Skip to main content

tv   Panel Discussion on the Supreme Court  CSPAN  September 24, 2017 7:06am-8:00am EDT

7:06 am
is on facebook. like us to get publishing news, schedule updates, behind-the-scenes pictures and video, author information and to talk directly with authors doing our live programs. facebook .com/live tv. >> ready? welcome. glad to see such a big crowd at the best law school in brooklyn. all right. and alumni recently suggested that we should say with harvard law school of kings county but i'm not sure that harvard is ready for the compliment. or one thing that is the case and it's one reason we are so proud once again for the 12th time, 12th anniversary of the
7:07 am
brooklyn book festival to get an opportunity to demonstrate what's always been the case which is this great law school is in the forefront. this law school is the center for you learning how to use the power of law for the benefit of our community, the nation and the world and that's no small thing. let's get right at it. you are in for a real treat because we've got two fantastic authors and incredible books and i think you are going to find surprising in many ways as i did when i was able to read them . first is "loving: interracial intimacyin america and the threat to white supremacy" and the second is "one nation after trump: a guide for the perplexed, the disillusioned, the desperate and the not-yet-deported" . and these books at first blush would seem to be very different. having not much in common. after all, one book is about interracial sex, procreation
7:08 am
and marriage. not necessarily in that order but that's what it's about. and the other book by my friend norman ornstein is about erectile dysfunction. and major flaws in governance in our government that have been worsening forthree decades . and yet both books have a lot in common. they both have incredibly bland, noncontroversialtitles . this one by professor sheryll cashin is "loving: interracial intimacy in america and the threat to white supremacy". that's very bland. and then this one is really not two sides and is sort of stayed and write down the road. "one nation after trump: a guide for the perplexed, the disillusioned, the desperate
7:09 am
and the not-yet-deported". [laughter] so okay, both bland titles. both are compelling, incredibly readable, captivating stories about, they are political histories, really with an analysis about how our nation's rulebook, the constitution and practice works. how our laws are written, implemented by theexecutive branch, how they are interpreted by the judicial branch and how they are changed . finally, both books are very much focused on the meeting and the power of we the people, the first three words of the united states constitution. let's get right at and i'm going to start with professor sheryll cashin. professor sheryll cashin, georgetown university has published some outstanding
7:10 am
books and articles, she's passionate about racial justice and equality and this book loving is quite remarkable so i'm going to ask you right at the start very briefly, just in a few minutes, tell us about what motivated you to write this book and what it's about. >> well, "loving", the 50th anniversary of this case, this is the case in which the supreme court struck down dams on interracial marriage. as a law professor i teach the case and i knew the 50th anniversary was coming and it struck me as a refreshing kind of way of commenting on how it is we are so messed up around race and all this division. what my students learned when i teach this case and what i learned in researching it is that the regulation of interracial sex and marriage
7:11 am
or the means by which white supremacy was constructed in this country. and i wanted to tell that story from the beginning, we have been in this dance between the values of universal human dignity and the declaration of independence written by thomas jefferson and the values of supremacy, also written by thomas jefferson. and i wanted to tell this story about how we've been in this dance and i tried to explain it and end on an optimistic note's the book is about so much more than the case. it starts literally with the beginning in america, runs up to the case and it runs forward. the book is not just the screenplay for the movie.
7:12 am
>> no, it's the same case. the same title, "loving". why not try to get the updraft of the movie if you can, right? but the movie starts in 1607. i have before loving, during and after and it's sweet. i tried to tell the story of whiteness. why was whiteness constructed, it's constructed when the slave owning elites wanted to transition from white indentured servitude to black chattel slavery and they had a problem. for the first six decades or so in the virginia colony, there's been a lot of fraternization. indentured white people and
7:13 am
enslaved black and indigenous people fraternize together, sometimes got drunk together, had sex, ran away. there were some marriages and they also rebelled together. and the initial bands on interracial sex happened in the virginia slave code. they want to co-opt indigenous struggling whites and peel them away. and i told the story on the beginning, every time you have an assertion of whiteness and an ideology of whiteness in this country, there's an economic story of plutocrats who hear struggling people of all colors demanding too much of them, peeling whites off and i tell this story and it happens again and again throughout the book and our country. >> i want to ask you a couple of questions, actually to about the writing of this book . and the first thing i want to ask you about is how it's
7:14 am
written. it is beautifully written. it iseloquent , it's literature. it is, i hope i'm not embarrassing you and as a former practicing lawyer i'm not beyond, i can respect obsequiousness but i mean genuinely that this book is written in a way that goes far beyond. your opening introduction could be a freestanding essay for the ages that people would refer to so what i'm going to ask you as an author is that are you striving for that? is there a muse? this is a terrific history but it'swritten beautifully . >> i didn't pay him to say that and i'm not embarrassed, thank you very much. i worked very hard at craft and writing. i intentionally, this is my fourth book. i intentionally have developeda voice as a writer .
7:15 am
i kept a diary from may 6 through 26 and i happen to come across a line in one of those diaries where i said if i was brave, i would admit to myself i want to be a writer. but i, like so many people, was afraid to go ahead and do that and i became a law professor. it's nice to have a day job . but as i've gotten older, and i'm tenured and i'm in my 50s, get emancipated. i just, i go for it and try to write the best books i can speak in my voice, that speak passionately and i am so honored that you use the word literature to describe this book. >> i recommend it to everybody else. we're going to get back and ask you both some questions but i want to turn norm just briefly and ask norman
7:16 am
ornstein who is my friend, i've figured out that his co-author i've known for a total of hundred years plus and norm has been a neighbor for a long time in washington but norm, what prompted you to write this book and tell us about it briefly, what's the theme of the book?>> i wasn't going to write another book. tom mann and i have done many things together over a decade and we did a book in 2006 called the broken branch, how congress is stealing america and how to get it back on track. we did another in 2012 called it even worse than it looks. the american constitutional system collided with the new politics and we updated it in 2016th two it's even worse than it was and i joke but only half joking that ifi did another one it might have to be called run for your lives . and i didn't want to be the
7:17 am
debbie downer of american politics. but the editor, a brilliant editor, tim bartlett who had done those other books called me and got me thinking that it was important to do something now so i came up with the subtitle and with that i recruited ej and tom and we knew that we wanted to get this out as quickly as possible and it would be better if we had three of us and we have the skills that i think are complementary. then i came up with thetitle after that . just thinking about one nation under god. and one nation after trump is meant not just to be once he's gone, it's also a very significant focus on the one nation part . and this is a much more
7:18 am
optimistic book than the others in some ways, oddly enough. >> we will get to that we will get to the optimism part but i could talk for hours about the pessimism part two. >> you could talk for hours, i think you are a lawyer billing by the hour but i know better than that. >> if you are the one doing the billing. >> norm, i've learned a long time ago it's not billing, it's collecting. in any event, especially given the climate we are in, one of the surprising things about this book but you can see it coming along ways is you authors including you and tom who are, you are with aei comedies with brookings but you have a reputation as being in the forefront as straight shooters and objective commenters who love the institutions but on
7:19 am
government so he will be accused of having chosen sides, basically and is that fair? did ej dion, liberal washington post commentator horns while you or bamboozle you? >> let me go back with a little bit of history. it's even worse than it looks came a new york times bestseller in part because of a wonderful and brilliant editor at the washington post, carlos lozada who edited the outlook section of the sunday paper and we did an excerpt the sunday before the book was released monday and he gave it the title let's just say the republicans are the problem and that went viral and we got a lot of, we are on c-span so i will use some of the terms, a lot of feedback from that but a lot of it was pushback from the press corps that simply couldn't deal
7:20 am
with the notion that they are not equivalent. but we didn't come at this as partisan, we came at this as objective social scientists and the fact is that norms had been stranded in a congress and then a political system by one party much more than the other. there are no angels here but you are looking at the difference between jaywalking and manslaughter in terms of what it was doing to the institutions and the nature of our politics. and really turning us from a partisanship that's steeped and indebted to our political system to private and i may have been the first one use the term tribalism back then which has now become commonplace and we are still finding that the false equivalence which was there for the parties but also now this, and i call it the journalism stop us before we kill again phenomenon is
7:21 am
incredible intent need to normalize donald trump and say now he's pivoted. now he's becoming just like other presidents and putting it into a frame that he simply doesn't belong in. and if, if you are going to be intellectually honest, in this process, and you go where the data and where your own experience and observation it to you. and i've had now close to 50 years of working around washington and the institutions, both congress and around presidents and the executive branch and with both parties on an awful lot of things in reform and some substantive areas and i still do to some extent but this is a reality of our politics that has rankled me about journalism is if you don't call out miscreants, and if you basically say they are
7:22 am
all like that, you get to phenomenons, one of which helps lead directly to trump. it is they are all horrible, what could be worse than this and that leads to the what the hell have you got to lose that donald trump used to try to convince african-americans and what are they seeing what got to lose now. but it's also that you end up with a political system where there's no penalty. no penalty for eroding those norms. and that's just a terrible thing and frankly they are being eroded even further in some of the areas we can get to in the senate. >> i ask you about those. norm, you like talking about norms so you are talking about some of the norms that have eroded, maybe you can give a little bit of background, the loose lit controversy that's going on right now. >> everybody knows of course about the shredding of norms with the nomination of merrick garland and the aftermath of the unexpected
7:23 am
and untimely death of justice scalia and now his replacement by neil or such and with that of course the long-standing practice built into the rules for a long time that it would require a super majority vote from the supreme court justice. that's one thing but very long-standing norm in the senate over many many decades is that when nominations are moved for district court and appeals court judges , from particular states, that the senators from the state are consulted and usually that consultation doesn't have to involve picking somebody they
7:24 am
absolutely want, obviously if you've got a democratic president, to republican senators or vice versa you may not have that but it usually involves here's a list of people, tell us who you like and if those senators either one doesn't approve, then they have a loose agenda and if they don't turn it into the judiciary, that nomination goes nowhere. that norm and practice continued through the obama years, the chairman of the judiciary when he was chairman, the democrat lady divided by it but during a time when it was misused in the fashion we had never seen before because you had public senators from states who refused to move forward if nominees even those they had supported in the past in some cases had recommended in the past and it was all about keeping it in the hopes that some point they be able to fill them. and lady who was criticized by many of his colleagues basically believed that this was the way you may and it's to show that kind of courtesy, it would be
7:25 am
reciprocated and now where we have a handful of democratic senators holding up nominations, and in some cases for appeals court judgeships that have been held vacant for a long time, now we are being pushed forward with the nominees and they were consulted. mitch mcconnell is saying we may have to blow it up. >> very briefly, what's wrong with that? why is losing that normal blue slip, what's the cost? >> if you're looking at tribalism, isn't it just in congress, of course it's metastasize out to many states and to the public as a whole. americans see people from the other party as the enemy. trying to destroy their way of life. but we are also seeing short partisanship and even tribalism affect the federal courts. we are seeing these dramatic divisions and let's just pick one example recently. where after we've had
7:26 am
multiple courts say that the redistricting process in texas had gone so far over the line that you had to redraw these lines, the supreme court just block that from moving forward for the 2018 election on a very predictable 5 to 4 vote, partisan vote in effect. and if you start to move in a way in which judges are selected only by one party, solely with the goal of making sure you pick a younger person who will be there for a long time, long after you have any political power which is itself something that is a dramatic blow to the whole notion of a popular democracy, you are no longer in power that your policy gets continued because these are in effect lifetime appointments. but we are also going to end up being pushed and incentivized to pick the most extreme of people and the people who you know are going
7:27 am
to get the vote and that blows up the whole notion of a judicial process with a level of integrity. every one of these norms is there for a reason and they can be infused. >> that's the norm that baked into the system . on the basis that partisanship and short-term political interest is not a motivation of people who have a longer-term so that was one of the constitutional things smooth out over time. but we will get to that a little bit. i want to turn and ask professor cashing a question and that is both of you, you're going to get the same question. >> both of you are incredible optimists in your book. notwithstanding, that you both are chroniclers of some of the worst most obscene if you will episodes in american history. that's disappointing but why are you optimists and why are you hopeful and what is it that you will be accomplished
7:28 am
in the future? >> optimism is a choice. i could have written a very dystopian book but i do not have much hope of a class unity amongst struggling people of the kind that existed in colonial virginia pre-slavery. but one thing that gives me hope in this country is rising a termite point, cultural dexterity and what is that? it is the opposite of colorblindness. it is the acquisition through intimate relationships with a person of a different race or ethnicity of an enhanced capacity for being among people who are different, being those differences and accepting them. rather than demanding and assimilation to your own norms. and i document this in the final part, the third part of
7:29 am
my book. in this country today, right under our noses we are seeing an exponential increase in interracial intimacy, marriage, cohabitation, dating,adoption and friendship . and even para-social or virtual relationships with directors or a black president, you gain affection for in the media. and all the social science shows that white people who have an intimate connection, particularly with a black person, tends to reduce their prejudice, it predicts that they are more likely to be angry about how black people are treated and more likely to engage in collective action to do something about it. 60 percent of people under 30 agree with the critique of the black lives matter movement of police so i argue or speculate, i should say that we are going to reach a
7:30 am
tipping point when a critical mass of whites, not always but a critical mass of whites accepts the loss of centrality of whiteness and wants to be part of multiracial democracy and i, what gives me hope in particular is the transition in california.california in a 20 year period went from being majority white to gridlock to being majority minority tofunctional again in its politics . and it did away with gerrymandering, it is retreating from the war on drugs, investing more in education, leading on climate change. if you look to california in the late 80s it was just as dysfunctional and ungovernable as congress today.
7:31 am
>> let me ask you about another term that you used through the book, racial intimacy. >> interracialintimacy. >> interracial intimacy, correct. and that sex, is that romance , is that procreation, what are you talking about? >> there are different forms of intimacy. cohabitation, marriage, dating, an option. one quarter of adoptions are crossed racial in this country, one quarter. and friendship, i think the most potential impact and when i say friendship, i mean if you sit down and have a meal with someone on a different race, you are likely friends.if you go into their home and vice versa and like i said, it's not rocket science but intimate relations tend to create empathy and while i don't make the silly argument that interracial intimacy in and of itself is going to dismantle white supremacy, what i am saying is when you
7:32 am
take rising cultural dexterity and combine it with other forces, generational change, the dying off of older whites who grew up expecting to bedominant . demographic change, immigration and the acceleration of political engagement by racial minorities, muslim americans, latinos, asians, multiracial people. the fastest growing populations in this country expect experience discrimination, don't like it. and are registering to vote and that phrase will. i think that this country when you take the confluence of those forces could feel very different in five, 10, 15 years out. the term i use, the tipping point i uses geometric progression which i stole from funk and weigle's book,
7:33 am
hoping to get a little of his mojo but oh well. but it's a mathematical concept. and in the early stages of the metric progression, the changes are barely perceptible and i use the analogy of the five year transition from when a majority of americans oppose same-sex marriage to a majority supported it. and i think we may actually be close to the tipping point already , but the popular will is stymied by the electoral college and gerrymandering and voter suppression. >> we may be close to liftoff for cultural dexterity. >> for sanity and functionality.i just think we could start to be functional. i think the tenor of the country would feel very different but for 77,000 votes by the russians, we might be having a different
7:34 am
conversation about where the country is . >> going towards democratic floor accuracy rather than elitism. >> a functioning multiracial floor is pluralism, functioning democracy where the popular will is not subverted by. >> you got. >> okay. so professor norman ornstein, that was great. [applause] you are and bash optimists despite throwing back the covers on some really appalling ornamental dysfunctions and so why are you optimistic and maybe be specific about the three areas where you think we can accomplish something quick i wouldn't say i'm in unabashed optimists, sign and a vast optimists. i'm not unaware of the dangers and we haven't asked essential threats to our way of life and that's true not
7:35 am
just of the governmental level, it's true at the societal level and that's part of it but how many of you saw the movie hunter? a marvelous movie that chris nolan made. and i mentioned for this reason. you have almost the entire. >> the take away, i'm going to step on your punch line. the take away is that citizens can self organize to step in, even when the government can't function. >> you have the entire british army being sitting ducks on the beach at dunkirk . the response from the british military was inadequate and tepid and it was a jolt to the civil society that stepped up. i would make the case and hope that donald trump is our dunkirk. and the jolt in two ways, the first is a lot of the problem , just through pursuit of our book proceeds donald trump. donald trump didn't just emerge from the swap area
7:36 am
that's what had been building into a fetid nest for a long time. you could go back 50 years or more, if you go back to the decline of community that bob putnam pointed out in the book. >> what bill bishop, the journalist pointed out in his book the big's sport that we are increasingly isolated from those different from us because we are moving into communities of like-minded people. you look at the demographic changes and the yawning economic inequality and punctuate that with the unbelievable arrogance of the superrich, some of who are serving in this administration and instead of using their own billions, trying to get taxpayers to pay for their honeymoon and their trips to watch the eclipse among other things. but we've got a jolt and if we didn't have a trouble, now. you might have slipped further. we are finding that we have to miss much greater racial
7:37 am
and ethnic result than we had before. that you look at the university of michigan does the election surveys that are the gold standard for surveys and they have a sort of scale of racial animosity. and you see it growing among white americans not just working-class. wealthier ones and as we see the society changing. and one of the things that struck me cheryl is that some people talk about analogies. and i sometimes use the analogy of reconstruction where you had enormous economic inequality and you had the sharecroppers, white sharecroppers and the black sharecroppers who had a lot in common and the elite deliberately drove a wedge between them using race and much of what we had today . >> and that we are seeing now
7:38 am
too. we could have slid to a point where it was irretrievable and i think we been jolted and lots of us now recognize that if we don't begin to rebuild communities, if we don't begin to get a different dialogue going across some of these lines then all of us have a responsibility here. it is easy to demonize and we have to be very careful here, some people need to be demonized. the anti-semites, the racists and others who are making this worse of the kleptocratic who are stealing from the rest of us, people who are trying to move us toward autocracy, those people need to be demonized but we have to have empathy and we use that word a lot too. for those who have a different set of standards but at the same time we have to direct trump's upbringing and what i'm seeing is an awakening in civil society. we saw it with marches and demonstrations on january 20 and 21st but in the past we've seen people saying i
7:39 am
made a sign, i've marched, i've done my part and then they stayed away. now it's being sustained. you have this group created by former congressional staffers, indivisible. they came up with this pamphlet on how to organize, it went viral and now there are staffers around the country adding people to turn up at townhall and to stay involved. the religious community has taken on a different tone. lawyers have stepped up to the plate with the initial travel ban, with the injustices occurring on the immigration front, to represent people doingpro bono work . to deal with some of this injustice. we are seeing it with a wide array of older groups and new groups merging to deal with some of these structural problems in the political system and whether it's arnold schwarzenegger using his clouds and name to take on the redistricting issue or
7:40 am
actually a conservative tea party group, take back our republic headed by that guy who ran the campaign of eric bratt who knocked off eric cantor to try and reduce influence of big money in politics, joining with people on the left. we are seeing an activist group, the citizens for responsibility and ethics with the former ethics counsel to obama, normalizing joining with the ethics counsel to the first bush richard painter to try to take on the kleptocratic starting with the president moving through his entire family and down through many others and if we sustain this , but in particular now i mentioned one other example, eric lou who runs a group called citizens university in seattle is pulling people together into copies and meals across a lot of lines
7:41 am
and as they strive to communicate in a simple fashion, they are finding that at least there's not entire common ground, but beginning to understand the dangers of demonization and one example that struck me in the loving context is the brilliance house a young african-american women who had beavers, one of the real organizations. >> she is here today. >> on c-span and the racists from the south called in and they strike up a dialogue and he hasn't changed his neighbors but what it shows is that if you do this even at the grassroots level and we get this moving, it's going to be bottom-up change more than top-down. >> is always better to talk than not to talk. i'm going to ask for the time over here but i'll note there
7:42 am
is a lot of talk and activity and we cannot let our discussion which goes on about the constitutional rights to protest free speech, free expression and keeping the government accountable and there's lots of case law in the contours of that and what incitement means and what he speech means. that's a very important aspect of our constitution. that does not mean that we need as you indicate to condone what is clearly abhorrent to our core values and you havea voice, not everybody dies. if you have a voice and you don't speak out , or at least aggressively failed to criticize things that you know are fundamentally wrong, that in itself is horribly wrong so everybody needs to step up and have their voice heard if they are able to do it. i'm just should note that i'm
7:43 am
extremely proud of this law school which has always been a center forusing the law, has been in the forefront of those who go to the airport , help people learn what their rights are, react to the travel ban. >> now reacting to the dac a situation and continuing to do that with pop-up clinics and so on so i'm really very proud that our institutes are getting engaged and also getting engaged in teaching citizens what their rights are and how they can help themselves so i can feel over here you want to jump in on that. and that comment. >> norm talked about white people and an emerging rage or whatever you want to use and i want to underscore that white people are not monolithic. and there has always been an element, a radical elements of white persons that is open to being part of a biracial
7:44 am
or multiracialmovement . i feature some of those radicals, some of my favorite characters in my book, real people. fred douglas and thaddeus stevens, who you know, both had kept paramore's and douglas was a magnet for women, he's in intellect but these people were biracial in their relationships but also in their politics and i grew up in that kind of childhood. of the only black family in a unitarian church . parents working for civil rights and you know, this isa long tradition. it's just lesser-known . and you know, i really want to underscore that it takes a coalition for a republic to work. and so you know, it is a
7:45 am
moment of activism, it's also a moment of choosing but the terminology i tend to use rather than white block is the difference between back in the envelope, a person who loved eight super bowl commercial in which america is beautiful and is sung in seven languages and those that recoil and that is the battle in the war we are in. and i'm not pollyannaabout this . i do say it does require organization, activism, tweeting is not enough. posting is not enough. you have to get on the ground . and engage and pick your battles. but i'm optimistic that the extras are going to win, it's inevitable i think. >> you were talking about cultural dexterity. so a great national motto, e
7:46 am
pluribus unum, out of many, one. out of that relate to your book mark you're talking about respect for differences, how does that relate to your future, i'll ask norma. >> norm mentioned reconstruction. one of my favorite period in history and which is a little hot to children. 700 men of color served in the legislatures of the former confederacy and it represented a radical idea that black people would not only vote but could run for office and to servebut the reconstruction government , why people want enough of the population to run a government by themselves so it was, they were biracial, coalition governments of unionist loyalists and northern carpetbaggers. but they give public education to the south for the first time. they had these constitution that are closer to the vision
7:47 am
of the u.s. constitution and the 14th amendment today. at least the vision of what it's supposed to be than in the past. and e pluribus unum is the sharing of power in the republic to do the common good. >>. >> how does that relate to your book? >> we use the phrase thereto and so if you look at the society now and you see the dramatic divisions, across political lines and the fact that we have a republican party that's almost bound and determined to become a white party and the democratic party that is becoming a coalition but mostly of minorities. later race on top of that, you've got a problem. if you take all or a sharp red states, sharply blue states and then you look
7:48 am
within those states and you see dramatic differences as well between those living in the cities, those living in the suburbs and rural areas and exerts and you see the vibrant economic areas are in and around the city, you have people who can't talk to each other and of course the tribal media and the nature of the broader media and social media that have in the words of our late great friend daniel patrick moynihan defined in the culture, you've got a challenge. so you have many divided now. and what we have to do is get people convinced and understanding that this leads in the worst possible direction. come back to thinking of themselves as all a part of america and americans first, sharing that commonality.
7:49 am
that is the goal here, i think as much as anything else. and if we can't do that, then we know that part of the jolt is that it can't happen here. it could have happened in germany and italy back in the 30s. it can happen in places like egypt and turkey that have not developed democracies like ours or in the eastern european countries reverting back to autocracies like poland and the czech republic but not here. if you realize that we could suffer the fate of former yugoslavia, that we could devolve into something really horrible, especially since compared to most of these other countries we've got lots of households out there, then you've got to start thinking about things in a certain way. >> sorry i called you an optimist, wow. it's been such a challenge to draw out these two bashful
7:50 am
reticent authors into expensive questions and i'm going to try a different approach i'm going to give you a fake bar exam question . with a multiple-choice question followed by a short essay. and here's the multiple-choice question. is trump is a a fast lane to the future of america, b, is it america a wall that blocks change, is it see, is it a speed bump that just is a temporary impediment that we then move over. 4d, is it a piece of sand that like a oyster or pearl causes something completely new and beautiful to form? a, b, c, or d. >> know and there's no e and
7:51 am
there's new none of the above and law professors, like the bar exam, those are your choices explaining why so a, is i forget. a is the fast lane. b is a wall, blockading change. who pays for the wall? >> mexico, you all know that. we will believe that. she is the speedbump and d is as i think both of you suggest in your books, and impetus for a new wonderful world. >>. >> i would start by saying it's a gigantic speedbump. and we can get over that speedbump area but it's going to take all-wheel-drive. >> i think you have to have a vision of society you want if you are going to get up every day and fight for it. so my heart today says b but
7:52 am
i'm going to go for d. i think we need to be a little bit idealistic about what pluralism is, what society is. >> and if i'm wrongabout this , i may be buying a condo in canada but. >> but i really do believe that it is possible that we are in a moment where trump is accelerating seeing. i heard more conversation about white supremacy and racism coming from people of all colors. the press used to not want to touch those words and i think trump making transparent what has been evident in this country for a long time and what ever you want to call it, my hope is that we are lansing a recurrent boil and that in this way brian stephen puts it, he says it
7:53 am
will transform when there are enough people particularly white people who will stand up and say never again. this is not the country i stand for. so my hope is. >> let's get a big hand, that's all the time we have. for the, professor sheryll cashin the author of loving. and for my class, many of whom are sitting in the jury box you have to read this book as a sign reading in our government advocacy class. >> you have to buy this book. >> norm orenstein. >>. >> the books are available, i believe on table each downstairs. and thank you all for your participating and listening in this wonderful session, i appreciate it. >>.
7:54 am
[inaudible conversation] >> book tv takes hundreds of author programs through the country all year long. here's a look at some of the events we will be covering this week. monday the new york public library in new york city we hear nobel prize-winning economist paul and eunice explain how to transform a capitalist system to solve the problems of global poverty, employment and climate change. on tuesday we are at three events on the east coast. we are back at the new york public library with cathy davidson, who will argue that the education system should be overhauled to better prepare students fortoday's world. >> also that night, toward the harvard bookstore in cambridge massachusetts . where andrea pitzer provides a history of concentration camps standing for continents
7:55 am
and two centuries. and we will have a group at three library of field philadelphia to hear for william solon recall the life of soviet leader mikhail gorbachev. on wednesday we will be at google's offices in washington dc where georgetown university law professors sheryll cashin will examine how the supreme court case loving the virginia impacted race relations in america. thursday we had to the westport library in connecticut to hear author and documentary filmmaker tom shakman recall the role the french played assisting the continental army during the revolutionary war and later that night we will be in denver at the cover bookstore where doug stanton will look at the vietnam war's tet offensive of 1968 through the eyes of 40 men in the us army's an company. wrapping up the week on friday we had west to seattle for stanford university history professor richard white's talk on
7:56 am
reconstruction in the gilded age. that's a look at some of the events book tv will be covering this week. many of these events open to the public, look for them to air in the near future on book tv on c-span2.>> as jack said, memorably, jimmy carter was arguably the most intelligent president of the 20th century. >> catherine graham said so, to colonial said he was the most intelligent president ever, but he could consume amazing quantities of information and assimilate them and use them.use them but i was having a conversation with francisco croft at one point you bush 41's amazing national security advisor and he said you know, we were talking one day. and so they said i love this guy, i could give him a 50
7:57 am
page memo and in the afternoon and i get back the next morning with notes in the margins. >> on every page. >> and scope croft looked at him and said that's the worst thing you can possibly do. he doesn't have time for that. jimmy carter i think got bogged down in the minutia. in fairness, as stu eisenstadt will give you chapter and verse and i'm sure jack could two on allthe legislation that was passed early in the , more legislation than any president since lbj. but he couldn't prioritize. >> you need a chief of staff to prioritize, to make sure that the narrative is consistent. make sure that everybody's on the same page. >> none of those are happening clearly in the present day. but he suffered from not
7:58 am
having a white house chief from day one and in my opinion, jack would've been a great one. >> one of the things, when you start out your book you talk about what seems like just the most logical kind of meeting in advance of any ministration taking off and that's bringing former chiefs of staff together and in this case it was to. >> to bring him up to speed and had most of the chiefs of staff there to give advice. jack, you were there, what was it like westmark. >> that's funny. >> december 5, 2008, josh bolton who was the president's chief of staff, outgoing president chief of staff had gathered this group and there were 13 or 14 of us there. sat around the table and the chief of staff's office
7:59 am
breakfast and talking, ron was eating next to me at the meeting. and we just went around the table. and each one of us made a brief, very brief statement of some little piece of advice that we thought was helpful or that would give some guidance , some of it humorous, a lot of the numerous. i'll give you an example and got around to dick cheney. you will remember he was vice president. and. >> and a hell of a chief of staff. >> he was the chief of staff. then i met when we were elected. >> when it got around to dick who said at the end of the day, we are almost at the end all of us. dick is an interesting man. >> he leaned forward like this and he said i'll have one piece of advice keep your
8:00 am
vice president under control. >>. [laughter] the other piece of advice i loved was ken duberstein's, he was reagan's final chief and he's a great storyteller.and anyway, he looked very bravely at ron and said never forget. when you open your mouth,it's not you speaking but the president of the united states. to which ron said all black . and that brought down the house. >>. >> hello everyone. >>. >> hi. >> hello everyone.>>.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on