Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book TV In Depth 20130817

And president obama. He gave a very good speech a couple of years ago and here are two of the neck it. Secretary gates cant do we have more military personnel and one Carrier Battle Group the United States navy more military personnel and one Carrier Battle Group and we have american diplomats all over the world. Here is another if that doesnt convince you. We have more members of the armed forces marching bands in the Navy Air Force army and marines, a true fact competent american diplomats. Now a conversation with author and columnist melanie mee phillips on the tepees in depth series. Shes the author of nine books. Her latest Guardian Angel is a memoir of her personal and professional experiences as a journalist in the u. K. In the next three or she talks about those experiences and her thoughts on issues pertaining to terrorism education and health care. Host Melanie Phillips in your justreleased autobiography Guardian Angel you rights to the question im constantly asked whether i am now on the left or the right the answer is neither. I am simply a la fred daughter who believes in the repair of the world in a journalist who believes in speaking truth to power. Why did you feel a need to write about that . That . Guest so many people tend to pigeonhole these days. You are either one or the other and this is just silly. Life is much more complicated than that in most people are neither right nor left. They are ordinary folks getting along with living their life in the best way they can. To see the world as it is and what i have done for the last quarter of the century is as a journalist tell it as i see it to be, which means as a journalist i was trained to look at the facts, look at the evidence cant cut provide the diversion and tell people my conclusion. Tell people the facts and tell people my conclusion. Quite a lot of people today start the other way round. They start and they say lets make the facts fit the conclusion. From my work as a journalist i know there a lot of people out there in the kind of sensible center as i like to think of them, who are completely plugged into reality. You think whether these people telling me . I cant make any sense of it and so that is where i am. I need kind of dealing with the world as it is. People tend to put that into pigeonholes. Are you left or are you right or are you neither . Im telling it as it isnt connecting with people who live life as it is. Postville in your last two books especially you use the term follow the evidence and londonistan and the world turned upside down. Guest thats right in the biz. Sometimes it takes us into evidence that is uncomfortable and tells us things that are going on which we dont like to know about. You start with the evidence and you dont pretend that things are not as they are. You dont try to make the evidence or remake reality in to what you hope it should be. You start with what is there and then you tell the truth about it and you reach a conclusion about it and that is what i always try to do. Host where do you start on the political spectrum . Guest well i started my professional life as a local journalist so i was kind of nowhere but i came from a very modest, a very modest kind of background where my whole family where people who would be considered to be on the left of the spectrum. They were people who had a particular view of the world conquered that the world was divided into the first class in the middleman and a little remand. That is how i was brought up in i had a fairly conventional experience. This is the very early 1970s. You may not find this easy to believe but i had long wild hair at the time and adopted a kind of attitude. I read English Literature and i hung out with people who are like that. I never thought of myself as leftwing. I thought of myself is what we call in britain liberal which is in no middleoftheroad sensible tolerant defense wanting the best for my fellow human beings in order to make a better world and stand up for the vulnerable and so on. Im still like that. I went to work for the Guardian Newspaper. Its the very heart of the leftwing media in britain. I worked for the Guardian Newspaper for about 20 years. What happened while i was at working at the guardian, was that possibly because i was working at the guardian and my political views did change. I still believed in standing up for the vulnerable in society and making a better world and trying to improve the lot of my fellow human beings, but when i i what i came to realize while i was working there was that people i assumed were on my side in this great endeavor were actually on the other side and they have are not concerned with bettering the lives of their fellow human beings. They were concerned with themselves and they were concerned only with their own reputation and their own sense of themselves as being noble and virtuous and wise and great and everybody else can basically take a running jump. When i realized they were on the other side and i had what i thought were very intolerable abuse despite what they said and did an excellent care about the people at the bottom of the heap, the Little People that is when i realized that actually we were on different sides. And so as they say i believe in all the things that i did believe in. What changed for me and it was a dramatic seismic change was that i came to believe that the people who were on my side were knocked and the reasons why the world was as it was was rather different than what i had originally thought it to be. Host back to Guardian Angels just published today, right . Guest thats correct. Host i had not yet realized that the less aggression towards any dissent or challenges essentially defensive. They are either guilty about what they are doing because they know it is wrong or else at least some level at least they know that their intellectual position is built on sand. Guest buy a red. Was one of the hallmarks of the political discourse on the left of politics certainly in britain and im not sure there is quite the same in the United States is the extreme aggression with which they conduct political discussion. They dont have an argument. They dont say to me your argument is wrong and this is why its wrong and here are the following facts which show that you are wrong. They dont have that discussion at all. They simply use of these gratuitous abuse and the purpose of the abuses to shut down and to bully the person that they are disagreeing with and more important than that is to tell other people this person, dont go there. Dont even listen to what she is saying. She is really dangerous. She is really horrible. She is really of no account at all. You cant actually have of the left so i thought about this for quite a long time and it seems to me that the reason why people want to shut down a debate before you start is because they are frightened of having it. If they were confident than we would have a civilized collegiate argument. I would say something, you would disagree and we would agree to disagree and it might even get quite heated that we might even have an exchange of views. These people that im talking about are too frightened to have an exchange. What are they frightened of . Listening to them over the years it seems what they were frightened of is that they will lose the argument. They dont actually have the confidence of their own conventions. I find that very curious and very strange. It means that i look at them quite differently as a result because i can see that its all defensive. Its to shut down the argument in case they lose it for which i conclude their argument is actually built on sand. Host Melanie Phillips in your 2010 book the world turned upside down, im sorry 2011 book, the global battle over god, chicken power. You write guest i believe we are living in an era in which the idea of truth, objective truth has been to a very large extent replaced by ideology. There was a Great Movement of thought from where it originated some years ago that we are in a postmodern age and what post modernism and was there is no such thing as objective truth. If you think that there is such a thing as objective truth basically youre pretty stupid. We are all very clever and everything is a matter of opinion. You say this is the pace and i say no its not, thats your opinion. If there is such a thing as truth then there is no such thing as lies and consequently we are living in an era where people are very susceptible and suggestible to lies and propaganda and they can no longer distinguish between truth and lies. That has preoccupied me a great deal. Now come to because there is no such thing as truth of what has come in is kind of power. My opinion is the same as your opinion. Everything is relative so what then happens is that i am going to show that my view of the world is going to win over your view of the world so it becomes a contest of power of groups if you like. All these ideologies are power groupings, scientism to believe that there is absolutely nothing in the the world universe or beyonce cant be explained by actual empirical demonstrable fact and evidence. There is nothing beyond ourselves living beyond our material world. Utilitarianism, the believe that the only thing that matters is the happiness of the greatest number and consequently there is no Intrinsic Value in human life. The only thing that matters is whether people generally are happy and theres a whole variety ofisms which i think branch evidence to fit to be more sort of todays environmentalism. Environmentalism says the planet is about to fry and we are all going to hell because of manmade Global Warming. And you know theres a bunch of evidence that says actually thats not necessarily true that people who believe in theseisms like environmentalism and like scientism they start with a conclusion. They dont start with the evidence. They start with the conclusion and they say the evidence has to be reached to fit. There are numerous examples of this actually happening to the extent that the exercise becomes literally intellectually fraudulent where socalled reputable academics have basically told people lies about but the evidence is in order to fit that conclusioconclusio n. This is a really terrible thing because it causes such confusion in our society. Most people have no idea they are being lied to him but they are reading and being told isnt actually following the evidence where it leads. It started with a conclusion and then selected certain facts to build up the idea that this is actually true. It is not true so its like a mindblowing. To a certain extent this is the kind of lumley borough ive been plowing in the media. Its lonely in the media but out there where ordinary people live lives that correspond to reality you know what cracks they kind of have an instinct and they know when something isnt right and they know when they are being sold a pup. I found that i get deluged by people saying thank goodness somebody in the public sphere is saying what i have always thought to be the case and i thought i was going crazy but now i find thank you for saying it. Its an extraordinary thing where we are living in society where millions of people are sitting there thinking have i gone crazy or has the world gone crazy . You havent gone crazy is my answer. Its my part of the world the media, the public sphere which is slightly less reality here. Host in your autobiography Guardian Angel you detail your stint at the guardian. How lumley did it get at the end craxi served also as news editor there. Guest yes i did. I was the news editor which meant i was in charge of the newsroom of reporters for about three years. It was uncomfortable when i was there because the guardian certainly when i was there offered a kind of family. Everyone feels they belong to this wonderful organization and its very collegiate and i had a lot of friends. I am afraid i caused them some perplexity when i started to say things or to write things which they couldnt tolerate because they gave me no deviation from the line. You cant think independently. You have to tow the line and it may strike people a little strange that it took me so long to separate myself from all that but i was very attached to it and it did take me along time to work out that it wasnt just a few things that we were having this problem with. It was a whole way of looking at the world and other human beings and our place in the world. Its a very fundamental diverter gems between us. And so eventually i came to the conclusion that i simply couldnt carry on there and i left. It wasnt very comfortable but i did have a lot of good friends there and i learned a lot. The guardian is what the guardian is what made me what i am today really. They were indeed very important. Host where do you write your column now . Gets so i write a regular Opinion Column for the daily mail which is arguably britains most influential newspaper. Newspaper. Weiss of britains most influential newspaper critics because its almost uncanny. It has an intuitive sense of that Center Ground. It plugs into that. Its the force of what we call middle britain and that represents very robustly a few of the world which is grounded in reality and grounded in the real aspirations and hopes and concerns of real people and as a result its kind of in a way sort of thinking and yang of the guardian. The guardian and the male are the polar opposites in the british media. They are both these great warrior papers on either side of a division of how we view the world. One consider to be on the left and one considered to be on the right. Theres there is a tremendous capacity for reflecting the values of their core constituency so the guardian reflects the values of the intellectual intelligentsia what we call the chattering classes and the daily mail represents little britain, reality ordinary striving aspirational people. Host in the world turned upside down the global battle over god truth and power at the forward by director and playwright david mamet. The new religion as phillips teaches his secular humanism which although it lacks logically consistent precepts does contain innumerable sanctions and taboos. Of these latter the most observed is loud and clear, do not tell the truth. What does he mean by that . Guest what he means is what i was alluding to and of course david has bought the same kind of fight that ive been involved in. He came to it more recently and has himself been somewhat victimized by this. And what he, part of what he has come to realize as i was saying people particularly on the left of the political divide are gripped by a variety of ideologies which means that they state things as true which actually reflect the world as they would like it to be but they are not true. They dont believe there is such a thing as truth and thats what he is fighting all the time himself over a four idea tissues. It has changed the way i think he looks at the world. It has change what is in his lets go back to the world turned upside down you spend a lot of time in the book on israel iraq and islam and what if it is and she about is islamism. Just go yes, well this is an issue which throughout this book obviously preoccupies all of us more and more and they do think as i said there is a problem here with the islamic world and with the religion root of the islamic world and its very important to understand i think in all this that when he talks about these concerns and when hes not talking about on the contrary just from the point of view of britain there are very many muslims who have come as immigrants to britain precisely because they wanted to sign up to british and western values. They wanted freedom and they wanted to prosper and they wanted to have good jobs but they wanted freedom because freedom is very important to them. The women wanted to be treated as equals. They wanted all the things that we want freedom, cowpeas, security, prosperity and they are not hung up on these religious precepts that are causing the western world so much trouble. The problem is in the islamic world is precepts have been interpreted in a way which is not dominant and that is to say that the view of the world which says that the world has to be remade according to islamic precepts, that muslims, when muslims are enjoying western type freedom that must be pulled back. They must be made to conform to a very narrow authoritarian interpretation of islam. That view is now dominant and the view that the west must be brought to the heel for this interpretation of islam is also dominant and that is what i call islamism. There people who say what is this word islamism and . What do you mean of islam . I understand islamism is a madeup word that i use it because in order to allow for the fact that there are muslims who are not extreme they do want to sign up for western values and we must acknowledge that in their muslims who dont. So those who dont i call islamists because they are trying to impose Islamic Doctrines and Islamic Doctrines on people who are not muslim and they are trying to impose the most hidebound antifreedom interpretation of religion on muslims. So i call those people islamists. They are a threat to us. They say the whole time what their intention is to recreate the old islamic caliphate field muslim empire, to go beyond that and to conquer britain conquered to conquer america. They are very explicit and to impose sharia the rule of islamic law anywhere that muslims live. Some of them are violent and some of them equipped themselves with the weapons of war and terrorism. Some of them are not violent but think they can conquer the west very kind of cultural takeover. We should be extremely worried by them. They are all islamists. Some are violent and some are not violent. On the other hand there a lot of islamists and we must keep both in our minds. There is a difference between those who interpret the religion in a way that threatens us and those who belong in who are muslims who are themselves threatened by these islamists. We must keep those two things i think in our minds at the same time. That is what i tried to do and when i wrote my book the world turned upside down that was how i perceived the case which was to migrate horror or fear the british ruling class was giving in to islamism to this attempt to take over, to this attempt to undermine britain and the encroachment of islamic values and the british ruling class for a variety of reasons was saying that is what i wrote londonistan but in londonistan i was extremely careful as i think we all must be to acknowledge that many find is equally frightening and worrying that have nothing to do that. Host Melanie Phillips were you branded a racist after londonistan came out . Guest i think i was branded a racist but of course thats a particularly ignorant thing to say. I find it hard to see if someone wants to attend a negative habitat. Race is not the one to use. But people find other ways of being of what i have written. There is no shortage of the creative imagination when it comes to the dispensing of insults. Host in the book you talk about multiculturalism quite a bit. What has been its effect in your view on British Society and the british politicians . Guest multiculturalism is one of the most misundersmisunders tood isms and one of the most malicious that affects us today. People assume that multiculturalism must be a good thing because its all about being tolerant and nice to people. Well no. If thats all it was than i would be the first to support it because that is what we should be. Any kind of tolerant Democratic Free society should be respectful of differences and tolerant of other peoples religions and cultures. That is not what multiculturalism is. The doctrine of multiculturalism says that all countries are equal therefore no culture can uphold its values as preferable to any other. Now what that means for the west is that we in the west cannot if we are multicultural, if we are truly multiculturalists lead in the west cannot have our core volumes of freedom tolerance equality for women and so on. Over those cultures which dont uphold freedom, tolerance equality for women and all the rest of it. That is what multiculturalism is. Britain went down this road. Britain said we cant talk about female mutilation because that was their culture. We had cases in britain in which there was one case in particular where a black child was abused over many many years and finally died in the most appalling circumstances at the hands of her mother and her mothers lover. And the social workers could not bring themselves to intervene and, to stop this child torture and murder because they s this is their culture. Now to me that is racist. That is racist to say a black child is not entitled to the same expectations of life and liberty as the rest of us because thats her culture . Thats obscene to me, abstain. Its a kind of inverse racism but that is what multiculturalism is. We as white liberals cant stand up and say its wrong to talk to a child. Its wrong to neglect a child. Its wrong to cause a childs death because that is their culture. That is the kind of obscenity of multiculturalism. It lends itself to paralysis so what you get is islamist violence when you get a ford good, when you get a boston massacre, when you get the recruitment of young men compay young muslim men born in brooklyn and their recruitment of those young men to islamic radicalism. Multicultural Society Stands back and says we cant say anything about this because it would be racist. It would be xenophobic. It would be prejudiced because we are multiculturalists. Western society says we can uphold freedom peace liberty equality and decency. Are we really saying that . Of course not. We have gotten ourselves into this terrible model and it seems to me the difficulties we are in. It has to do with what i considered what i consider what i consider nothing favorite about the summer or at thursday hijacking of language. Of course across the terrible divisions of left and right most of us believe in things like freedom and being tolerant and being respectful of others. This is not corralled into one political perspective or another. We all basically think the same thing but the mind has been kind of hijacked so justice and tolerance and compassion, these words have been kind of twisted very kind of ideological framework, through an ideological prism oftentimes to meet the exact opposite and consequently one cant use these words without terrible confusion. I would like to see us reclaim the language from the hijacker so we can all basically speak to each other in terms we can all understand and which actually do reflect what we are all trying to convey. Host you are watching booktv on cspan2 to specifically her monthly in depth program. This is where we invite one author to talk about his or her book. Its the first sunday of the month and its a live callin program. We want to hear from you as well. Melanie phillips is our guest this month. She is a columnist with the daily mail and the author of nine books. Here they are beginning with the divided house women at westminster doctors dilemmas medical ethics and contemporary science, all must have prizes, the sexchange society feminized britain and the neutered male, americas social revolution in 2001, the ascent of woman a history of the Suffragette Movement and londonistan that we talked about a little bit how britain has created a terror state within came out in 2006 and the world turned upside down the global battle over god truth and power in 2011 and finally just had a Guardian Angel came out. It is her autobiography. If you would like to participate in our conversation 202585880 for those of you in the east and central timezones 585881 and if you live in a mountain and pacific timezones go ahead and start dialing in. If you cant get her on the phone lines we have social media. You can go to her Facebook Page facebook. Com booktv and you will see whether there is a top if you want make a comment or question for Melanie Phillips and send in its week at the tv is our twitter handle. Finally an email booktv at cspan. Com cspan. Org. Guardian angel come could have published it . Guest this is very exciting for me because i published it. That is to say it is one of five titles that i published this weekend because i turned myself into a publisher of electronic books. This is going to be a platform not just for me but for authors who think broadly like me and they connect with reality. To publish books in electronic format and the reason for this is that publishing is changing. Certainly more people now have the readers and they download books on kindle and ipod and the capacity than to read so many more people is alarmist. I have formed my own imprint called and met books. There are five books being published this weekend of which my memoir Guardian Angel you have been kind enough to refer to is but one. And i hope that they will bring my view of the world which is shared by so many to a very large audience who want to find out more. My aim is to expand public debate. My aim is to put into the public debate a full lotus of information which is not really found because its not generally published or to correct, to provide another way of looking at things. I think the information is out there that needs to be corrected and also something that is so very exciting to me as a journalists, i spent my entire career in the public telling people this is how the world is but basically if you dont like it thats just tough. Im just telling you how it is. Now just get on with it. People have said to me over the years come that they have said im so glad with your writing but you you know i feel so powerless. Classically they will say i have got teenage kids and my goodness me everything youre fretting about is the social media and the capacity to be turned into a bully on facebook and then get drugs out there. Sex drugs and rock n roll, what am i to do is apparent . I feel so hopeless. I say as a journalist i cant help you. Allah can do is tell you the situation and im very sorry if you dont like this. Im also apparent that theres nothing i can do but now i have this digital platform and books where i can help people. For example a book by a headmistress who was headmistress of the publicschool Independent School mistress of the year. She runs or she is the headmistress for a very expensive school. People pay a lot of money to have their girls educated at her school and to benefit from her wisdom over period of time is ahead mistress. How you approach teenage girls. Now i have kind of bottle back and put it in a book. How to decode your 21st century daughter a guide for parents of teenage girls. And how wonderful that im able to do that suddenly. So one of my many aims with this imprint is two where possible to say to people you dont have to feel its not that i am people like me are telling you this is how the world is but we are also telling you how good things are out in the world and were also telling you how you can have a bit of a handle on the things that do worry you and perplex you to make life a bit better. Host its a mx books. Com . Guest it has many connotations. First of all its been a and a and is how you sound up the first letter of my name. It starts with a capital m. So it sounds like m. For melanie. My company is Melanie Philips electric media the web site. People go to the web site you can download embooks from my web site but also on my web site you can get a lot more because there is video. There are video interviews and video presentations by me about the books and about the company and in a few days time i will be putting up a video conversation i had which i found really really fascinating. It was with a playwright. People in america may know richard from the smash hit broadway comedy that came over here not that long ago called oneman, to governors. It was a smash hit in london and then it came to broadway. The very interesting thing is richard is a man of the last that he has written plays in the past which have tackled topics such as Global Warming and immigration and in a very openminded cleareyed way and he himself became the target of terrible vilification. He and i had a conversation which i have put up on will put up on my web site very soon which we discussed this phenomenon. Its so difficult to have a difficult conversation as he and i are having between people that dont necessarily delete on it is now in our polarized political environment for that to happen. The extent to which abuse has replaced discussion and civilized argument and what a terrible thing that is. Its closing the mind is going on in the west. That is what i find frightening. Its kind of a repudiation of reason. We are supposed to be living in the most rational age at the most Rational Society the west and the most rational age known to man yet the mind is closing and both richard and i think that is really frightening and thats one of the things that i had in mind with embooks that im going to try to open up the public debate and hopefully create, helped create with the aid of the people who will be reading and watching help create a civilized space where we can all come together and we can disagree but we can do so in a civilized way that expand Public Knowledge and information consciousness and brings us together instead of driving us apart. Host one more issue before we go to calls and tweets and emails etc. , 1998 almost all must have prizes. Child centered education entails the distraction of childhood. Guest absolutely. It sounds very paradoxical but actually its quite straightforward. Childhood education which i have to say originated with sean schoch who still who was a of the enlightenment that childhood education which drew on these theories was started with john dewey who was fantastically influential not just our education in america but it came over to britain as well and what childhood education was and what his whole philosophy was that when a child brings to the classroom experience is impanelinimpanelin g more important than anything that the adult world can give to the child. The child is like it you have to water it gently and then the plant grows. Anything the adult world gives to the child is a constriction of that growth so when the child comes to the classroom the child brings the ability to learn by himself and the adult world with the teacher has to do is take a backseat and gently water it but not actually feed it. Not actually give that child information or knowledge because that constrains the child and will cripple him forever. That philosophy what became child centered education which is not only ruined i think American Education but certainly from my perspective what i know most about british education. It basically said the that child and i would use its so ridiculous that is important. The child is in autonomous meaning maker. What does that mean . It means that the child makes himself or herself its as if you were saying go into the jungle. You are going to find your own way. That is what we have done to children in the classroom. And what actually that means if you look at what teacher should be doing which is guiding the child, giving the child for mental map by which the child can make sense of the world. The teachers are not doing that. The teacher is basically saying to the child you are not welcome. Adults made their own way. We dont have to teach adults. We dont have to guide adults by the hand. Adults are not people. You are cause i adults that we have destroyed childhood. The very idea that a child needs to be guided has been destroyed and more than that as they try to explain, this didnt come from its all part and parcel of an adult world which says we are all now responsible for ourselves. Not only are we not going to put the child on an intellectual map to guide him or her through the world in terms of knowledge and education in the transmission of knowledge that we are not going to give him any more. We are not going to say to the child is very bad idea to do drugs. Its illegal, dont do it. A bad idea to have sex before you were 18, before you were married. A bad idea. We are going to say to the child aged 14, aged 12, age 10 and in britain now age seven or eight here is the information about guns. Heres the information about sex. Here are all the positions in sex and hear all the drugs you might come across. Heres information about them. Here are the risks. You decide now. Now that to me is not treating a child as a child. That is treating a child is a premature adult and in my view if the adult world treats children as premature adult that is an abandonment of children. Its an abandonment of the idea of what being an adult and their relationship to a child is. Its an abandonment of the idea of proper parenting which is all about being responsible for that child in that childs welfare and guiding that child until the child is old to make these decisions about sex and about drugs and to know whats going on in the world and make sense of it by him or herself. Isnt that what being a parent or a teacher is all about . I think britain and america to a greater or lesser extent has abdicated that responsibility and the consequences that we have several generations have gone past as well to this process. We have generations of children who have been abandoned and the result of that is that they have grown up into adults who dont know how to be an adult. They dont know how to because they have never been parented properly and as teachers i will tie you in britain we have this problem to a large extent, we have teachers who dont know what it is they dont know so they cant teach mathematics. They cant teach english grammar. They have never been taught it so they dont know what they dont know and so we have this kind of terrible inherited cycle of poor education and poor parenting, creating a problem down to the generations. This is very frightening the codes there comes a point eventually where people just forget completely as a society what it is they should be passing on. That is kind of what i wrote all must have prizes because i woke up to this while i was at the guardian and i could see what was going on in education of our Young Children. I couldnt find a school for my very Young Children that wasnt basically consisting of letting them run and fling mud at the walls. I had this very oldfashioned i couldnt find the schools that would do it. So i started to look great i went where the evidence lead lead and i looked where the teachers were teaching and why they were teaching in that way. What they were being taught in teacher Training Institutions and i came across this madness. Teaching a child not to read. You couldnt believe the madness. The new literacy, the new literacy which was to abolish things on the basis and i kid you not, i read this and track after track and Teaching Education institutions. This is what training teachers are being taught. Society is uneven. The working class is suppressed. People are taught to read. Therefore that fact that they can read is part of the oppression so in order that they should no longer be oppressed, we will teach them to read. It sounds absolutely mad. That was the kind of ideology that helped lead generations of teachers to stop teaching children to read and to say they will teach themselves to read. We will just literally give them the book and then they will teach themselves to read. They will look at the print on the page. We will read them the story. They will memorize the words or they will guess the words and then we can tell them they are reading. And so you have generations of children who grew up to be illiterate but they have been told that they were literate. This is wicked stuff. When i came across office when i was at the guardian, i couldnt believe it. I couldnt believe that a society could have taken leave of their senses like this. If you look at this you think this is beyond belief. Unfortunately it was true and i did a lot of research for all of the books and it took me into beyond the teaching of other reading. It took me into all kinds of avenues which were equally bizarre. So i wrote the book and as of one voice the entire education establishment grows up and announce this book which is kind of what i was saying in a book that this thing had taken over the entire education establishment and low in the establishment and lo and behold they proved it by writing up and announcing the book. I got contacted by endless numbers of parents who said now i understand. Now i understand what i couldnt understand about my childs education. I got written to by a lot of educational teachers and psychologist who said to me not only said what you said is true, its worse. That is when i realized down these issues there was something worse that was happening. There was kind of a shutting down of thought. Host host melanie philliy greatly the web site if people want to see your published books today or go to your personal web site . Guess code they can go to embooks. Com where they can find my memoir and the other books that i am publishing. Host Melanie Phillips. Com measure web site. Guests go my personal web site where my blog is housed and that is what they get there but that journalism is archived. Host tim from wisconsin you were on with author Melanie Phillips. Caller im a big fan of yours and i will say it for this reason. You hit it on the head when you say we are so proud that it shuts down the discussion and what i find and i am a little bit left of centrist and a call myself an eisenhower democrat. A lot of people in milwaukee think im a case but i have talked about certain issues with conservatives and liberals and i find out the more we have a discussion the more we listen to each other the more we find that we are not that far apart which is just amazing. I wanted to give you a quick scenario. We have a superintendent and education is big for me because i tutor young kids. We have a scenario in the 90s where the big Public School in milwaukee which i feel just doesnt work any more, we had a superintendent that wanted to break up the School System and make it into smaller School Systems. They were pushed aside by both sides of the political aisle. I have one quick question for you. I agree with you and i read your books and i love your thoughts on opening people to open themselves to each other but i want to ask a quick question i will let you go. Do you think, you say we have turned to ideology here in this country. Do you feel that if we go back to a religious sort of country and people go to church more or have more faith, are we going to limit that debate again . Host tim we got the point. Thank you for calling in. Melanie phillips. Guest i think at the heart of all of this and i think it is a problem because they think a lot of people increasingly have a problem in the leaf. And im not sure that i have the answer to that particular part of this issue. But i do think that the march of ideology is very associated with the march of secularism and the approach and of organized formal religion specifically judeo christianity that jewish precepts that underlie christianity, the Christian Faith that is the bedrock faith of the west. This is particularly true i think more true in britain than it is in america in comparison to britain. Britain is a very religious country and still has a Center Ground and is pretty faithful whereas in britain its really lost its faith. I believe that these great values that we all price so much such as a believe in the innate dignity and integrity of every human being. I mean, this is the thing that animates our western belief in democracy and freedom and the rest of those of the center and of course that is a biblical precept. We respect each other because we believe that we are all made in the image of god. If you take god out of the equation then we dont have the quality. Its as simple as that. I think its a big problem. I think that i have a problem myself with some of the more extreme parts of all religions but i do believe that we cant really think our way out of this particular box and get ourselves out of this particular predicament at last we have some kind of reassertion of those fundamental precepts which are biblical precepts. Host host melanie phillis cliff on a post on her Facebook Page in the u. S. All the characteristics you ascribe to left in terms of cutting off the argument manipulating the facts to support a predetermined opinion and cherrypicking data could be attributed to the right he speaks of such people as or russ columbo and Rush Limbaugh to just go there people on all sides of the spectrum to distort and exaggerate who play fast and loose with the facts. All of us are prone to whichever side of the political divide we are on. There are people on all sides who are prone to this kind of behavior. The point i was trying to make in our conversation earlier however was a bit different from that. People on the left to start from a position as i said before where there is a conclusion. They have a conclusion to which they wish to wrench the facts to fit. Now i dont think that is a vision that is held by people not on the left. I hesitate to say the right because there are many people who are not on the left who are not on the right either. I dont think its the kind of institutionalized characteristic of people not on the left too as it were almost by default start from a prearranged preordained conclusion because that is why they are on the left. They dont have a conclusion. There is no ideology. The ideology is the left. The left subscribes to a particular set of ideas. People who are not on the left have all kinds of ideals and they may hold those ideals very strongly but nevertheless, its not a characteristic of all people who are not on the left to filter everything through the prism of those ideas. So i say that i know there are, there are certain individuals who take extreme deference who are not on the left and those people may well wrench evidence to fit. I dont know. I do know that the people who control the height of our culture, qatar universitys, the mainstream media. In britain and the Political Class including the conservative party the socalled conservative party. There is a kind of default position now which accepts as unchallengeable truth a whole set of assumptions which in my view leftwing ideological assumptions such as the objective truth for which a number of positions follow. Colinmack. Itutionalized for the political program. With no blame or shame or pain society. In the process, it helps the integration of British Culture itself. Yes, people are very shocked. Much more complicated. She was a political titan. Finding a role, and we have to subside gently that is what leadership is. I have a great deal of respect for her. There are so many on the left. However, i still have considerable reservations about what she did. She took on this in the government. But she did it entirely is not correct. But she did give them a sense of industrious perspective in the world. She thought of everything in terms of economics. She thought that everything could be solved by running everything like the corner shelf. Perform certain changes on those principles. The bonds of trust and fellowship. The rise of group rights, group against group, what would happen in the education profession, taking over the teaching profession, she never realized until she was late in her premonition. And she thought everythineverythin g was part of the free market. As a result, the institutions relied upon intangibility, such as trust. And a shared sense of inheriting values. She basically dismiss them lightly, indeed. But anything that was inherited was a some kind of conspiracy. But anything was basically to be distrusted. A professionalism based upon a body of people who share the same kind of assumptions about the way they operate. That was, to her, defrauding the consumer. So the result was unspoken bonds of trust and belief in honesty and attachment to the intangible , which was rooted in tradition. In other words, a true radical. I thought she did a great deal of values. There is a kind of symmetry on the left and right. On the left basically said, the bonds the latest to each other are up in the air. And what we say about ourselves mattered. If i decide that living with my lovers is right for me, no one else can tell me otherwise. In other words, theres a type of radical privatization and many determine what is right for me. And no one has a right to tell me that im wrong. So was individualism. Especially in the social sphere. The traditional family, morality and general. Basically saying, we dont hold these ideas that britain is bound up by a kind of understanding and refugee and duty. The individual consumer. That was the individuals in the economic sphere. Two forces working together. I think it was being driven apart and fragmented. And what we needed was to get away from this. The bonds of shared tradition and language. And it was actually fragmenting us. After all that has happened, i still think that is not wrong. Host mark from san antonio, texas. Youre on booktv. Caller i really love booktv. I hear most of what youre saying, but you talked about the truth out. You talked about older culturalism. I would like to say that i dont know if they are really a universal truth. But i do know that people have the right to express the culture and humanity. But what we may call it a universal truth. It includes a consideration of the truth. Especially when they say that the social workers not a [inaudible] tomie where you are getting this definition. Guest it is a question, it is not that i ever base my view of this we cannot say that any culture is better than another. But i have heard this for a quarter of a century over and over again. And ive heard it said in the context of the whole range of events that have happened. It seems to me that is the conclusion that i have come to. And i quite agree. Different people have different understandings of what multiculturalism is. Ive been talking about it in way that i understand it to be the case. Some people take it to mean something quite different. So i always try to put out there what my definition is. So we all know what we are talking about. This is the great point that yes, of course, in my view, properly Tolerant Society expects that different people believe different things. But nevertheless, in my view is, if you want to uphold a liberal Democratic Society with values such as tolerance of other peoples beliefs, the ability of people to have no Religion Without persecution, and equality for women. In the kind of core values my culture is preferable to another. Therefore i will act on that basis. These terms are used so differently. Host the next call comes from patricia in cambria, california. Caller i very much enjoy this program. I have one comment that i work in a large school district. I want to ask you guys a question. We are in a litter very sphere, and i did feel that in the practical daytoday operation of dealing with the difficulties , a lot of adults have come through the system and then trained in one of these new methods and so forth. It is very hard to impose this under the current effect of the legal system. And when britain it is probably very different. But for example, i remember when i was teaching, we had an english teacher, a phd. She was told it was racist to teach grammar and things like this. One of the things that the adults experienced is that if you do buck the system and go against the grain, you could be facing various legal challenges. Im wondering if that was a problem in britain. My other question to you would be can you recommend any contemporary british writers that you are particularly interested in. Im going to bring very soon. Guess not well, the legal challenge that you mentioned. We have a different system in britain from yours. Im not sure that it is quite the same. But there are legal challenges and the real problem comes from this. This was published in the 90s. 1990. Okay, i have that mixed up. They put into the book how they were paralyzed with the education officials and the local authorities that has been the authority over the schools. And she taught in a fairly conventional way, started classes and facing this. When the inspector was due to come around, she had gotten through the inspection. That is the current thing that was going on then. There is a kind of conformism. Which means this is the kind of thing youre talking about, you dont get promoted, if that sort of thing, its that kind of legal challenge. Not sure if youre talking about education or host who are you reading right now . Guest in terms of factual books. Host whatever you want to say or recommend. As the caller said, any recommendations on british others besides yourself . Well, it depends very much on what youre looking for. I tend to read things about Foreign Policy and trying to work out what is going on. Host we will be talking about the books that influenced you and go from there. This is a tweet for you. Finally, a woman after my own heart and mind. Too bad her website is only showing about one eighth of the content. Guest which website . Host im not sure. Guest there is a problem on Melanie Phillips. Com, some of the archives have been restricted due to a terrible technical glitch. And there is a problem accessing it. If so, i apologize. But people can access the recent columns without a problem. How much will be published . Guest there are bits of it. And it will be a different template for different books. And they are about to be put up in the next few days. But as people look at the website of the next two days, enables the what we are delighted about and that includes published books. We download the books, but there is a certain amount of video material already there. And there will be more. Which will be a new way of giving people a taste of the books that are available on embooks. Com. Host margaux inver vermont, california. Caller good morning and thank you for having me on booktv. I have two questions. One is about the extreme christian right in america and, for example, i would love to read what you have to say. How can we spare rational discourse . Thank you very much. I devote a lot of my time to this. And all i can do is try to envision it. Getting the debate going, and this includes the debate that we have going. And when you ask is actually a deeper question. How do you shift the culture that has gone wrong. You know, it has gone all these ways that i think have gone wrong. Friends and family. Had he shipped it back again . Its somehow to make our voices heard. All of these things are going on as it was. The changes and suddenly people are saying something quite different. And youre thinking, where did that come from . Well, Society Works with a different level at the same time. But it is actually underneath. They are processing and thinking men after time, that suddenly pops up. So thats all we can do, is keep the same things that we can and try to produce this more enlightened and civilized and rational discourse. And this will eventually become a default mechanism. Including the extreme christian rights. Im aware that there is part of the individuals that agree with this. I am basically in my journalism, i have been basically evolved in the systematic issues. The kind of things in the extreme American Christian rights, as you call them come at a something that is particular to america. I havent got my head around it yet, but im sure it is a delight in store. Host we have duane in houston, texas. Good afternoon. Caller im an educator in texas. I teach special education. I have a comment and a question. The congressman wrote about called education of the negro, and he actually speaks about how the church has organized religion in america. My question is so how do you think this has affected the board is affecting education . Guest i didnt quite hear you . Caller africans, transatlantic spreading of africans during slavery. As a descendent of slaves, i do think that affects education . Guest i think it is very different on an american perspective. In britain it hasnt had a lot of effect due to the kind of changes in education, it came about almost exclusively as a result of liberals in britain. As a young reporter, i certainly remember encountering it. I remember going to north london where there is a significantly black population, mainly african population. So it was preventing them from something out as an Independent School and local authority in state funding. It includes proper education. Teaching them about the world as it was. The children were being treated by white liberals, as if they were not entitled to the best education. They were being prevented by the local Education Boards. On the basis that there was no need for it. In the Education Board knew what was best for the children. So that is where we are coming from in britain. The role played in britain was very different in e and in britain, you know, we dont have the history of slavery you have. Host we have another call from houston. This one is from kirk. Hi, kirk. Caller i have never heard of you nor have i heard you speak. Listening to you this morning, im optimistic that there are people in the world, like yourself, who are speaking about moderation. Were talking about prudence. Were talking about [inaudible] and as a member of the quote, unquote, silent majority, i feel incredibly repressed by the left and the right with the rhetoric and the things that are thrown out to me and to the people that i love. They have to try to sort it out and disseminate it. Do you have any suggestions on a social level, lets say. What would be a suggestion for family gatherings. For having a dinner party, and setting the ground rules for discourse and discussion without throwing things at each other and acting in a nonprudent manner. Any suggestions for Something Like that . It seems to me before the Technology Age took over, people used to sit down and have civil discourse. It just seems theres none of that. Melanie phillips . I think it is rather regrettable. In britain, the diamond cable is going at a fascinating case. They were increasingly there at the computer screen and they they said that the tv or their computer screen or are plugged into the iphone or whatever it is and they are grazing from the refrigerator. Meals are you are entirely right, serve served meals are a fantastic vehicle for socializing for social discourse and you know gathering around the table is really sort of the premier way in which families talk to each other and friends and colleagues and everybody can talk to each other around a meal. Its a very sociable event. Now, how you restore the social meal in a society where we are all basically doing our own thing to the extent that we are is a very difficult challenge. But i think that you know it would be very nice if parents were to make a bit of a future of this to insist that their children at least i dont know once a week, once a day whatever it does gather around the table and i think rituals are terribly important for this purpose. Religious rituals the thanksgiving dinner, the christmas dinner. I am jewish and the friday night meal. These are the places where people, families and friends literally get together and they put aside you know they are bits of technology and they leave their televisions. They get their heads up from their desks and they look at each other and they talk to each other. That is i think absolutely essential for civilized discourse and we can encourage that among our own families and friends. Host one of the books we havent had a chance to delve into the sexchange society feminized britain and the neutered male. You write mail breadwinning is neither arbitrary nor an anachronistic. Its important both to cement masculine identity and to civilize aggressive male characteristics. Guest how unfashionable is that . Mike goodness did i really write that . Host that is what it said. Guest o. Co, i think it was right. Its very unfashionable. We all do everything now. I read that book in the title of that was longwinded but basically we are unisex society. Women go out to work and real men are i have been a working mother all their lives and i am the last person to say women should work and also the last person to say that men shouldnt change diapers but a need to recognize that for women work i could not have imagined that i would not have worked. I could not imagine that but nevertheless i also understand that work for women plays a different role than it does for men. For men its essential i think to their identity. For women, work is often employed work is often very important. It wasnt important for me and its important for millions of women but we dont feel less of a woman if we dont work. Men feel less of a man if they dont work in this is a very unfashionable thing to say but i believe it to be true. Consequently on employment for a man is absolutely devastating. Whereas for a woman its painful, its annoying, its a state that she doesnt want to be in. They dont have the same effect and there is another point to britain which is that the erosion of the breadwinner function is that this is very much the chicken and ag, which came first . Basically, in my view what has driven families apart and many factors that have driven families apart, the pattern of traditional family life has been driven apart by factors that one of the key factors in the key drivers has been the fact that by and large women have changed the calibration of where their best interests lie. In the past, women thought of themselves as being able to work at the thought of themselves as wanting to have children and in order to have children they needed to have a father of their children on board to support them and their children while their children are growing up and therefore they look like a marriageable mates and they would marry him. Along came a whole bunch of social changes. As a result women decided they could do it it on their own. They could be if they wanted mother and father to their children. They could have the child without the father on board at all. Visit the local bank. They could do it without the father completely. If they have a father come if they were married to the father lived with the father of that child ultimately we can do it alone now. Also mankind if god marginalized. They got pushed out and they were made to feel as if they were spare parts and the human race basically a waste of space. They were only needed to provide the in the first place and i think i called them donors walking wallets and occasional repairs. That was the limit of their usefulness. And it became kind of demoralized in every sense, demoralized. If they were going to have one women making herself uniquely available to him why stop . Because there wasnt a commitment to bring up a child, the whole business of working became less vital and you know its the chicken and egg. If a man has a child to support he will work and he will work longer hours and if he doesnt have a child to support its less of a push. Things are much more complicated than im making them and their many more other factors. I dont want people to think i am reducing it all to this but i think its very important change that has happened. Its a change for the worse. You kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater because as i say women should be able to work. Men should be able to feel under some obligation to take an active role in the nurturing of their children and helping at home and all the rest of it. We kind of lost the sense of actually there are some differences between the sexes and no its not sort of stupid and ignorant to say that. It is true and unless we acknowledge what those differences are they cant actually differences are we can actually then shape and fashion households to accommodate reality. Once again, though we are trying to refashion reality to accommodate an idea of what we think should be the case and that way lies a great deal of distress. Host you are walking booktv on cspan and our guests on in depth author and columnist Melanie Phillips. We have a little over an hour left in our program. Heres a look at some of ms. Phillips influences and favorite books. Noto host a reminder if you cant get there on the phone lines to talk with author and columnist Melanie Phillips and we are going to put the phone lines up on the screen you can contact her via social media. We have our Facebook Page facebook. Com booktv and dependent upon it there. You can send it to lead at at the tv as their twitter handle and finally an email to booktv at cspan. Oracle. Melanie phillips is the author of nine books the most recent that has just come out today called Guardian Angel. She began writing in 1980. The divided house, doctors dilemmas came out in 1985 all must have prizes 1998, the sexchange society feminized britain and the neutered male in 1999 americas social revolution came out in 2001 the ascent of woman the history of the Suffragette Movement in 2003 and londonistan how britain has created a terror state within that came out in 2006 and the world turned upside down the global battle over god truth and power in 2011. By the way if you would like to see Melanie Phillips talk about that particular book more in depth you can go to booktv. Oracle. We covered an event with her when apple came out and finally today Guardian Angel comes out and out as an ebook on her new imprint embooks. Melanie phillips who were alfred and maple . Guest alfred and Maple Phillips for my parents. I love them very much. They were the formative influences on my life particularly mother to him i was strangely close. They were just very typical of british jewish of that generation around the Second World War. They were married just after the Second World War in 1947 and they came from families which literally came as immigrants to britain from poland and russia around the turnofthecentury. Its a very typical pattern of immigration of tuition to britain around that time and they were kind of typical of the british jewish community. My father sold dresses and made his dresses from a van and my mother ran a clothing shop. They were two very modest beings and as a jewish family religiously we werent very religiously observant. My parents went to the synagogue on high three times a year. I was always expected to be at home and it was a home which instilled in me Jewish Values to do with selfdiscipline and looking after other people particularly the most vulnerable in society and it really was a household of which made me what i am today and also maybe what i am today is an only child. As an only child i had a particularly close relationship to my mother and that was a great till. Host reading Guardian Angel was that a tough book to write . You have a little bit of one word to use as your childhood. Guess who it was a tough book to write. As a journalist i have always thought journalists are in the pits. You bring the world to other people and you dont bring yourself to other people. I would never have before written about myself in that way in the way that i havent Guardian Angel but i wanted to write the book which explained explains what people find so perplexing which is this great journey i have been on from being at the heart of the leftwing establishment in britain to becoming what some people think of as being on the right and i tend to think of it as a champion on the Center Ground so i wanted to explain that journey. Through the person of that journey that illuminates what happened to britain in the last quarter century. And then having sketched this out by then thought to myself actually i cant actually do this without going one step further and explaining to people why i was as i was and why i reacted to what i came across and became what i became. Unfortunately to explain to people why i was as i was and am sim is to go into my family background because that is what made me. So i found myself for the First Time Ever going into an print a story which is extremely painful to me because it involves a separation from individuals that i loved very much but to hum i was far too close. My mother in particular. And the strange thing was that i and about writing a book about two parallel separations of two families come cut a separation from my real family which was extraordinarily painful and a separation from my political family which is also extremely painful and at various points in my history, the two kind of fade into each other. Its a rather strange thing that these things ran in parallel and it was a painful thing to write. It was painful because i was writing about myself and about those nearest and dearest to me and i found it very uncomfortable experience indeed that there was no other way of doing it really so that is why i ended up doing it. Host Melanie Phillips is there just embeds embed embeds a wiki can do get through the phone lines try social media if the phone lines are jammed. Also we will let our International Viewers know if you elect to participate in this conversation particularly those of you in Great Britain 202 5853882 is the dedicated line for International Viewers only. Martin and stony brook new york, thanks for holding on. Please go ahead with your question or comment. Caller can you hear may . Guest i can hear you. Caller okay, grade. The problem i have with your presentation, im not in england but states really dont have a in england that i believe you have the labour party but socialism and marxism have been demonized. Not that people dont exist in our society but you cant talk to them because they might be completely irrational. They do exist but they come from the right. We have one senator up in vermont Bernie Sanders who calls himself an independent but he might be really a socialist. If he were writing the book experiencing it in the United States you might have a different take on who the people you can talk who are. In our country the people you cant talk who are called the Tea Party People and the political spectrum in the United States has moved completely to the right. We dont have a left. We have a center which is what the democrats are. And then you have the extreme right which is what the republicans have become as a consequence of the pressure of the tea party. Host martin where do you consider yourself on the political spectrum . Caller i am one of those who consider myself welcome cut labels are a problem. I agree that we should all respect one another and listen to one another but my concerns are as a consequence of the Economic Situation and the foreignpolicy situation. I am a critic of u. S. U. S. Foreign policy. Johnson who was a conservative economist was very critical of u. S. Foreign policy and the blowback of that empire. Host we have a lot on the table. Lets hear what Melanie Phillips has to say. Guest you are right there are significant differences between britain and america and i hear what you say, that you know there is the sort of socialist party in america as there is in britain. That is true but im talking about something that goes beyond Party Affiliation and beyond the conventional understanding of socialism in russian communism and soviet communism but of course the soviets, the communist empire is a thing of the past. I am talking about a way of looking at the world which i consider to be of the left because the left adopted it which is the idea of secularist perspective which as i was saying earlier on the core of it , everything is relative and everything is a matter of opinion and therefore none of us can assert that any way of life is any better than any other way of life. As far as i can see, a lot of this has taken a grip in america. I mean you may well be right about the extreme right in america. The wilder fringes of political debate on that side of the division. That is something we dont have in britain. I would quite agree that there is a considerable difference but from where i am looking across the pond youre number credit party i think they are very different from the Democratic Party of 40 years ago because they seem to me to have embodied to a greater or lesser extent this world that everything is relative, lifestyle choice and all of that. The disdain for conventional and the disdain for the people who subscribe to conventional values. A few of the world that is a little bit of ashamed of america, little bit ashamed that the idea that america stands for values which are really great and wonderful and we should all try to espouse them. I have occasionally picks them up in your president as well who i would not say is, i would say he is a pretty character from where i am sitting. His belief that the state is best basically a benevolent actor. Would you agree with it or not doesnt matter but that is very much a leftwing spectrum i would stress so i think what im talking about is somewhat different from what you are talking about. Im talking about a way of looking at the world which i think has taken hold across a very wide sway of the elite. In britain as i think i alluded to earlier it has taken hold in our Republican Party. As they say you are right. The situation is different but i think there are certain similarities which maybe you are not quite a balloting. Host from americas social resolution Melanie Phillips writes that was from 2001 america social revolution. David tc tweets into you Melanie Phillips to what extent do you think the u. S. And britain supported israel accounts for the antipathy the muslim world has for the u. S. . Guest well, i think that this is rather putting the cart before the horse. I think the antipathy that the muslim world is currently expressing towards the west is to do with the fact that the muslim world as i was saying earlier has been largely taken over by a particular view which seeks to hold back and turned back the tide on modernity. It pushes to prevent muslims from living under the tenets of modernity based on individual freedom and democracy. To subject them to the submissive tenants of islam. And it takes the west because it embodies this kind of, this belief that individual freedom is very important and because its not islamic. The islamists who now move in the islamic world hate the west because its not islamic. We are still subjected to the dictates of islam. They hate israel. The hate of israel is kind of subsequent to that. Its israel to them is the expression of American Values in particular and modernity in general. Western modernity and western values in general and at least to them the israelis therefore are religious from point of view. There is a very very widespread and deep hatred of jewish. We dont have time to go into the details of this but its Copious Amounts of evidence to this effect. They simply hate the jewish in large measure. These are the reasons why israel is the kind of as it were lightning rod for the hatred of the western world. In addition the hatred of israel has been used by the tyrants who keep their own populations and subjection and misery in the islamic world. It is being used as a kind of an alibi or displacement exercise perhaps i should say in which the tyrants who rule the islamic world with the populations hatred of israel as a means of diverting that hatred away from themselves because they themselves are keeping their own people in such poverty and conditions of they are tyrannizing them. I was interested to hear this dilution of america, i think your question that talked about the support given to israel by both america and britain. America certainly supports israel. And indeed it should because the vast bulk of American People and the vast bulk of godfearing christiachristia n American People understand very well that israel stands up for its own values, is the forward salient in the middle east and they look at israel as being a kind of a nation that is founded on values and the same kinds of values that america is founded on. Britain doesnt have the same perspective towards israel i have to tell you. Its a more troubled history in which britain was the last colonial occupier of the prepalestine in which the role played by britain to returning jews returning to restore their ancient homeland in the land of israel. Jews and to restore the ancient jewish homeland as the state of israel. So britains history is a little troubled in this regard. And britains current attitude to israel is, lets put it this way, i think of it as talking out of both sides of your mouth simultaneously. With one side of the mouth, britain says written is our ally israel is our ally. With the other side of the mouth britain says israel is our ally, and anything it does militarily to defend itself we think wrong. I slightly exaggerate, but thats broadly the position that the British Government has gotten itself into. Its a very complicated attitude, a very complicated relationship britain has with israel. Its ties to israel, as america, through intelligence and military cooperation. Without israels intelligence eyes and ears in the middle east, britain and america would be in far greater danger than they are now. But nevertheless, in the political sphere things are a little more complicated. Host and Melanie Phillips writes in the world turned upside down, among the educated and highminded classes in particular steve loeb posts on our Facebook Page, melanie, first, congrats on m books. I am so excited i can find more of you now. Second, i was wondering what your view on the church of scotlands new position on israel is. [laughter] host whats he referring to . Guest i think what hes referring to is that the church of scotland has taken in recent days a very belligerent attitude towards israel, and hes talking about, you know, its part of the, its called bds, poi cot, divestment and sanctions movement which basically seeks to vilify israel by pretending that its the tyrant in the middle east and inverting everything so that the true victim in the middle east, which is israel, becomes the true tyrant, true aggressor which is the arab muslim world becomes the victim. And the church of scotland has leapt onto this particular bandwagon, and very distressing it is too. But in britain you see the established church, and britain is composed of both consists of england as well as scotland. Scotland has a Different Church from england, and england has a church of england, scotland has a church of scotland. But they are, as i understand it, theologically broadly on the same page. And they have broadly the same view of the world. They have broadly the same view of the middle east and israels role in the middle east. And, therefore, the mainstream, the established churches in britain, church of england, church of scotland have this view of israel which is the view that i think in america is true of your more liberal churches, the presbyterians and churches like that whereas your evangelical churches are much more well disposed and, indeed, passionately well disposed towardss reel. Now, in britain towards israel. Now, in britain we dont have that kind of balance. We dont have so many evangelical churches who remain, lets put it this way, scripturally faithful. Our church of england, rather, looks down its nose at scripture as being only believed by those who are, basically, ignorant and stupid. And the more you refer to a quote by me about how the an animosity to israel seems to go hand in hand with education. And its all part of the same thing, that the more, the more highlydeveloped brains people seem to think they have, the more they hold their own intellect in the highest possible regard, the more departing from reality they are. And thats true of the churches. And its true more generally. This thing, this hatred of israel, im afraid, is correlated with education and social class. The lower down the educational and social scale you go, the more decent, moral and sensible and rational people are, the higher up the educational and social scale you are, the more divorced they are from reality over a whole range of these issues. The more they subscribe to ideologies, ideas and the more disgusting they are, quite frankly, they side with people who are tyrants, who tyrannize their own populations, who treat their women as animals, and they reserve they are venom for the jews of israel who are merely trying to defend themselves in their own ancient historic homeland to which they have every right to be entitled. And which once upon a time the International Community said they have the right to settle this land. And yet those people, the beachhead of the kind of values that liberals hold dear freedom, equality, tolerance, political enfranchisement the people upholding those values in the middle east are the people who are being subjected to boycott movements, to sanctions, to excoriation, to vilification in order to, all in order to delegitimize israel and, basically, bring about a situation in which it disappears from the map. While the people who are tyrannizing their own population s locking up political dissidents, hanging them from cranes, throwing them off the tops of Tall Buildings [inaudible] their children, using their children as human bond, indoctrinating their children to hatred and to murder of people simply because they are american, j well,ews, the west. Those people get a free pass from our liberals, from the people who are highly educated. Go figure. All this education produced this irrationality, this hatred . Im afraid, for me, its all part of the pattern that ive been papefully unraveling painfully unraveling all my professional life in these books. Its actually part of the same story. That a class of people who through education have come to the belief that, you know, there is no such thing as truth believe lies. They believe lies are true, and they cant distinguish truth from lie, and they turn themselves, therefore, into accomplices of the undefensible and the intolerable and people who in any normal, decent, moral, sensible universe would be people that any decent individual would be against. Thats why i wrote, thats why i called my last book the world turned upside down. Because to me it is absolutely that. Its a world which has taken leave of its senses. Host Melanie Phillips is our guest. A little under an hour left in our program. Mark in dana point, california, youve been very patient. Please, go ahead. Caller melanie, you have a number of interesting beliefs that need to be explored. However, you lose credibility with the Scientific Community when you claim that the Scientific Method was not used to establish the facts about Global Warming as caused by humans burning of fossil fuels. The Scientific Method was used extensively in the 1970s and the 80s, and the predictions started coming true in the early 90s. And the only claim that you can make against the scientists in this area is that they understated the significance of this problem. And today we have a situationing where 97 of the top 200 climate scientists are diametrically opposed to your beliefs. Your beliefs are parallelled by sarah palin from the state of alaska and senator inhofe, the state of oklahoma, tw states that economies two states that economies are based on burning fossil fuels. You need to rethis think this so rethink this saw that you get so that you get on the right side of this issue. Guest well, thank you for that. Its an interesting point of view. I dont know about save rah palin or the other sarah palin or the other senator you mentioned. Ive been looking at Global Warming theory since 1998, looking at it in great detail, talking over those years to a very large number of scientist, reading the literature, reading scientific literature. I certainly dont say that science has got it wrong. I say that science has been hijacked by dockery their ideologies who pretend the science is what it is when it is not. Its quite extraordinary in the way its been presented, so good people like yourself, i sympathize. If i had only read what was in the media, i, too, would think like you. But ive done the research. Ive done the looking at whats behind it all. And its simply not true that 97 of all scientists think that manmade Global Warming is true. They dont. The, there are many now, theres many pieces of evidence now where hundreds of the top climaterelated scientists have come forward to say that this is simply not the case. They dont believe it is true. It was not the case that the science always said this. The science didnt say this. Global warming, manmade Global Warming theory was, actually, to a large extent the result of computer operators putting into Computers Information which, um, first of all, was skewed. Secondly, the idea that you can actually predict climate through computer models is absurd, because climate is actually one of the most complex mechanisms involving biofeedback mechanisms which no computer can actually properly assimilate. The fact is that, um, weve been told since 1988 that the rise in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere will produce catastrophic amounts of warming, and to cut a very long story short, in the last ten years the climate has actually been flatlining, and low amounts of the excuses that are being made can alter that fact. That the theory that we were told was absolutely inexorable, that the rise in Carbon Dioxide would mean a rides in heat a rise in heat simply hasnt happened. And im afraid the warmists cant, plain that. This is a very cant explain that. This is a very complicated story. My position has always been that i have never seen any credible evidence that anything out of the historical ordinary is happening to the climate. Climate has always gone up and down, and whats been happening in the last century or so, more so, is actually part of that pattern. And there is no evidence, no credible evidence to suggest that anything out of the ordinary has been happening. But i can quite understand why you are saying what youre saying, because by and large people are not aware that the best and brightest, the most brilliant of climaterelated sign terrorists are saying something scientists are saying something very different. And final thought to leave with you, its not simply that, you know, there are some scientists saying this, there are some scientists saying that, which is how science proceeds. People say one thing, people say another thing, thats how it proceeds. But there is also evidence, and ive written about it and other people have written about it of not just disagreements between scientists, but active fraud. Active fraud, and ive spoken to some of the sign tufts who have watch scientists who have watched this fraud take place under the aegis of these bodies putting out in this theory of manmade Global Warming in which the science has been actively misrepresented. And some of the brightest and the best who were involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were employed in the early cays as expert in the early days as expert witnesses on the science on the basis that their science was being manipulated and they could observe the fraud being perpetrated upon science. And, frankly, i mean, this is a terrible scandal thats happened. Because science, the integrity of science has been compromised by people who wish to hijack science to make a political point. And, you know, its, it may be that politicians that you dont agree with have taken up the cultures of this particular argument that im making. That may be the case. But that in itself, im sure you would agree, that in itself does not prove that the argument is wrong. You may not like those politicians, but whether the argument is right or wrong, to answer that question one really does have to go and look at the science itself. Identify done that, and i would suggest you do too. Host Melanie Phillips is the author of nine books. Shes a columnist with the the daily mail, and she is now a publisher with mbooks. Com. Dennis post on our Facebook Page, regarding truth which you refer to that the left will not discuss, what are some examples of those truths as they relate to abortion and homosexuality. Guest sorry, what are the host as he puts it, what are some examples of those truths that the left will not discuss guest ah. Host as they relate to abortion and homosexuality. Guest um, i dont think well, in the case of, in the case of abortion, i think that if ones just looking at the narrow business of truth being suppressed, then i would say that what the left does is skate over, dismiss or even negate the effects of what actually takes place in lateterm abortions, because its so emotive, what happens. They dont like to talk about it because they think its going to, to be used as ammunition by the other side, the the people who are antiabortion. But i find the question a little perplexing, which is why i asked you to repeat it. To me, these issues of abortion and homosexuality are not to do as much with truths but opinions and the way of looking at us as human beings, you know, where does life start, what value do we place on human life, how tolerant should we be of people whose sexuality is different from ours, to what extent should we accommodate those differences in our mainstream institutions . Those are the debates which i think tend upon issues like abortion and homosexuality. I wouldnt say apart from one or two aspects such as the effects of lateterm abortion, unless im missing the point of your questioner, i wouldnt say this is to do with truths as much as a difference in the way we look at the world. Host so, Melanie Phillips, whats your view on abortion and gay marriage . [laughter] guest small questions, you ask. [laughter] well, my view on abortion is informed very much by my jewish background which is, and this may sound a little strange from an american audience which has a different view of abortion from britain. In britain its, politically its not, its not an issue. People generally accept the law which permits abortion in certain circumstances. The argument in britain is about when the law should be amended to take account of changes that have happened in technology, the fact that we can keep premature babies alive much longer and so on. My view is, as i say, i think informed by my jewish background which says its not an absolute point of view. It says that at the very earlyist stages, abortion in certain circumstances is okay. The its the lesser of two evils. Never okay, but its the lesser of two evils in certain circumstances. But later on in a pregnancy, then it becomes very, very much more difficult, and at a certain point cannot be tolerated. And broadly, that is my view. That in certain very limited circumstances, its the lesser of two evils. I think whats happened in britain is that, um, the law was enacted with that kind of approach in mind back in the very late 60s, early 70s. But very quickly it became overtaken by the view that it should be allowed in all circumstances except where it wasnt specifically committed. It was a complete change in the way in which the law was apply which has led to the kind of abortionondemand situation in britain which i think has brutalized our culture, brutalized it in this a way that in a sense our respect for all human life including very early human life, um, has been eroded. But as i say, im not an absolutist. I think [inaudible] very, very early. If, for example, there is a threat to the life of the mother, then there should be no question that the life of the mother takes precedence over this very, very early form of human life. Thats my own personal view. So its a more nuanced point of view which i think is, actually, it is jewish, but its also very british. As far as homosexuality is concerned, or i think you asked about gay marriage. Well, look, my view is this, that i think and this is my view about rights, the rights agenda in general. I think there is a very important distinction to be made between the public and the private. What people do in their private lives should be respected, and people should not be disadvantaged or persecuted for what they do in their private life. Where the private life becomes taken into the public culture so that Public Institutions will change, then i think its more of a problem. So, for example, park homosexuality for a moment. The thing that most concerns me is the destruction of the traditional father, mother, father, two mother, father, looking after their children while the children are growing up. In personal terms, marriages founder one would be less than compassionate if one doesnt accept that fact. But its a Necessary Evil, if you like; divorce, fatherless child. Its a Necessary Evil in certain circumstances, not desirable. So in personal terms, you know, one is compassionate. In public terms whats happened in britain which is so disastrous is that thats kind of made a kind of, the compassion to the personal have made a kind of terrible jump so that, um, its become now, you know, its a womans right to bring into the world a child without a father. Well, how can it be right to bring into the world a child [inaudible] personally, i think thats wrong. Thats the job between the personal and the public. Now, as far as gay marriage is concerned, theres no question that in times gone by, in recent times gone by homosexuals had a terrible time living, you know, in a furtive manner, disparaged or discriminated against, targets of rilification and abuse vilification and abuse and sometimes violence. Terrible, terrible. I would not wish to go back to that for one moment. Furthermore, i have a great deal of sympathy for gay people, because i can see that what they want is just to be like everybody else. They want to live the same kind of life as everybody else. They dont want to be paid to feel different. They want to enjoy the same sorts of things; stability, family, love, companionship. All those things. I have every sympathy for that. And i have every sympathy for gay couples who live together. Thats fine. Its none of my business. I dont care. If people are happy in their private lives, thats great. Fine. Gay marriage, i think, is different because i think its a category error. I think marriage is of necessity , um, not as it has been kind of reconceived in the heterosexual world as a kind of partnership, as a kind of contract which could be broken. Marriage is not that. Its not a contract. Its not a partnership. It contains elements of contract, it contains elements of partnership, but marriage is a union, a coming together of two individuals who make a completely different kind of entity. A married couple is a union unlike any other couple, any other partnership. Its not a partnership. Its not a business partnership. Its not a contractual partnership. Its a union in which the two people fuse, and they fuse because they are not the same. They are complementary. And the reason that they fuse and the reason why marriage as a fusion so important to us as a society is because it is a the way we create is because that is the way we create humanity. That is the way we create the next generation of human beings. And a marriage that endures is the best way of nurturing those human beings. Thats what matters to me. Thats what drives me. The collapse of that understanding and the replacement of that understanding by this idea that a marriage is, its really just a contract, and its a contract which brings certain privileges. And why shouldnt everybody have that contract . I sympathize, i sympathize, but actually if you give it to, if you, if you give it to people outside that idea that its the two complementary elements of what makes a human being coming together, one you erode once you erode that, then you basically, whether you want to or not, you do inescapably, in my view, undermine the whole notion of what marriage is. And if you undermine whole notion of what marriage is, its no longer a question of wanting to be nice to people who are gay, which i do, its a question of undermining something that is of such importance not just to heterosexuals, but also to homosexuals. Because if our society collapses, and i believe that the married family which nurtures new human beings is at the very core of protecting the society that we all take for granted, that we all value so much, if you undermine and erode the Core Institution that guarantees all those freedoms and that tolerance, then all of us, heterosexual and homosexual, are going to be the losers, because were going to fragment. We are fragments not because of the gay marriage thing, because of what heterosexuals have dope to the idea of marriage have done to the idea of marriage. Theyve made it contingent, theyve made it less than something it should be which is something, i was going to say sacred, but that sounds too religious. I dont really mean that. I mean something that is unique, completely unique. And theyve made it just like a contract. And as a result, heterosexual marriage is going down the tubes. With the results we can all see. And its a great shame that, you know, gay people who, as i say, i understand where theyre coming from. I sympathize greatly. But however much one wants to be, to show compassion which i think is very necessary to people who just want to be like everybody else, if the cost of that is to basically destroy one of the pillars of our society so that we all suffer, well, i think then well actually have to have the kinds of conversation which, hopefully, will encourage everybody to understand what the stakes are here and adjust their attitudes accordingly. Host and this is booktv on cspan2. Were talking with author and columnist Melanie Phillips. Matthew in silverdale, washington, please go ahead with your question or comment. Matthew, you still with us . Matthew is no longer with us. Mark in kingston, new hampshire. Caller yes, hi, ms. Phillips. You truly, truly are a brilliant person and a very, very interesting to listen to. And i find it difficult disagreeing with anything you say. However, i am a little bit concerned earlier in the program you said something about how while america has the history of slavery, of the institution of slavery where we dont have that in Great Britain, and i know you didnt mean that how it sounded. As you know better than i, at the time slavery, the institution took hold in this country, these were all british colonies, these were all british subjects. Guest ah. Caller lets look at india, the treatment of natives in india and black africa. Britain is one of my idols. Theres so many institutions in this country that are british, and this is not a knock. But lets just not forget because i know you didnt mean that how it sounded. Guest yeah. Caller theres a very wellspoken writer in this country, ann coulter, who tries to blame the democrats on slavery and all that. And i know that youre, you know, a very well of of thinking conservative. But ill leave it at that. I cant believe that you meant that how it sounded. Guest right. No, i think youre right. I, you know, of necessity was speak anything fairly shorthand fashion, so let me explain a bit more what i meant and to agree with you and to explain a bit more. I was referring specifically to black slavery in america in the context of the question at the time who was talking about the particular experience of slavery in america, um, as an influence on the education system. And the point i was trying to make was that we didnt have black slavery in britain in the way that you had it in america. Now, youre absolutely right that britain was involved in the slave trade during the empire. You mentioned india, there were other areas, too, in the world, obviously. But the point about slavery as far as britain is concerned is that, yes, britain was involved in the slave trade, but britain took the lead in abolishing the slave trade, and thats something thats often forgotten when and the slave trade, you know, to bring out the live trade. And the other thing about slavery is not a white on black thing. It its a black on black thing. Kind of way in which this whole debate is kind of skewed a bit, i think. I dont know whether you would agree with me. Clearly, the role that europeans played in the slave trade, the role that americans, white americans played in black slavery was, you know, reprehensible and regrettable, but two things, you know, i think, have been brought to mind to be fairminded about this particular issue. First of all, it was white europeans, the british who abolished the slave trade. Secondly, slavery has never been simply a whiteonblack phenomenon, its been a blackonblack phenomenon, too, and still is. Host half hour left in our program on in depth on booktv. Marie or mary in camp very day, arizona. Hi. Caller hi. Oh, i have so many comments now that its amazing. You are a brilliant thinker, maam, and i wanted to ask you, have you read much of g. K. Chesterton . Guest ive read some, but not a great deal, im afraid. Caller because many of the things that you are espousing are paraphrasing some of the things that he had said, and it was just, there are parallels between your form of thought. And i think do some more reading, youll enjoy it. And then i had, um, another personal thing. Is there a gentleman named mike maloney still working at the photo desk . Hes an old friend at the daily mail. [laughter] host you know what . Lets leave it there. Lets get her views on g. K. Chesterton, who is guest who is host who is g. K. Chesterton . Guest well, he was an author, british author. I dont know him very well. Ive encountered him a little but not a great deal. Um, and certainly hes not been an influence on me at all. [laughter] host and do you know the gentleman to whom guest im afraid i dont. I hope im not, you know, he may still be there, but to be perfectly frank, i dont go into the office, the daily mail, that often. I dont know many people who work there. And thats my excuse. [laughter] host so you do your column from home . Guest im sorry . Host you do your column from home . Guest i do, yes. Host once a week . Once every two weeks . How often . Guest i have a regular weekly slot which appears in mondays callly mail. Thats my, thats my slot. And in additioning i occasionally write other pieces, too, depending on whats happening, and, you know, what the paper wants, what i want to write. Its a fairly flexible arrangement. But i do have a regular weekly slot. Host this email from chris in reading, connecticut. Thank you, im enjoying your interview immensely, look forward to following your column. There is a pervasive sense among people he knows on the right that the decay and destruction of the ethic and strengths of western society is irreversible, the expansion of liberalism by creating widespread dependence on an evergrowing government is taking us beyond the point of no return not just in the u. S. , but worldwide. Do you see any way back at this late stage of the game . Guest well, you know, im this may surprise people who think of me as a bit of a pessimist, but i am actually an incurable on optimist. I dont believe its ever over until the fat lady sings. You know, if we were sitting around in britain in the 18th century, in coffee shops in britain and having our hot chocolate together and we would no doubt be bemoaning the state of britain, the state of the world. And wed be saying to each other, you know what . Its all over. Serial immorality, everyones lying in the gutter drunk from gin, everyones having babies out of wedlock, britains over. Thats it, finished. And you know what . It turned into the 9th century or 9th century 19th century, one of the greatest periods ever. Queen victoria, all of that. Who knew, who knew . On the other hand, we also have in front of us the example of the roman empire which, you know, one day it was there, the next day it was gone. Empires crumble from within. I believe. Thats where the damage is really done. They may, you know, the final, the final thought, the coup de grace, as it were, may be be inflicted by an external foe, but the real problem is if the society has fragmented and crumbled from inside. So your questioner asks a very good question, have we passed the point of no return . I do not believe that we have. I cannot believe that we have. I dont believe we are lemmings going over the cliff. I believe that the problem is we in the west dont know even that we are on the cliff. Let alone that we are about to go over it. And consequently, i believe and you may think that im ridiculously naive optimist for saying this but i believe that if we actually do come to believe, come to realize we are on the cliff and are just about to go over the edge, we all stop. Now, stopping will be painful, no question. No question. It means taking decisions and Setting Society on a course which is going to be, would be very challenging. But it all depends if we think we are going off the edge of that cliff, then i think we would actually pull back. The question is whether enough of us can realize this in time and have enough traction on those who lead us. And even more important, whether from the ranks of those who lead us can come someone who actually has the power of leadership, the quality of leadership. Because at the moment our leaders tend to be followers rather than leaders, which is one of the problems. But its not beyond the bounds of possibility that we could find ourselves, i dont know, five years down the track, i dont know, two years, ten years with leaders of the western world who do come forward with a very, very strong idea of the dangers that are in front of us and what we need to do to avert them and start putting those into effect. In which case i think we can, you know, come to a screeching and jutteering halt before we go over. Whether that will happen, i dont know. Its one of the things im, in my own little way, trying to do and one of the reasons why im so keen to have, you know, a bigger platform on which to do it. To sound the alarm and not just to sound the alarm, but also to build and this is where my own imprint comes in to build a community of likeminded souls. I know there are so many people out there who do think like me and who feel disenfranchised. I cant believe in the politicians from the left, from the right, who do i go to, what do i do . And i think that by building a community of likeminded souls and by building a kind of, a conversation we can actually get a good ball rolling here. Host Melanie Phillips, we havent had much of a chance to talk about your 2003 book, the assent of woman a history of the Suffrage Movement. But i did want to ask you, what was the contagious disease act . Guest the contagious diseases act, well, this was a true moral panic which was going on in the, in various stages throughout the 19th century. It was all to do with the terror of prostitution. The horror of prostitution. And the very, very strong desire by a whole bunch of people to curb prostitution. And to prevent the diseases that prostitutes were said to be promulgating like venereal disease. And what was so explosive about this and what meant that the contagious diseases act row led directly to the female Suffrage Movement was that behind the contagious diseases act lay what the feminists of the time, what the women of the time and what inspired their feminism, what they believed to be a double standard, that the men using the prostitutes were deemed to be simply satisfying their male urges. And that everybody knew that was so, and the men were just patted on the head, and that was how men were. But the women who serviced them, the prostitutes were regarded as the lowest of the low, and more than that they were regarded the carriers of disease. They were subhuman l. Almost. And they were subjected to the contagious diseases act which was designed to stop the spread of venereal diseases by prostitutes. Those acts didnt just bring into train, um, bring in their train a whole set of punitive measures towards prostitutes, but what really got women going was that they involved an internal examination to see whether they were diseased. And for the women of the time, this was akin to rape. They were being raped. And they were being raped as a result of a disgusting double standard. Anyway, the rows over this were quite complicated, and the people among do ranks of women and among the ranks of feminists that took different positions, some of them or were coming from from an evangelical tradition, and today wanted to stamp out pros and they wanted to stamp out prostitution altogether. Some wanted to stamp out men altogether. [laughter] some of them sum my wanted to be them simply wanted to be hygienic. Basically, the tremendous row over this, this went on for decades on and off, radicalized large numbers of women. It got them organized. It got them writing pamphlets. I got them having meetings. It got them speaking in public. Theyd never spoken in public in their lives. Women didnt speak in public, it wasnt done, it wasnt nice, it wasnt genteel. There they were on platforms, and not just speaking in public, but speaking about internal examinations and prostitution and sexuallytransmitted diseases. And everybody was so horrified. And the reaction toughened these women. It gave them an infrastructure of protest. It gave them the experience of being agitators. It gave them a taste for influencing public debate. Theyd never entered into public debate in their lives. They hadnt had the vote. They werent civic beings. And that whole set of experiences led directly to the formation of the female Suffrage Movement which was fed by other things. It was fed apropos our previous conversation, by an absolute obsession with ending slavery, the slavery of every individual by not having the vote. The slavery of animals through vivid section, would you believe, experimentation on ap malls. This was one of the an medical schools. This was one of the great crusades of the time because it was slavery, a form of slavery. The slavery of women at the hands of men. And these things all fed into the suffrage women. But the contagious diseases act, i would say, was probably the single most important factor in the radicalization of women in the 19th century which led directly to the vote. Host tom in south hampton, pennsylvania, please go ahead with your question or comment for Melanie Phillips. Caller melanie, you are truly a saint. I have so many things to do today and cant tear myself away. [laughter] as regards to influencing the public debate, i wonder if you would speak to how do we do that when the left believes that 100 of what the right says is wrong here in the United States . So immediately when a subject is brought up, the opinion of the right is wrong regardless of the circumstances. Guest yeah. Its a very great problem and one, you know, which has influenced and affected me over the years, because ive had exactly the same problem. As soon as you say anything, you know, youre labeled the the right, and its like a sort of, its like a sort of label thats hung round your neck, isnt it . Dont go there. Dont listen to him, dont listen to her because shes the right and, therefore, his or her opinions are of no account. Um, how do you, how do you deal with it, um, i think, i think its by simply keeping on keeping on. A bit vague as that may sound, but it is the only way of doing it. And by continuing to write and speak wherever we can and to do so above all in ways that give the lie to the lie of the left. Which, you know, to make our points in a civil and courteous fashion and to make them in a way which accepts that they are fair, valued arguments on the other side and just to keep on doing that and to try wherever possible to build communities of people like ourselves doing it. And that way we kind of, you know, force our way in gently but determinedly into the public debate and pry it open. As i said before, i dont know whether you heard me say this, but you may feel youre getting nowhere, you may feel that youre sort of, you know, speaking into a kind of fog and nobody can see you, nobody can hear you. Its not like that. Actually, people are listening. They may not say anything, they may not be worth it may be more than their lifes worth to say anything in public. But theyre listening. Theyre thinking. And if you present your arguments in a courteous and civil fashion and its based on evidence and reality, they think, and a lot of them process these thoughts. And after a while, months, weeks, months, years, whatever, suddenly you find Public Opinion has shifted mysteriously. But its not mysterious because its a process thats going on all the time that we may as i say, we may think that we are, that our words arent carrying any weight, but if they are true and, again, you may think im a bit naive, but i actually believe that ultimately, eventually truth does win. It may take a while. It may take a long time. There may be much grief along the way. There may be much pain and anguish and worse a along the way. But ultimately, truth does win, and tyrants are overthrown. We just have to keep going. Host michael from new york emails in, i feel the biggest problem is the lack of training in logic. Logic or Critical Thinking used to be a major part of the academic curriculum, but now its not taught anywhere. Do you see a renewal of that topic in our educational system . Guest well, i dont see a renewal of logic at the moment, because, um, it relates to what we were talking about earlier, that, um, whats gone down the tubes is, in my view, reason. And reason has gone down the tubes because we have a kind of prevailing intellectual ethos which has told us theres no such thing as truth. And, you know, if theres no truth, you cant have reason. And so we have to kind of unravel all of that. You cant have logic, again, unfortunately, until you restore truth and reason. And i dont think thats beyond the bounds of human endeavor in the ways that weve been talking about during in this whole discussion. Its very difficult. For all the reasons that weve been alluding to. But, um, if you keep on rying trying to pull public debate back to the territory of evidence, of factual evidence, of reality, of truth, separating truth from lies and all of that, then eventually you do get back to logic. Having said that, there is one specific thing that ive always thought. I wrote it in my book on educational surprises, and i think this is there i i dont know if this was true in america, but in britain it was very true. One of the things that happened in our education system, we used to when i was a child, i was taught how to write essays. An essay had a particular structure. You started with a proposition. You then had a counterproposition or more than one counterproposition, and you then arrived at a conclusion. That taught you how to think. It taught you how to think logically on the basis of evidence. It taught you not to imagine, not to pant size. It taught fantasize. It taught you to ground your arguments if reality and to apply logic to progress from one stage to another and awe arrive at a conclusion. Now, in britain the essay was virtually abolished. Instead of the essay, we had the story. Because what was prized above all was the creative imagination. People were encouraged to imagine. Children were taught to imagine, to construct fantasies. Thats fine. Im entirely in favor of imaginative thinking, creative thinking, fantasies, story, novels, fiction. Fantastic. I enjoy them as much as anybody. But they are fantasies. Its not logic. Its not evidence. Its not reason. It is fantasy. And consequently, we replaced the ability to reason and to think by the ability to imagine and to fantasize. And so we becauseically replaced fact basically replaced fact by fiction, and this is the confusion of the age. Host crystal in madison, mississippi, thank you for holding on. Youre on booktv on cspan2 with Melanie Phillips. Caller thank you for taking my call. Ms. Phillips, ive enjoyed you today. And as i was listening to you, um, i kept thinking of hypocrisy, abuse, double standards some of of which you talked about. Some of the standards that you, um, are talking about today are great indeed, but certainly everybody wasnt given an opportunity to live by those standards. Your, the caller before talked about how do we return to those standards, and i think the right needs to start by cleaning up their own house. If you have double standards, hypocrisy and abuse of power, people are going to reject those notions outright in anybody who espouses those beliefs. So until the right can clean up their own house and make sure that and while they have righteous indignation, let it be across the board. You know, i can hear you if your righteous indignation is only for those things that affect whats in your best interests and not in my best interests. So i wondered if you could comment on that. Host thank you, crystal. Guest i firmly agree. I think hypocrisy among politicians, um, is, you know, it really seriously gets in the way. And im, as i say, im not familiar with the details of your, of your political controversies, but insofar as politicians are saying one thing and doing another, for sure thats pretty intolerable. One needs, i think fashionable word is transparency. I would call it honesty and integrity. You need politicians to stand up for certain things that are important and value and to live but those and to be consistent so that you can trust them, you know . You may disagree with them, but you know what they mean what they say and they say what they mean and where theyre coming from. But i would make one further specific point. You talk about, you know, politicians on the right. It seems to me that particular point of hypocrisy is left slightly to one side. Im aware that your Republican Party is in a bit of trouble. It doesnt seem to know what its doing. Its thrashing around, its veering off into extremes, or its being told that theyre rinos, republicans in the name only. Theres a tremendous amount of argument, more heat than light. There are certain key tasks for any people who want to repair society. And it seems to me related to one of the themes thats been coming off in this particular discussion over and over again, education. So much of what were talking about or so much of what ive been talking about thats gone wrong has its origins in the collapse of education which, as weve just been hearing and talking about, um, has kind of stopped. People have stopped teaching people how to think, how to think properly and stop giving people the kind of knowledge that they need to equip them with the map to find their way around the world, around the universe. And it just seems to me that theres so much that needs attention in your American Education system just as in my british education system. And im not aware, maybe im wrong, but im not aware that republicanism has made this a really key objective to get to the roots of whats gone wrongment i dont just wrong. I dont just mean the structure thats important. But im talking about the actual ideas that have got into the educational bloodstream for decades now in both america and britain. In britain, um, our government is making a tab at this. I dont know whether its going to succeed. But it actually has understood for the first time that i can remember, you have politicians who understood that whats gone wrong in education is not simply to do with structure, its to do with whats going on in here, whats going on in teachers minds, whats going on in the teaching of teachers, whats gone on with the assumptions behind what us actually means. And it seems to me that a lot of what weve been talking about today, the sort of concerns people have, the inability to connect with politicians who actually do reflect the need to address the problems that really need to be addressed, we have to start with practicalities, dont we . And, you know, what are the ways in which those who are concerned about repairing society, whatever side of the political spectrum they come from, one of the key areas for them, i think, is to say, you know what . Somethings gone terribly wrong here with the way we think and the way we deal with knowledge and the way we are no longer educating our young. And thats what we have to address. And for me, far be it for me to tell americans how to conduct your politics, but for me that would be a priority. Host in 1985 you published doctors dilemma. In that book you write the power of medicine to prevent nature from taking her course has been massively offended, and with that greater power has come an almost intolerable extension of moral choice. You go on to found principles to unlock the dilemmas of medicine. Number one, tell the truth, accept responsibility, respect autonomy of the patient. In, where did this book come from and whyn 1985 . Guest um, well, thats a very long time ago, 1985, especially in terms of medical ethics, because so much has changed in terms of medicine and medical technology. The dilemmas that i was talking about then, you know, exponentially increased. I was approached to write it by a doctor who was at the time hes now sadly died, he died very young but at the time he was the official who serviced the medical Ethics Committee of the British Medical Association which is the professional organization representing clinicians in britain. Finish and, um, this was in 1985, and i had not really thought about this at the time. But he came to me, and he wanted me to help him write the book because hed seen he wanted me to help him write a book about medical ethics because hed noticed the kinds of things id been writing in the guardian. And it had struck him that i was writing from, you know, a proper moral position. And he was very concerned even atta early stage, the mid 80s, as the official in carjack of medical ethics at the British Medical Association. Hehe was perceived two things happening. On the one happened, you had this tremendous advance in medical technology which was creating the dilemmas, the creation of the first test tube baby was around that time. These questions about extending life at the end of life and whether you should intervene, and the technology was creating dilemmas which we had never heard of before. At the same time, he observed among his doctors, among the doctors who were his colleagues, he noticed the beginnings of a moral slide. What i was beginning to pick up in the general cultural atmosphere, this business of, you know, there is no such thing as objective truth, but also theres no such thing as objective morality. The individual reigns supreme. My choice and everyone elses choirks and no one has the right to deny me my choice. Everything is the subjective individual makes his own morality. And he saw that beginning to get in the way of what he considered to be the cardinal ethical imperative of medicine. First, do no harm. First, do no harm. And he saw there was an erosion. So theres an erosion of respect for human life. And i think this happened subsequent to our writing the book. What i observed about this a great deal, this erosion of the respect for the innate respect for human life among doctors has moment that they no longer know the difference between dying and killing, many of them. They say at the the end of life, in this debate about euthanasia is no longer a debate about euthanasia in britain. The no longer a debate about mercy killing. Its a debate about allowing people to i die. But what theyre talking about is not allowing people to die. Its about taking a course of action which takes someone who is not dying and as a result of the course of action the doctor takes, the person dies. Now, in my view, that is killing. That is very different from not prolonging the process dying thats taking place already. The moral distinction absolutely crucial. But increaseingly, the doctor saw in the 1980s even at that stage he saw doctors were no longer able to make distinction. And ask as a result, he was and as a result, he was worried that doctors would turn into killers and would pretend to be simply helping people to die. That was only one example. Theres a whole host of other examples to do with genetics, genetic engineering, as i say, test tube babies, how long ago that seems. A variety of creme mas. But her is vived that the erosion of moral values was going create if we werent very careful a criminalized society in which medical ethics went to the wall. And thats why he wanted me to helply the book, and thats why i helped write the book. Ands stan in palmdale, california, weve only got a minute or two left. Go ahead. Guest yes, i caller yes, i disagree with the guest on so many things, its hard to know where to start. On the other hand, its good to hear opinions i disagree with. As far as israel goes, how can the guest expect israel to, i mean, the arabs to, to, um host go ahead. Caller im sorry. How can, um, arabs negotiate with israel as long as israel keeps on stealing arab land on the west bank . And then one comment. I dont believe god is a real estate agent. Host and, melanie full lips, unfortunately with a big question like that, you have 60 [laughter] guest well, its not stealing arab land. This gentleman would be well advised to look at the history in which in the 1920s the International Community said the jews alone were entitled to settle all this land, including the land thats disputed, because they alone had had this land originally of their own Historic National kingdom. And this is a very complicated issue, but that is the reality. People really, many people dont understand that the jews returned to their own historic homeland as an inalienable historic, moral and legal right. And once people realize that, as most americans i believe realize