neighborhoods out of districts for advantage wasnt of course possible technically technologic play for a lot of our history, but it also wasnt for a lot of our history because there was no real requirement that people ever redrew their districts. So talk a little bit about for, you know, in i guess the before the baker versus carr case is that you have now apportionment was more of the that you have. Well thank you mike and thank you all for coming out today. This is my first time in austin. Im very excited to be here and that kind of gets at the core. The reason why i wrote my book, mikes kind of two for two on on his questions because. I think that history is important because in order to avoid making the same mistakes over again. We need to know and understand the reasons why we made them the first time and as we sit here in, the shadow of the capitol, a place where many such mistakes with respect to gerrymandering have been made over the decades. The reason why the history of gerrymandering is important is because we cant trust the people in that building to do the right thing. Right. And that the original sin of districting is that its done by selfinterested politicians to begin with correct and. That is the core of problem. I get asked over and over when i talk about this topic, what can we do to help fix gerrymander . And the answer i always give is that the first step and if you dont take this first step, then none of the other steps really matter. The first step is to take politicians out of the equation. In the 1960s, the Us Supreme Court decided a series of cases that created the constitutional principle of one person, one vote, the concept after which my book is named, and as mike hinted at in his question prior to that, gerrymandering happened. It happened going all way back to the founding era. The ink on the constitution was not quite yet dry when the framers began to gerrymander one another into and out of power. But these historical gerrymanders were fairly unsophisticated, and they often use of a technique as mal apportionment where. You had districts in the same that had very, very different populations from one another and in particular districts in rural areas. The american states tended to much smaller populations than districts in urban areas. This was the case here in texas, in states across the nation and consequent only rural americans were overrepresented in the corridors of power in terms of their political influence. And urban americans were underrepresented. And in the 1960s, the Supreme Court fixed that they, mandated that every district within a legislative chamber have approximate equal population. But in fixing that problem they created a whole different one. And that is the theme of my book that by requiring redistricting to happen every ten years after the census in all 50 states, the temptation for politicians is to use that redistricting process for their own advantage by manipulating the districts and their boundaries to keep themselves in power, keep the majority for their political party. It has always been to difficult for politicians to resist. It was difficult in the 1970s here in texas when the democrats who controlled the legislature the time and fresh off the Civil Rights Movement and, the destruction of the institutions of jim crow, realized that gerrymandering was a tool that they could use to prevent the africanamerican population in places like houston and elsewhere in texas from achieving power. It was the same in the 17 years in the eighties and nineties where again, democrats used gerrymandering to hold on to control of the institution of state government. Here in texas even as their numbers their popular vote share began to dwindle and. Then in the 2000 things flipped, the gop comes to power here in texas and they have been gerrymandering just as much and just as effectively to prevent the democrats from getting back in. And so i think the major takeaway from my book is that politicians could never be trusted to draw own districts and, they can never be trusted and we cannot hope to constrain legally by simply making it illegal for them to do so. Weve tried that in florida. It failed its been tried in new york and utah it failed. The only here. And its the solution. Just about every other nation in the world that uses districts for its elections has settled on is you just take politicians out of the process entirely. And thats the message of my book. We need independent redistricting. We need redistricting based on neutral principles. And only then can we have a democracy that truly represents the will of the people. And this may be just a little follow up for both of you now that weve kind of lived with the the bad way of doing things for a while, do we know what like what would those neutral principles like . What would people what do even know how to do this in america, i guess is the question. And there may also be a for you jeremy do people how to come together address some of these ambivalence is that you know were left hanging at the end of the civil war. Well yes i think it is possible. We have as a society just we have remained mired in the political that i talk about in my book. I also talk about the ways in we have at moments been able to move forward. Ulysses grant creates the Justice Department. There was no Justice Department before 70. The Justice Department was created to enforce civil rights. Who tells you now that thats not what its supposed to do . Doesnt know the history. The Justice Department and for a few years it did that ulysses grants presidency led to the end of the ku klux klan, for example, and that was Law Enforcement that enforced laws in a nonpartisan can way. Weve done this i think to some extent after january six, which is where i opened my book with the interact zone of january six, 2021, more than 900 people have been prosecuted breaking into the capitol that have been prosecuted because the prosecutors are democrats or republicans theyve been prosecuted because they objectively broke the law. And we have people who are trained by Law Enforcement judges and Law Enforcement prosecutors, and thats their job. And they would prosecute a democrat or republican who broke into the capitol and they, of course, should prosecute people in that way. We have shown capacity even in very areas to develop and incentivize certain institutions to as much as possible not act in political ways, but act in ways that match up basic legal standards that we have applied throughout our society. If we didnt do that, our airplanes would fall out of the sky. Right . Our airplanes dont fall out the sky, not because Southwest Airlines is a wonderful company, but because of faa and the National Transportation safety board created by lyndon johnson, which is a nonpolitical expert body. So i think nick is is is spot on. And i think the history that i chronicle in my book and that he chronicles in his book shows that we a temptation toward put politicization and continued division. But we also have the possibility of building objective standards and creating professionalized institutions to actually set out Fair Districts and to set out fair flying rules and to set out fair application of the law in our. And there are moments we do that. Whats the most important takeaway from my book . This is that it requires political will. You need people in leadership positions are willing to stand up for that and. Im going to say it because were coming up on an election right. If you have a governor who doesnt show up, its not going to happen. Its got to be a governor, a state leader, a city leader, a nationally to whos willing to stand up for the process, democracy and protect the process of democracy as a goal unto itself. Ulysses grant tried to do that. Theodore roosevelt did that. Havent seen that in texas in a long time. And i do think thats what our election is about. On tuesday. So i was writing the book i wanted to try and conclude on an optimistic note and it wasnt easy, but fortunately in this era of polarization and between democrats and, republicans, between liberals and conservatives, it can seem like americans are living in Different Countries and the rhetoric is not just rhetoric of disagreement, its a rhetoric of. The other side is actively working to destroy the country or. The other side is actively working to destroy democracy or the american way of life. And sometimes it can seem that those differences are intractable, but one of the few areas of encouraging when it comes at least to my Little Corner of the decline of democracy, redistricting, gerrymandering is that is something that democrats and republicans broadly agree. When the people are given an opportunity vote on this directly rather than through their elected representatives who are already getting chosen from gerrymandered districts and where the will of the people already being distorted. But when the people get to speak for themselves, overwhelm only in blue states, red states and in swing states, they vote. Change the redistricting reform measures have passed in states as diverse as florida, michigan, colorado, all swing states, new york, california. Blue states, utah, red state the people when they are given the opportunity to weigh in, they overwhelmingly will say. We want districts drawn independently. We want districts that are drawn to our communities to group together, similarly situated, similarly interested americans, is not districts that are manipulated, political gain or are manipulated to keep incumbents in power. And so the problem becomes how do we give people the opportunity to use their voice. And that is unfortunately, in many states the difficult party a lot of states have, some form of direct democracy where you can signatures, you can put together a petition and you can get a constitutional or a statute on ballot for a direct popular vote of the people and in those states. That is clearly the best mechanism for democratic change, for safeguarding democracy. See, because the people like that a whole lot more than the people who are in power like that. But of course there are certain states thats not possible. And then it becomes substantially more challenge. There are things that congress do. Congress has the power to pass legislation banning and requiring independent commissions to draw the districts for federal elections. But congress cannot regulate the states do in their own elections. Congress can pass legislation to fix the electoral count act to that if in 2024 or beyond a losing president ial candidate attempts to steal election again that they unable to succeed. But this takes action it takes the people to use own voice when theyre able to do so through direct democracy. And it takes the talking about enough and voting based on these issues enough that the powers that be have to take notice and thats the way we can moving forward safeguard our democracy to talk about both both of you talk about this will be less before we open up to questions talk about that and the concept of every basically proportional or at least that everyone is represented in a body versus the winner take all zero sum games that come to define american politics and that have defined in what you write about in the air as the new books. So so so this is the topic i actually close the book on, on on representation and also we tell our history. I do want to say a little bit about that too, but in terms of the we are represented our democracy since the civil war has actually been less and less of a true representing of who we are. This is one of the points i make and its not an accident once. 4 million slaves become citizens and. Then we also go through three decades with the largest immigration in our history when many of our families here during, that period the United States become as remarkably inventive in electing people who are not representative of those they claim to represent and not an accident. And that is not just a southern story. I grew up in new york city. Thats as much a new york story as it is a texas story, it helps explain why we vote on tuesdays rather than voting as most countries do on a federal holiday. And over two or three days in a weekend it explain why we had literacy tests pole to pole test and it explains why our gerrymandering, which is an old story, as nick says, becomes actually normalized the politicization of gerrymandering on a scale that was not the case before the civil war becomes actually normalized within our society. And so i often show students a map. Houston harris county, one of the largest counties in the United States, most diverse in the United States, with the least diverse congressional representation, the least diverse congressional representation for the most diverse area in the state. This is because our system is set up as such that you can allocate people in certain ways and its a winner take all system so that you can get 45 of the vote and get nothing and someone can get 55 of the vote and get everything. Proportional representation would mean that we would have multiple members for districts and that the second place person and sometimes even the third place person would also get representation, which would mean more groups would be represented. It wouldnt be winner take all, which encourage cooperation it would encourage collaboration. In the 20th century, many democracies have moved in this direction. And one of the conventional wisdom among democracy scholars is that proportional representation works better in diverse societies to give everyone seat at the table. We have resisted doing that. There is no reason we couldnt move to that tomorrow. If we as a state decided wanted to do that for state elections, theres nothing that stands in the way of that happening. And here i will echo what nick said so. Well, its a matter of voters demanding we can blame all kinds of institutional issues as long as we want you elect someone who doesnt actually believe that you should really be represented. But even if they happen to agree with you, too many people vote the person who gives them tax cuts rather than the person that actually is going to set up a system that creates the kind of democracy that they want. That should be a leading for all of us. We should demand that our leaders move towards a system that is actually more representative of who we are. Why does the teaching of history matter . Well, my belief is that the biggest thing that stands in the way is actually not corruption, its ignorance. And we are ignorant by those who dont want us to learn our history. Lets try one thing. How many people in this have heard of the white primary . A few of you. How many of you had a year of texas in school . Thats about three times as many hands. I think. Two or three times as many hands. White primary. Im sorry. How many of you have heard of the. Because beto orourke has talked about it a lot. A little bit. Right. So heres the interesting thing, right. Texas had a primary system until 1944 and the Supreme Court decision of smith versus. All right. That eliminated the system that actually intentionally created distorted representation and locks people out. Most people had Texas History dont even know that they dont even know their own history. So how could you ask to change things if you dont understand our current primary system strangely echoes that system. We dont it because we dont know that the most patriotic thing you could do if you believe in social change is to teach people real history because then they can actually argue real change. So nick, while your addressing that, i should invite people is that the microphone up there right there. So if you have questions either of our authors, if you can go ahead and start finding a way to that microphone. Thanks. Well, ill keep my answer short so that we have time for peoples questions. But what i will say is, if you think about what districts are supposed to be for in a political system, it is to represent local interests it so the person who is making decisions in government is member of that community and has something in common with the that they represent and. Now look at the districts we have today. Members of congress represent that have 800,000 people in them that combine combined to gather people in, all kinds of different communities that have really nothing in common whatsoever. Members of the Texas Legislature also represent districts are in the hundreds of thousands. And so you have to ask yourself the question, are those districts still serving purpose for which they created, for which the reason is that we have districts to begin with. Maybe its time to think whether theres an alternative might be more fair, whether its a full proportional representation system, whether its the kind of system that jeremy mentioned where you have larger districts that more members and excuse are elected from. But certainly, i think what we can see is that what were doing now isnt working. So maybe its time to go back to the drawing board and think about what it is that political represents action is supposed to be, and then design a system based on that and said, all right, opening it up for questions. Mr. Bledsoe. Hi. I really am very interested both of books. They sound really fascinating. Me, i have a couple of questions for each of you. I think. One is, jeremy, your thoughts are really intriguing. Im curious if youve actually tried to make a connection to the present day in terms the actual governance that we have today with what occurred during the civil war. Thats one of the things the courts are really trying require today. Show me what exists today, not what existed yesterday. So drawing that connection would extremely important. So im curious, you did any work on that and what references . Nick i think that one question i would have for you would be i can understand your thesis we actually had districts like what youre proposing in austin back in 1951. But and that election, africanamerican was almost elected and so austin, like most of south, went to the majority electoral system to prevent from having the representation. But it seems to me that the problem is actually getting adopted. You cant ask, for example, blue states to go and adopt these commissions when the rich states dont do that, because that will create a real. And so its got to be done at the same time. All around the country. And im curious what thought given to that, because that seems to be the real conundrum. And i know how you could accomplish that. Well, yeah, i think you have correctly identified a major problem, and its the same kind of problem that we see efforts to get rid of the electoral in president ial elections that all of the states that have signed on to the National Popular vote compact are our blue states. When republicans have twice in the last 22 years won the Electoral College vote and the popular vote. Theres very little incentive for red states to get on board. And thats why it doesnt go anywhere. And you have a similar kind of when it comes to gerrymandering, i think a good illustration of that is the state, california, the largest state in the nation in terms of population in the most seats and a state where democrats gave up control over redistricting in favor, an independent commission and its cost them a imagine how many house seats democrats could have gotten out of california if theyd been able to gerrymander their their way that republicans did here in texas or in my home state of florida as well thats why i think we need National Legislation from congress. There have been two bills, the two pieces of Voting Rights legislation have been debated and that have not passed in the last two years. Both of those contained gerrymandering, reform, reform. I think youre right, at least for federal elections, we need a National Solution because otherwise its the kind of unilateral that democrats did in in california. And ill answer your excellent questions also just build on what nick, first of all, just starting nick ended the reason that legislation didnt pass was because of the filibuster. You will not find the filibuster in the constitution. The filibuster is a senate rule created in the early 19th century. In the filibuster, as we know it is used postcivil as frequently as it is today. It actually is used more frequently with every passing 30, 40 year period, especially the last 40 to 50 years. But it is a postcivil war usage of the civil of the filibuster in the way southern democrats used to, which is to prevent legislation on civil rights. Thats why it took so long until, 57 or 64, to get that legislation. And now, in terms of connecting the story, the civil war to today, thats very important to me in my book. Its very important to me as a political actor today. The book opens with january six, 2021, and the insurrection on that day. And then most of the history is of that 20 years. And then it comes back to today. Two things i try to do in the book. First, while telling the history, i want everyone to see today in that history, the same language, the language of fraud in elections thats vintage 1876, the language of the wrong people voting the language of no, i can overturn states can overturn popular vote thats all language from the 1870s and 1880s. But most of all the violence we see today. I just wrote a piece for Time Magazine last week on this to what happened to paul pelosi is vintage 1870. Thats a direct connection to today. What did the person who broke into paul pelosis house say when he was interviewed by the after he was arrested . You can all read this online he said he wanted to break Nancy Pelosis knees and wheeler and into congress so democrats would see there were consequences to their actions. Ladies and gentlemen, thats ben tillman saying in 1870 that he wanted to break the arms of africanamerica so that their fellow africanamericans know not to try to vote. Its Political Violence that has remained embedded in our Society Today that is deployed for purposes of intimidating people, a direct connection to today. And we have not dealt with that problem. Political violence is too common in our society and many too often its excused as Mental Illness. It is not that there arent Mental Illness issues, but that connection is a systemic issue. We have and i hope this history helps us to see and do something about it. The of the last few years the gift of donald trump is that even though people try to deny for so many of this history is now undeniable and so obviously in front of us which means we can now do about it this is but friedan said 70 years ago you got to name the problem first once you name the problem you can do something about it. So sir actually jeremy, you kind of just touched on the subject that i was wanting to raise, which is the actual situation we do face in terms of antidemocratic movement on the right, a movement that is trying to prevent the actual proportional representation of a very diverse demographic, changing the demography of the United States and anyway, as as professors, im sure you can appreciate this. I didnt read your books i do intend to do it. So my question is based on long as you buy them thats all we get you will you will enjoy they are good books so i just wonder if you could expand on like how well we can because i know about the with the gerrymandering that were seeing you know so i know you tried to say both democrat and republican are are have done it in the past currently were seeing some pretty extreme versions of it. And seeing even in situations where have tried to set up commissions like ohio be undermined by the republicans themselves, like what kind of according to your understanding from your history, what is the threat to democracy at this very moment. What to address the part of your question about what people can do about this . I think a lot of times when you ask what can i do about x problem dancer is just vote right. But when it comes to gerrymandering that doesnt work because were talking about a problem where the mechanism of voting themselves are broken. And so what i say to people when they ask me what can what can i do about gerrymandering in state . As i say that while voting is not because the powers that be have rigged those elections so that your vote either doesnt count or carry the level of influence it should. And so i say volunteer, organize is get involved. The only way the system is going to change is that if we make enough noise that the people in power are no longer able to ignore us, that the downside to them of undermining democracy, gerrymandering districts, engaging in voter suppression, all of the different tools that have led to this kind democratic backsliding in america only when the downside to electorally of continuing to engage in those things outweighs, the benefits they currently get from doing it well, things start to change. And so organize get involved in your community, in your state. And if enough people do that, theyll have to Pay Attention to us. I think the biggest challenge to our democracy, including so many things weve talked about here, is the wrong people are getting elected to office. The wrong people in texas are elected office. And they dont have to we dont need to have democrats to fix this. I happen think democrats would be better right now, but we have the wrong republicans. We have the wrong in office. And i think that has do with the systemic and institutional issues weve discussed. But it also has to do with that. Something about us that good people are not for office and we continue to reelect who we know are bad people, dont vote for someone who doesnt have integrity if they agree with you right. We have to. We have to own this a little bit. I agree. Wont change everything, but we can create a different culture of the politics in our society. And im optimistic because i teach a lot undergrads, as nick does, too, and have far fewer of these problems. The old guys do, man. So some of us are incrementalist and would like to begin with ranked choice and then go to open primaries and then go to multimember districts. One of the things obviously that we have yeah, the challenge is to a legislature to understand ranked Choice Voting is not is something that they need to support. We had one bill that was passed last session through the house. We were absolutely surprised. I hope that we will be six that more successful and get a bill through the house and the senate session. But what do you think about the incremental approach . I think incremental has a very strong history behind. You could argue that in the early 20th century, as is often said the laboratories were the states were the laboratories of the nation. Im for incremental change. Im models, im for experiments. Austin could do that. Lets put our money. Our mouth is right. We we could we could change the way we, run our own elections. Right. We have we have we have we have an expert panel does the districts right . We dont the politicians in austin choosing the districts right we could find more areas where we can start experiment in the city even the limits of state law and try to make that a model for the rest of the state. One thing that often works is when see that something is working better somewhere else. So id like us to actually take that seriously as a city. That would be a place to actually started. The austin boston citizens. Right . Because of the state law. So. So what would be then like in step before ranked Choice Voting think might be right yeah i think there are a lot of other Creative Things that that that we could do right and so lets talk about that rather than simply waiting for someone else do it right mean my question is for you jeremy. How do you account for the election . Barack obama and the and what role did that play, if any, in this civil war that were reliving now . Absolutely. Its a great question. I think i think there are two there are two narratives that are true at the same time. And i try to i try to give these both attention in the book that you have the continued civil resistance, but you also remarkable courage and mobilization, people who are changing society and both are true. There are more than 100,000 slaves who became union officers. They became literate. They became wage. They transformed so many parts of the country, including austin, texas. And thats as much of a story thats a story of civil rights. And there were many thousands of white republicans supported them. And theres also the story of those who resisted. Both are true at the same time, just as is case in our society. We did elect Barack Obama George floyds lynching did transform our society. For many of us we had the largest Peaceful Demonstrations in our history. After george was lynched. Right. So that our society has changed. But at the same time that change has also triggered more resistance. And so in fact, the election of barack obama, which is a sign of change also reinforced the resistance were seeing from so many in our state. And you cant see our politics, i think, without seeing both of those on display for us. All right. And that brings us our time, right . Its 45. All right. Thank thank you so much for. Having attended the texas good festival again, join join jeremy siri and Nick Seabrook in the book signing tent down there, courtesy of black people and. Thank you again. That was 50. Good evening, everyone, im robert dor, the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.