The myth is the central symbol around which what some people call american exceptionalism has been organized around the frontier that meant on the myth and the land the Frontier West came to symbolize a certain attribute to identity that think about the United States unlike other nations has the ability and the election read to use expansion that was built into well before the frontier in the late 19th century became the symbol of expansion the social experience to move one is foundational to us identity. No other nation has been so able to organize domestic politics through the actual reality of expansion and then increasingly the mythology to point to the frontier and respond to social problems with limitless and endless growth in these were the foundational premise of the United States and the founding fathers. And those only for the declaration of independence wasnt just add natural right that the condition of all natural rights. And what is his saxon ancestors to escape germany an
The frontier into the certain attributes of american identity. Its been the ability and the luxury to use expansion which was built into well before the frontier when it became the symbol of expansion it was foundational to the u. S. Identity and no other nation has been so able to organize its domestic politics through both the expansion and increasingly the mythology of expansion being able to point to the frontier and say respond to social problems and social demands with a promise of limitless for endless growth and these were some of the foundational premises of the Founding Fathers from the beginning. Thomas jefferson and the very First Political track three years before the declaration of independence and the right to move into the right to migrate west wasnt just a natural right that the condition of all natural rights that allowed the ancestors to escape germany as it was comfortabl consular datio the British Isles to the atlantic to of course the new world and it was the abil
Senior Political Correspondent for the center for public integrity, a Nonprofit Center for Investigative Journalism in d. C. In 1996 he received the gerald r. Ford prize and the aldo Beckman Award from the White House Correspondents Association for coverage of the presidency. The first time anyone had captured both the wars awards ie year. Hes a frequent guest lecturer at various yufruniversity inclu stanford, harvard, the United States military academy, university of chicago and other institutions abroad. He is the author of three books, clarence darrow, attorney for the damned and chip oneal. Tonight his third book on Richard Nixon, a biography of the 37th president of the United States. This book has won the pen america award for the best biography of the year, the New York Historical societys barbara and david zalosnik book prize in American History and was a finalist for the pulitzer prize. After the program, please join us in the atrium where his book is for sale and signing. Ple
Covers labor for bloomberg law. Let me begin with a question front and center in the Democratic Party the debate for medication medicaid , who arefor all advocating a public option and keeping private insurance. What is your view . I thought it created a false choice between Union Members who bargained Health Care Benefits and millions of americans who have enjoyed the expansion of health care through the medicaid system. For decades, our members have been fighting for health in this nation and i think the best of the democratic bait is when we stick to the principal of how are we going to cover americans with quality, Affordable Health care for everyone. Host you support private Health Insurance along with public plans . Guest yes, we support every policy that allows for more people to be covered for health Care Coverage. That is why we think it is so important for working people to be able to join together and bargain a better life by having a seat at the table with their employers a
Lawyers, lawyers donts play fair. They argue two things. They can argue, look, the person didnt do the crime. The person wasnt guilty. But usually in a political scandal the argument is there wasnt enough proof to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high standard. Its not theyre blameless, its not theyre innocent. But we say wed rather let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent man. So were were loading it to a very high standard. The other thing that lawyers argue, which the public sometimes has trouble with, is procedure. If you didnt get that evidence into the courtroom properly, then it cant come in. If you didnt share exculpatory information properly with defense, those are procedural violations which can equally invalidate a verdict. And im happy to argue both. So, thats thats kind of what were going to go through. One word from last week. Last week was the allure of the white house tapes. And i went through a bunch of them with you, perhaps too fast. What i fi