[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] book tv live coverage now continues, author jeremy will discuss political and civic activism in america before and during world war i, this start now. [inaudible conversations] hello, everybody, welcome to the 33rd annual Chicago Tribune of printers lit fest, i would like to give a special outout and thank you to all sponsors. Todays program will be broadcast live on cspan2 on book tv. If theres time at tend of the q session with the author we ask that you use the microphone provided so the viewing audience can hear you. Before we begin todays program we have ask that you silence your phone. Please welcome our interviewer today alexander. [applause] thank you, thank you for coming. Not quite the afternoon yet but neither is the morning. Were talking about the times we live in. So i will take advantage of th
I will introduce you to the panelists in just a moment. Two highprofile scholars reduced similar arguments about the history of u. S. Foreignpolicy. Both contend that a distance with great and troubling consequences exist between the foreignpolicy elites, the antimoral military machine, and the american people. Both assigned a good deal of influence to particular members of that elite, to demonstrate how u. S. Foreignpolicy not merely advances the interests of an elites, but how such. Nfluence because anderson did not do much digging in archives to sustain his argument, he assigns an inordinate amount of influence to an elite he obviously despises. Nonetheless, the reception of his work, even when negative, suggest theres a genuine desire among scholars for discussion, if not arguments about the domestic context and ethical applications of american foreignpolicy. Nothing betteres or genuinely realistic analysis of american foreignpolicy. When he offers her declarations ,hat are the dom
Podium. I had a few problems and would rather not test myself. Thank you for coming tonight. In thinking about the problem of liberalism, i have to start with the simple problem most people, including most people who think they studied the subject have a very weak idea of the history of liberalism whether it is on the left or the right, there is an idea is that you started with progressivism, moved on started with progressivism, proceeded to the new deal and went on to the Great Society and it was a continuous flow. The trouble is it is simply not true. Most progressive did not become new dealers. Very few republican progressives, progressivism was a bipartisan movement. Republican and Democratic Party. Very few republican progressives became new dealers. Not surprisingly enough, among the democratic progressives, the group most likely to become new dealers were social workers, and they saw what they wanted, what they hoped for in the new deal. Part of the reason for this was world war
Conservatism. I think one of the lessons we could take from burke is that in part the process involves an engagement with governing, with policy. Burke was reform. He thought you had to fix public problems before they get so big that they invite radical solutions. So he was interested in the details, the reflection of the revolution in france is full of statistics. You dont expect them but thats a we thought. Thats how they work. I think consumers today should do more of that. Id thats what i get my day job and this is why. I think its important for conservatives to be in job to be involved in governing. I think its also important for consumers to approach our society from a disposition of gratitude and care rather than to begin from a place of anger at whats being lost. Im angry about whats being lost. I think the left today is destructive for the american ideal and has too much power and is destroying the african ideal. I really do. But i think the solution of that, the way to persua
Be persuaded to vote republican but only at the party impresses the communitys core values. The program is about an hour. Host mike i am fascinated by your book in particular in the title. You refer to what i think is the politically correct term of latinos as hispanics. So i would like you to dig into that and tell me why you refer to or i suppose i will put it this way, how dare you break out of the politically correct bubble of latinos and refer to hispanics. What are the roots of that . Guest thank you for that question. I think both terms are anyway false of their own way. The term hispanic for example is the product of the bureaucracy. Bureaucrats working in the Nixon Administration in the 1970s were all of a sudden faced with this big influx of new immigrants because the laws have been changed in the 1960s, a lot of whom are immigrants from latin america including me and my family by the way he came here in 1974 and its almost like they didnt know how to handle this multitude of