And public sphere or connected it. Its deepened it that the women are feeling that the public sphere particularly all of this public drinking at elections is causing a problem for them in their households. So they say if were going to protect our sphere, this domestic sphere we need to have a whole lot less drinking in the public sphere. So if they succeed in this Temperance Movement and the public sphere becomes one thats much more temperant than the argument is the domestic sphere and public sphere will be in more harmony than they are when you have this high level of drinking, both public and private. Yes . Wouldnt increasing the amount of alcohol go against the idea of increasing productivity because that would promote things like protests among the workers . Well, it might but workers like to have their jobs. This is a time in which the Union Movement was very weak. So not all employers can get away with this but most employers can get away with it because even where people are unionized there are other issues that are more important to them such as having better pay. So sometimes employers are improving pay a little bit at the same time that they are taking away the provision of this alcohol in the work place. Now, i say sometimes. Often the employer is just taking away the alcohol provision and not improving the pay but workers have to take it because they are not unionized. This is a time in the country when the government, state, and national do not recognize unions. Thats a development of the 20th century. Okay. So the work place is changing. Now, again i want to remind you most americans stay farmers. A lot of farmers are still providing alcohol so its not so much that the workplace is changing for farmers, its that a lot of farmers are becoming evangelical christians and they want to reduce Alcohol Consumption because its in their conviction, the moral thing to do. Some employers are not only eliminating the alcohol they provide in the work place, they are also telling their workers, dont you bring your own flask in here. No more drinking on the job. Some employers go even farther where they can get away with it. They say if you really want to keep your job here, id like you to go to the local Evangelical Church and id like to you take a pledge of temperance, and preferably one of abstinence. Now, this means of alcohol. Now, a lot of workers would say no way, but workers concerned about keeping their job would say, okay, ill see you on church on sunday. So this is developing attention. Not all workers want to go along with what their employers want them to do in terms of changing their behavior not simply in the workplace but also in their lease youleas leisure time. Some workers go along with it. Some dont. It also becomes a class divide. Now which social class do you think is going to be pushing hardest for temperance . Upper. Well, yeah. The people who will be owning these workshops or owning farms. So what class who we call that. Middle class and wealthy people, the people who would be most resistant would be the people who feel that they most need alcohol to cope with their hard lives. That would be working people. Im talking about a general pattern. You will find plenty of working men who joined temperance groups because they wanted to get better control of their lives. I dont want you to go away from this thinking all workers wanted to get drunk. Thats not true. There were many workers who cared about temperance but the people who cared most deeply about temperance were middle class people. Any questions so far . Now, theres also so i talked about theres something of a gender divide. Women care very deeply about temperance. Most of the resistance to it will be male. Its a class divide. Much stronger among middle class people than among working class people. Theres also an ethnic divide. People who are already born in the United States were more prone to embrace the Temperance Movement than were immigrants. Immigrants often felt this was a form of cultural warfare. Theres also a religious divide. Many of the immigrants to america were catholics. They didnt quite see the same problem with alcohol that protestants were identifying. They felt that attempts to reduce their Alcohol Consumption was a way of attacking their ethnicity and faith. If you wanted to find the setting where you would find probably the greatest commitment to preserving traditional customs of drinking, it would be in neighborhoods that would have a large number of immigrants, relatively poor, often catholic. They would just say its none of your business what we do on our own time. Leave us alone. There becomes a political divide. By the 1830s and 40s, weve got a new pair of political parties. The old federalist gone. The old jeffersonian republicans have evolved. What are the names of the two parties we find during the 1830s and 1840s . Go ahead. The democrats and the whigs. Now, the whigs drew very heavily upon those social groups that favored temperance. So the whig party made a commitment to pushing temperance because the whig party was strong in the northeast. Strong among business owners. Strong among evangelical christians. Although women couldnt vote. If they could vote, they would have voted overwhelmingly in the northeast for the whigs. The democratic party, on the other hand, draws support from those groups that tend to be most skeptical about temperance. Immigrants, working class americans, more rural americans. So theres something of a Cultural Divide thats emerging in the country that has political consequences. Now the Temperance Movement does start to have an impact during the 1830s and 1840s. Initially, its in the form of what we call moral swasion. Thats like persuasion. Now for example, if youre watching television, you will see ads where there are warnings against the consequences of drunk driving. Now, theres certainly laws against drunk driving, but theres also a Publicity Campaign thats mounted by social groups and by the government to try to persuade people to change their behavior. Similar efforts to try to persuade people today to stop smoking cigarettes. Thats what we call moral swasion. An attempt to persuade people to make the choice themselves to change their behavior. Temperance initially focused on moral suasion and achieved some gains. It essentially became disrespectable to be a middle class person and to be a heavy drinker. Middle class people start to police themself. They dont like to associate with people who are heavy drinkers. It starts to dissipate in the middle class particularly in the northeast and midwest. It persists in the working class where working class people are reinforcing more traditional behavior. Temperance groups are finding that theres kind of a cap to how far they can go in achieving the reduction of drinking if they just rely on moral suasion. So the alternative is so get localities and states to pass laws that would forbid the sale, the consumption, the production of alcohol. Now, youre thinking about the famous prohibition law that Congress Passed in the 1920s. Were talking about an earlier period when it is not a federal issue. Its a state issue. There are a number of states now that take up this question of should they ban the production, the sale, and the consumption of alcohol . The first state to do this is the state of maine in 1851. So this first attempt at prohibition in the country was done at the state level. The very first state to try it was maine. Now, maine is a northeastern state, had a lot of evangelicals. It had a lot of middle class entrepreneurs. It was very strong for the whig party, so its an ideal place to try this for the first time. During the next four years, another 12 states will adopt their own version of the maine law. All of the states were in the north. All of the New England States adopted such laws. New york adopted it and about half of the states in the midwest. Did any Southern States adopt such a law . No. So were seeing that the country is dividing over the issue of temperance and particularly over the attempt to use political prohibition to force people to change their behavior. I have a question. Go ahead. Why does the southern part of the United States not go not pass prohibition laws . This is a very good question. Can anybody think of reasons why the south might be particularly reluctant to jump on board with this northern phenomenon . Yes . With the examples of a factory theres not as many in the south. Theres not as many factories. We talked about industrial capitalism being one of the three sources. That force is particularly weak in the south. People in the south work outside. They are working outside. Its a very rural part of the country. Yes . The town Hall Meetings okay. Its harder to organize social groups in the south because the population is so dispersed. Yes. You dont give alcohol to the slaves. So its all for themselves. So they think of it as an important right of being a free person is to drink all you want. Do they want outsiders telling them not to . No. Theres also a developing suspicion about the north and any kind of social movement that develops there. Its perceived to be some sort of dangerous fad and that northerners shouldnt be telling southerners what to do so part of it is just trying to defend traditions in the south because they dont want to do anything thats new and comes from the north. Traditions of drinking suits their way of living just fine. Now thats not to say there werent southerners who favored temperance. There were. But there werent enough of them to pass any laws. In general, southerners do not like an activist government. They dont like governments passing laws making people change their behavior. They just dont like it. They dont like it when their own states do it. They especially dont like it if any outside government tries to do it. Now, why do you suppose southerners are so sensitive about an activist government . What kind of activity by a government might be especially concerning to them . Yes . The emancipation of slaves. Just temperamentally, they dont want white governments to get it into their head that they can do things like mess with peoples property. Now, messing with tavern keepers property or distillers property is not as bad as messing with slavery because so much was invested in that. Its a slippery slope. If a government thinks it has the right to shut down distilleries or shut down taverns, whats to stop them from shutting down slavery . So just to be on the safe side, southerners, meaning white southerners, likes to say the government that governs best is the government that governs least. So they didnt like what they were seeing in the north. These northerners using state governments to try to change peoples behavior. Question. Werent they also still mad over the protective tariffs and how they had to they are. Who is it thats pushing the protective tariffs. The whigs, the same people pushing temperance. Over the next couple of hours programs normally seen on cspan 2 tv. Up next doug bandow and herman pirchner. Then Senior Adviser hassan abbas talks about return of power of the taliban. Also bruce herschensohn, his political career and Foreign Policy. Next, authors join david keen of the Washington Times to discuss the ongoing conflict in ukraine. This discussion was part of freedomfest, a libertarian Conference Held annually in las vegas. Its about 45 minutes. Youre probably wondering what ive done wrong to be dragged up before congress 70 times to testify. Never been indicted. Ladies and gentlemen, its a great pleasure to be with you today. Our topic today is hot spots around the world, the smaller version of freedomfest last january, i gave a talk on ukraine. Thats before the thing heated up. Mark thought it would be a good idea if we looked at places around the world an whats likely to happen. We have no better panelist than the group we have today. Because weve got gentlemen who have immense experience working in many areas of the world. I think youll enjoy what they have to say. To my far, far right is david keen. David is now the opinion editor of the Washington Times, which means he oversees all the editorials and all the commentary. The Washington Times is in the process of really expanding. They are doing a National Digital edition. I suggest that you all subscribe, because that makes it easy for you to get my weekly column also, plus all the others. Its a great newspaper. Its growing unlike most other newspapers in the world. David is a good part of this change. You may remember david for many years was chairman of american conservative union. He was also president of the National Rifle association. I know a lot of you would be opposed to that. But hes done great things all his life and has been in and out of government and had positions advising president s. Then to my far, far right is herman pirchner. Herman has been longtime president of American Foreign policy council. They do great work looking all the time at the hot spots around the world and trying to anticipate whats going to happen long before it does. You could sort of say they are different than the Obama Administration because they actually look ahead. Herman doesnt have to pick up the newspaper as being surprised by whats going to happen next in the world, because he and his staff have been there, know whats going on and great jobs anticipating it. Particularly, most recently, he was front on Ukraine Russia difficulties. They turn on a great publication. I suggest those of you with a few extra dollars may want to join American Foreign policy council. I suspect all of here are interested in Foreign Policy. Its a way of keeping up to date very low overhead operation but they do great work on Foreign Policy and intelligence. Then to my immediate right is my old friend doug bandow, who i knew from Reagan Administration when he was assistant to the president. Hes a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Doug has turned out i dont know how many books, endless articles. One of the worlds most prolific author dealing with Foreign Policy. Were doing a general session today, specializing narrowly, because we all have experience in various parts of the world. It overlaps. If were speaking earlier, one characteristic now is, as we laugh, the world has gotten smaller, which is really true. The planes plane ride from tehran to north korea is pretty short. So the question is, is that the middle east or is it asia or wherever . Were going to start off with david keene, because hes my boss at the Washington Times. Id like to begin. Ive got one more line before that. David is going to set the stage of really the great global struggle thats going on among the political forces, then well get into more of the specifics. David. Thank you, richard. Id like to begin by this great selfpromotioner were doing to suggest that you need to subscribe to the Washington Times also because bandow writes for the times. Not as much as id like. Thats the problem with being editor, youre always being lobbied by the people. The pages are open to pirchner as well. Its important that were meeting on these subjects today, because the American People are confused as to what the stance of the United States ought to be in terms of Foreign Policy and our place in the world. They have gone through a period in which Foreign Policy dominated and think perhaps it can be remade in the american image without a relationship and understanding of cultures and the like. One can argue in the middle east, were still struggling with the shadow of the great war, celebrating 100 years of its beginning. I guess celebration is the wrong word. I remember from the intimate papers of colonel house, who was adviser to woodrow wilson, he said at one point hed had a busy day because they had spent that morning redrawing the map of the world. But fortunately they had managed to finish by noon and enjoyed a good lunch. Thats the kind of attitude that dominates some folks that involve themselves in Foreign Policy debate even today. We pay the cost for that in terms of blood and treasure and wars and struggles we dont need to be involved in. On the other hand, there are those in reaction to that that say United States cant be involved at all. The best policy for the United States is the policy we pursued in the early days of the republic, which is to trade but stay away. Even then early president s dealt with barbery priorities. There was never a complete separation of Foreign Policy from economic interest. The question American People are struggling with, what are the legitimate interests of the United States that need to be protected. For example, in the middle east, earlier age communist empire, facing what amounts to existential threat, sources bent upon our destruction regardless. Do we have an obligation, as would be argued to remake the world in our image. If we could do that, would it work. If we could do that, show we do it. Do we have a right to do it. Ignore the kinds of problems developing. The modern president s, two president s who lost fewer americans than any other in foreign wars were Ronald Reagan and dwight eisenhower, n