Ready for the compliment. But one thing that is the case, and its one reason why were so proud for the 12th time, 12th anniversary of the brooklyn book festival to get an opportunity to demonstrate whats always been the case which is this Great Law School is in the forefront. This law school is a center for learning how to use the power of law for the benefit of our community, the nation and the world. So thats no small thing. Well, lets just yet right at it. You are in for a real treat, because weve got two fantastic authors and incredible books that i think youre going to find surprising in many ways as i did when i was able to read them. First is loving and the second is one nation after trump. 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 and marriage and not necessarily in that order, but thats what its about. And the other book by my friend, norm ornstein, is about electile dysfunction [laughter] and major flaws in governance in our government for three decades. And yet both the books have a lot in common. For example, they both have incredibly bland, noncontroversial titles. [laughter] this one by professor Cheryl Cashin is loving interracial intimacy in america and the threat to White Supremacy. Okay . Thats very bland. [laughter] and then this one is really does not choose sides and is very sort of staid and right down the road, one nation after trump a guide for the perplexed, the disillusioned, the desperate and the not yet deported. [laughter] so, okay. Both bland titles. Both are compelling, incredibly readable, captivating stories about theyre political histories really with analysis of how our nations rulebook, the constitution, in practice works, how our laws are written, how theyre implemented by the executive branch, how theyre interpreted by the Judicial Branch and how theyre changed. And then finally, both books are very much focused on the meaning and the power of we, the people, the first three words of the United States constitution. So lets get right at it, and im going to start with professor Cheryl Cashin. Professor cashin, georgetown university, has published some outstanding books and articles. Shes passionate about Racial Justice and equality. And this book, loving, is quite remarkable. So im just going to ask you right at the start very briefly, just in a few moments, tell us a little bit about what motivate you to write this book and what its about. Okay. Well, loving v. Virginia, the 50th anniversary of this case, this is the case in which the Supreme Court struck down bans 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 kind of way of commenting on how it is were so messed up around race and, you know, all this division. And what my students learn when i teach this case and what i learned in researching it is that the regulation of interracial sex and marriage were 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 of how weve been in that dance. And i try to explain it and end on an optimistic note. Now, the book was, the book is about so much more than the case. There, it starts literally with the beginning of america. It runs up to the case, and then it runs forward. And this is certainly not, the book is not just the screenplay for the movie. You want to no. Explain that a little bit . Its the same case, the same title, loving, you know, shameless. Why not try to get the upcraft of the movie if you can the updraft of the movie if you can, right . But the book starts in 1607. I have before loving, during and after. And the its a sweep. And i try to tell the story of whiteness. Why was whiteness constructed. It was constructed when the slaveowning elites wanted to transition from white indentured servitude to black chattel slavery. And they had a problem. For the first six decades or so so in the virginia colony, there had been a a lot of frat earnization. Frat earnization. Indentured white people and enslaved black and Indigenous People fraternized together, sometimes got drunk together, had sex, ran away. There were some marriages. And they also rebelled together. And the initial bans on interracial sex happened in the virginia slave code. They want to coopt indigenous struggling whites and peel them away. And i tell this story from the beginning. Every time you have an assertion of whiteness and an id ideology whiteness in this country, theres an economic story of people who fear [inaudible] peeling whites off. I tell that story, and it happens again and again throughout the book and throughout our country. Now i want to ask you a couple of questions actually two about the writing of this book. And the first thing i want to ask you about is how its written. It is beautifully written. It is eloquent, its literature. It is, i hope im not embarrassing you, and, you know, as a former practicing lawyer, im not beyond i can respect on she yousness, but i really mean quite genuinely that this book is written in a way that goes far beyond. Your opening introduction could be a freestanding essay, you know, for the ages that people would refer to. So what im going to ask you as an author is are you striving for that . Is there a muse . I mean, this is a terrific history, but its written beautifully. I didnt pay him to say that. [laughter] and im not embarrassed. Thank you so much. I worked very, very hard at the craft of writing. I intentionally this is my fourth book. I intentionally have developedded a voice as a writer, and, you know, i kept a diary from age 6 to 26, and i happened to come across a line in one of those diaries where i said if i had any, if i was brave, i would admit to myself i want to be a writer. But, you know, i, like so many people, was afraid to just go ahead and do that. And i became a law professor. Its nice to have a day job, you know . But as ive gotten older, ive just and tenured and, you know, im in my 50s, you get emancipated, you know . I dont, i just go for it and try to write the best books i can that speak in my voice, that speak passionately, and i am so honored for you to use the word literature to describe this book. Well, its true, and i commend it to everybody else. Let me, were going to get back and ask you both some questions, but i want to turn to norm just briefly here and ask norm ornstein, my friend who is the ive just figured out that his two coauthors, and norm ive known for a total of 100 years plus. And norm actually has been a neighbor for a long time in washington of us. But, norm, what prompt you to write this book, and tell us about it briefly. What is, whats the theme of the book . I wasnt going to write another book. Tom mann and i had done many, many things together over decades, and we did a book in 2006 called the broken branch how congress is failing america and how to get it back on track. And then we did another in 2012 called its even worse than it looks how the american constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism9 and then we updated it into 2016 to its even worse than it was. And i joked, but only halfjoking, if i did another one it might have to be called run for your lives. [laughter] and i didnt want to be the Debbie Downer of american politics. But the editor, a brilliant editor, tim bartlett, when had done those other books, called me and got me thinking that it was important to do something now. And so i first came up with the subtitle, and with that i recruited e. J. And tom. And we knew that we wanted to get this out as quickly as possible, and it would be better if we had the three of us and we come at things we have skills, i think, that are complementary. And then i came up with the title after that just thinking about one nation under god. And one nation after trump is meant not just to be once hes gone, its also a very significant focus on the one nation part. And this is a much more optimistic book than the others in some ways, oddly enough. And, you know well get to that. Well get to the optimism part. But i could talk for hours about the pessimism part too, you know. [laughter] you could talk for hours, i would think youre a lawyer billing by the hour, but i know better than that. And theres nothing wrong with that. I say that to my law students. [laughter] so, you know if youre the one doing the billing, theres nothing wrong with that. Norm, its not billing, its collecting, okay . [laughter] so in any event, so especially given the climate were in yeah. One of the surprising things about this book, but actually you could see this coming a long ways, is you authors including you and thom who are, youre with the conservative aei, hes with brookings, but you have a reputation as being in the forefront as straight shooters and objective commenters who love the institutionsing with. So youll be accused of having chosen sides, basically x. Is that fair . And did e. J. Dionne e. J. Die onhornswoggle you or bamboozle you . No. Let me go back with a little bit of history, you know . Its even worse than it looks became a 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 there of the sunday paper, and we did an excerpt the sunday before the book was released on monday, and he gave it the title lets just say it, the republicans are the problem. And that went viral. And we got a lot of, were on cspan, so i wont use system of the terms, a lot of feedback. [laughter] from that. But a lot of it was pushback from a press corps that simply couldnt deal with the notion that theyre not equivalent. But we didnt come at this as partisans, we came at this as objective social scientists. And the fact is the norms had been shredded in a congress and in a political system by one party much more than the other. There are no angels here, but youre looking at the difference between jaywalking and man slaughter terms of what it was doing to the institutions and the nature of our politics. And really turning us from a partisanship thats deeply embedded in our political system to tribalism. And i may have been the first one to use the term tribalism back then which has now m become common place. And were still fining that the false equivalence finding that the false equivalence which is there for the parties but also now this and i call it the journalism stop us before we kill again phenomenon this incredible, intense need to normalize donald trump and say now hes pivoting, now hes becoming just like other president s and putting him into a frame that he simply doesnt belong in. And if youre going to be intellectually honest in this process and you go where the data and where your own experience and to observations take you, and ive had now chose to 50 years of working around washington and the institutions both congress and around president s in the executive branch and with both parties on an awful lot of things and reform and some substantive areas, and i still do the some extent. But this is the reality of our politics. And what really has rankled me about journalism is if you dont call out miscreebts miscreants and if you basically say theyre all like that, you get two phenomenon one of which help to lead directly to trump. It is that theyre 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 dry and convince to try and convince africanamericans. And, boy, are they seeing what theyve got to lose now. But its also that you end up with a political system where theres no penalty for eroding those norms. And thats just a terrible thing. And, frankly, theyre being eroded even further in some of the areas we can get to in the senate well, ill ask you about those. I mean, norm, you like talking about norms, so youre talking about some of the norms that have eroded. How about the maybe you could give a little bit of background, the blue slip controversy thats going on right now. Sure. So everybody knows, of course, about the shredding of norms with the nomination of america garland and the merck garland and the aftermath of the unexpected and untimely death of justice and a lee a ya. And now scalia. And now his replacement by neil gorsuch. And with that, of course, the longstanding practice built into the rules for a long time that it would require a supermajority vote for a Supreme Court justice. Thats one thing. But very longstanding norm in the senate over many, 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 doesnt have to involve picking somebody they absolutely want. And, obviously, if youve got a democratic president , two republican senators or vice versa, you may not have that. But it usually involves heres a list of people, tell us who you like, who you wouldnt. And those senators, either one from the state, doesnt approve, then they have a blue slip, and if they dont turn it into the judiciary committee, that nomination goes nowhere. Now, that norm and practice continued through the obama years. And the chairman of the judiciary committee, when he was chairman the democrat, Patrick Leahy abided by it. But during a time when it was misused in a fashion we had never seen before. Because you had republican senators from states who refused to move forward with nominees, even those they had supported in the past, in some cases had recommended in the past. And it was all about keeping the seats vacant in the hopes that at some point theyd be able to fill them. And leahy, who was criticized by many of his colleagues, basically believed that this was the way you behaved, and if you showed that kind of courtesy, it would be reciprocated. And now where we have a handful of Democratic Senators holding up nominations, in some cases for a Appeals Court judgeships that had been held vacant for a long time, now were being pushed forward with nominees, and they were consulted. Mitch mcconnell is saying we may just have to blow up all right. And very briefly, whats wrong with that . Whats the cost of that . So if were looking at tribalism, it isnt just in congress and, of course, its metastasized 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 were also seeing sharp partisanship and even tribalism infect the federal courts. Were seeing these dramatic divisions. And just, lets just pick one example recently where after wed had 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 blocked that from moving forward for the 2018 elections on a very predictable 54 vote, a partisan vote, in effect. And if you start to move in a way in which judges are selected only by one party and solely with the goals of making sure you pick a younger person who will be there for a very 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, youre no longer in power, but your policies get continued because these are, in effect, lifetime appointments. But youre also going to end up being pushed and incentivized to pick the most extreme people and the people who you know are going to vote the way you want them to vote. And that just i blows up the whole notion of judicial process with a level of integrity. Every one of these norms is there for a reason, and they can be abused. Well, thats a norm thats baked into the system on the basis that partisanship and shortterm political interest is not a motivation of people, but they have a longer term and so that kind of is one of the constitutional things that smooths things out over time. But well get back to that a little bit. I want to turn and ask professor cashin a question, and that is both of you. Youre going get the same question, norm. 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, most disappointing. So why are you optimists, and why are you hopeful, and what is it that you hope can be accomplished in the future . Okay. So optimism is a choice. I could have written a very dystopian book, but i do not have much hope of a class unity among struggling people of the kind that existed in colonial virginia preblack slavery. But one thing that gives me hope in this country is rising and this is a term i coined 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 enhancedded capacity for enhanced capacity for being among people who are different, seeing those differences and accepting them rather than demanding an assimilation to your own norms. And i document this in the final part, the third part of my book. In this country today right under our noses we are exponential increase in interracial intimacy; marriage, cohabitation, dating, adoption, friendship and even parasocial or virtual relationships with characters or a black president you gain affection for in the media. And all of the social science shows that white people who have an intimate connection particularly with a black person, it 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 of people under 30 agree with the critique of the black lyes Matter Movement of police lives Matter Movement of police, right . So i argue or speculate, i should say, that we are going to reach a Tipping Point when a Critical Mass of whites not all whites, but a Critical Mass of whites accepts the has of centrality of the loss of centrality of whiteness and wants to be part of the multiracial democracy. And what gives me hope in particular is the transition in california. California in a 20year period went from being majority white to gridlocked to majority minority to functional again in its politics. And it, you know, it did away with gerrymandering, it is retreating from the war on drugs, investing more in education, leading on climate change. If you looked at california in the late 80s, it was just as disfunctional and ungovernable as congress is today. So youre an optimist. Yes. Let me ask you about another term that you use throughout the book, racial inti nasty intimacy. Interracial intimacy. Is that sex . Is that romance . Is that procreation . What are you talking about . Or is it all of the above . Well, there are different forms of intimacy. Cohabitation, marriage, dating, adoption. Onequarter of all adoptions are crossracial today in this country. Onequarter. And friendship. I actually think the most potential impact, and when i say friendship, i mean if you sit down and have a meal with someone of a different race, you are likely friends. If you go into their home and vice versa, and like i said, its not rocket science, but intimate relationships tend to create empathy. And while i dont make the silly argument that interracial intimacy in and of itself is going to dismantle White Supremacy, what i am saying is when you take rising cultural dexterity and combine it with other forces generational change, the dying off of older whites who grew up expecting to be dominant, demographic change, immigration and the acceleration of a Political Engagement by racial minorities, muslimamericans, that tee knows, asians, multiracial people, the Fastest Growing populations in country experience discrimination, dont like it and are registering to vote. [laughter] but but its a mathematical concept and in the early stages of the geometric perception and i made the fiveyear transition al, and i think we are we may actually be close to the Tipping Point already, but the popular will is stagnant. For sanity and functionality. Im not overstating. I just think we could return to being functional. I think the tenure of the country would feel different but for 77,000 votes and russians, we may be having different conversation about where the country is. Tipping towards democratic bureau bureaucracy. The popular will is not subverted by got it. That was great. [applause] thank you. Our optimist despite throwing at governmental dysfunctions. Why are you optimistic and maybe be specific about two or three areas we think we can accomplish something . I wouldnt say im unabashed optimistic. Im a bashed optimistic. Its not overstate to go say that we have existential threat to our way of life and thats true not just at the governmental level, its true at the societal level and thats a part of it. How many of you saw the movie dunkirk, a marvelous that chris made. I mention it for this reason. The take away that citizens can selforganize to step in, you and the government cant function. Yeah, you have the entire british army particularly speaking sitting ducks at the beach of dunkirk. The response from British Military was inadequate and it was a jolt to the Civil Society that stepped up. I would make our case that donald trump is our dunkrik, a lot of the problems. The first third of our book proceed donald trump, donald trump didnt just emerge from the swamp, that swamp had been building into a nest for a long time and you could go back 50 years or more. If you go back to the decline of community that that putnam pointed out in bowling alone. Bobby shop, journalist pointed out in the book, big sort, isolated from, isolated isolated from who are different from us because we are moving into communities of likeminded people. You look at the demographic changes and the yawning economic inequality and punctuate that with the unbelievable believable rroggance of the super rich, some of whom are serving in this administration and are instead of using their own billions trying to get taxpayers to pay for honeymoons and trips to watch the eclipse, among other things. We are finding that we have a much greater racial and ethic gulf than we had before. The university of michigan does election survey, Gold Standard for surveys, scale of racial animosity and you see it growing among white americans not just working class, wealthier ones as we see the society changing. And, you know, 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 who had a lot in common and the elite deliberately drove a wedge between them using race and much of what we have today. We could have slit to a point where it was irretreatable and i think weve been jolted and lots of us recognize that if we dont begin to rebuild community, if we dont begin to get a dialogue going across some of these lines and all of us have a responsibility here, it is easy to demonize and we have to be careful here because some people need to be demonized, the antisemites, the racists and others who are making this worse, stealing from the rest of us, the people who are trying to move us towards autocracy. At the same time we have the direct threat that trump is bringing and what im seeing is an awakening in Civil Society, we saw it obviously with the marchs and the demonstrations on january 20th and 21st, but, you know, in the past we have seen people saying, look, i made a sign, i marched, ive done my part and then they fade away. Now, its being sustained, you have this group created by some former congressional staffers indivisible that came with pamphlet on how to organize, it went viral and thousands of chapters around the country and are getting people to turn up at town halls and stay involved. The religious community has taken on a completely 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 doing pro bono work with dealing with some of the injustice. We are seeing with wide array of old groups and new groups emerging to try and deal with some of the structural problems in the political system and whether its Arnold Schwarzenegger using his cloud and name to take on the redistricting issue or actually a conservative Tea Party Group take back republic headed by the guy who ran the campaign of dave brad who knocked out eric candor to try and reduce the influence of big money in politics, joining with people on the left. We are seeing an activism, the citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington with the former Ethics Council to obama, norman isen joining with Ethics Council to the first bush, richard to try and take on starting with the president moving on through his entire family and then on down through many others and if we sustain this but in particular now i will mention one another example, eric lew is pulling people together into coffees and meals across a lot of lines and as they strive to communicate in civil fashion, they are finding that at least theres not entire common ground, theyre beginning to understand the dangers of demonization and one example that really struck me in the loving context is the brilliant, i will say, young, African American woman she was here today. On cspan and erases from the south a racist from a south calls in and strike up a dialogue. Now he has changed. He hasnt changed his neighbors, if you do this even at Grassroots Level and get this moving, its going to be bottom up change than topdown change. We have ways to go. Always better to talk im going to ask for time over here but there is a lot of talking, protesting and activity and we cannot let our discussion which goes on about the rights to protest free speech, Free Expression and keeping the government accountable and lots of case law in the contours and thats a very important aspect of our constitution but we also, that does not mean that as you indicate condone what is poor values and if you have a voice and not everybody does, if you have a voice and you dont speak out and condone or at least implicitly fail to criticize things that you know are fundamental wrong, that is itself importantly wrong. So Everybody Needs to step up and have their voice heard if theyre able to do it. Now, in addition, im should note here that im extremely proud law school which has been center of using law and been in the forefront of those who go to the airport, help people learn what their rights are and and acting to the travel ban, now reacting to the daca situation and we will continue to do that with popup clinics and so on and so on. Im very proud that our faculty and students are getting engaged and also getting engaged in teaching citizens what their rights are and how they can help themselves. Would you like i can feel over here you want to jump in on that and that comment. Well, norm talked about white people and rage and i want to underscore that white people are not monolithic and there has always been an element, radical element of white person that is open to being part of a biracial or multiracial movement. I feature some of those radicals. Some of my favorite characters in the book, real people, fred douglas and stevens who, you know, both had fred was a magnet by women wowed by him. These people were biracial in their relationships but also in their politics. I grew up in that kind of childhood, the only black family in a unitarian church. This is a long tradition too. Its just lesser none and, you know, i really want to underscore that it takes a coalition for a republic to work, right. And so, you know, it is a moment of activism, its also a moment hosing, the choosing, its the difference between back of the envelope, a person who loved a super bowl commercial in which america is beautiful sung in seven languages and those that recoiled and that is the battle and the war that we are in and i do say, it does require organization, activism, tweeting is not enough, posting is not enough. You have to get on the ground, you know, and engage and pick your battle but im optimistic that the dexters are going to win, its inevitable again. Youre talking about again about cultural dexterity. Right. How does that relate to your book, are you talking about assimilation, respect for differences, how does that relate to your future vision . So norm mentioned reconstruction, one of my favorite periods in history, right, which is little taught to children, right. 700 men of color serve in the legislatures of the former confederacy and represented a radical idea that black people could not only vote but could run for office and serve, but the reconstruction government, black people couldnt werent enough of a population to to run a government by themselves so these were biracial Coalition Governments of unionist, loyalists and northern carpet baggers but they give Public Education to the south for the first time. They have these constitutions that are closer to the vision of the u. S. Constitution and the 14th amendment today, at least the vision of what its supposed to be than in the past and the sharing of power in the republic to do the common good, you know. Norm, how does e pluralism apply to you . You see the dramatic divisions across political lines and the fact that we have a Republican Party thats almost bound and determine to become a white party and a Democratic Party that is becoming a coalition but mostly of minorities, you layer race on top of that, you have a problem. If you take all or sharply red states, sharply whites, sharply blue states and then you look within those states and you see dramatic differences as well between those living in the cities, those living in the suburbs and the rural areas and you also see the vibrant economics are in and around the cities. You have people that cant talk to each other and the tribal media and the social media that have in the words of our mutual late great friend Daniel Patrick define and in a culture you have this challenge. So, we have many divided now and what we have to do is get people convinced and understanding that this leads in the worst possible direction and come back to thinking of themselves as all apart of america and americans first, sharing that commonality and that is the goal here, i think as much as anything else. If we cant do that, then we know that, you know, a part of the joltus. Of course, 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 and we could deinvolve into something really horrible compared to countries we have a lot of assault weapons in households. You have to start thinking about things in a different way. Sorry i called you an optimist, wow. [laughter] so its been so difficult, its been such a challenge to draw out these two bashful authors into expansive questions. I will try a different approach. I will give you a fake bar exam question which is a multiple choice question followed by a short, short essay. Is trumpism, a, a fast lane to the future of america, new america, b, is it a barricade wall that blocks change, c, is it a speed bump that is just a temporary impediment that we move on over or d, a piece of sand that like oyster pearl causes something new and beautiful to be formed . A, b, c and d. Theres no e and no none of the above. Like the bar exam, those are the four choices with short essay explaining why. A, i forget. [laughter] a is the last fast lane, b who pays for the wall . Mexico, you heard all of that. We all believe that. C is speed bump and d is i think as both of you suggest, impetus for a new wonderful world. I would start by saying its a gigantic speed bump and we can get over that speed bump, but its going to take all wheel drive. Okay. I think you have to have a vision for the society you want if youre going to get up every day and fight for it. Okay. So my heart today says c but im going to go for d. Okay. I think we need to be a little bit idealistic about what pluralism, what society is and if im wrong about this, i may be buying a condo in canada but i really do believe that it is possible that we are in a moment where trump is accelerating seeing. I have heard more conversation about White Supremacy and racism coming from people of all colors. The press didnt even want to touch those words, right, and i think trump is making transparent what has been evident to scholars of this country for a very long time and whatever you want to call it, my hope is that we are lansing a recurrent boil and this is what Brian Stevenson put, it 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, you know. So my hope lets give a big hand lets give a big hand. Thats all the time we have. [applause] for the professor, the author of living. Thank you. And for my class, many of whom are sitting in the jury box who have to read this book. Have to buy this book. [laughter] norm. Thank you. [applause] the book are available, i believe, in table h downstairs and thank you all for your participating and listening in this wonderful session, i really appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] youve been listening to live professor and Political Columnist norm discussing the Supreme Court. Now book tv will be live in a few minutes with the last panel of the day from brooklyn, a discussion on the science of time. This is live coverage on book tv on cspan2. [inaudible conversations] because, you know, some of my best friends are mill millennials and i teach millennials and we talk about the generation gap all of the time and, you know, theres never been any problem and, you know, i think that a number of things happened there. First of all, i want to do something if i have one regret about that book its that i did not give credit to the thousands of supporters of bernie who once she got the nomination went onto enthusiastically support her. I think i was at the time there were so much hate coming from the bernie or busters that they kind of occupied my consciousness but theres a whole another quite large contingent of bernie supporters who once she had the nomination realized a choice between Hillary Clinton, it may not have been their first choice and trump, no contest. I was more focused on the ones that thought that they were two evils, the lesser of two evils. I think that what happened with this book is an interesting thing because the guardian, some of you might have read, the piece that was published, prepublication and the guardian and it was from the bernie chapter and theres only one chapter in the book thats about bernie, you know, you would think, though, from the guardian piece, the book is about bernie sanders. The headline of the article was, the way they headlined was it the destruction of Hillary Clinton column, sexism, sanders and millennials feminists which right away makes it seem as my argument is that millennials feminism bittered in which is not my argument, at all. I have some big beefs with bernie and the way that he presented his campaign, but when it comes to talking about the millennials, really the the of describing a generation gap that understood, i talked to my students all of the time. What do you see in the generation gap that would lead them not to support Hillary Clinton as their first choice . Thats a great question and, you know, for some people it certainly was grounded in policy differences, however, its very difficult to sort out what were wellgrounded policy differences from what had been turned into brands so that, you know, there are a number of issues that bernie supporters had with hillarys position, but what happens to the problems of hillarys positions, every politician has soft spots, he isnt progressive in every way. They were turned by bernie into hallmarks of her establishment status, right, and the sign that she was not a true progressive. These are brands, so that a lot of people, i think, a lot of people responded to the branding. Who wants to be on the side of the establishment. Specially if youre a young lefty, you want to be on the side of the progressives and her being branded that way, i think, really made them recoil from her. Her style, you know, i think as you mentioned, hillary has she has a very tighty, i dont know exactly how to describe it, her hair is rarely a mess, you know, its neatly, she wears, have you ever seen her in a pair of jeans, i dont think so. You know, theres something that looks something very put together and composed and contained about her and those things as a philosopher of the body, right, if i can venture into that part of my persona, those things translate, translate into conservatives, right, and i think translated for a lot of younger people, conservative in a way that they didnt for me because i had seen her evolution and knew what was behind it. Mind you there were plenty of times where i wanted to mess her hair up, you know, where i wanted to change her outfit for her but to me they were not, you know, they werent meaningful. It was playful on my part. You can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. Hillary clintons memoir on the 2016 president ial election was published this past week by simon, what happened, details runup to election and reflections on the campaign and its aftermath, several Media Outlets have posted reviews from the New York Times daily beast, npr and the Chicago Tribune to usa today, the Washington Post and the guardian. Secretary clintons media tour for her book includes public talks in cities throughout the country such as chicago, new york, boston, atlanta, philadelphia and seattle and cspan will be covering her first op in washington, d. C. Live this monday september 18th at 7 00 p. M. Eastern, look for it to reair on book tv the following weekend september 23rd and 24th, exact Schedule Information will be available on our website, booktv. Org, or on your channel guides. Here is a look at sop you mean some upcoming book fairs and festivals. Featuring sociology professor, devin alan and others. Then in october, we are headed to nashville for the southern festival of books with former Vice President al gore. Later in the month, there are two book festivals happening on the same weekend, in the northeast its the ninth annual boston book festival and in the south, the louisiana book festival will take place in baton rouge. For more information about upcoming book fairs and festivals and to watch previous festival coverage, click the book fairs tab on our website, booktv. Org. You are watching live coverage on booktv. Good afternoon everybody. I am the co producer of the
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.