In issues on my mind, and you write about when it comes to terrorism. We must think hard about the moral stakes and falls. If we truly believe in our Democratic Values and way of life, we must be willing to defend them. Passive measures are unlikely to suffice. Means of more active defense and deterrence must be considered and given the necessary political support. You say if you have a lawenforcement approach okay, let an attack happen and then we find out who did it and try them in a u. S. Court and if we make them guilty and the endless Appeals Committee go to jail. While, what does that accomplish . In the meantime the terrorist act has taken place and an act like 9 11 can kill a lot of people so if you know something is coming at you, why not stop it from happening . In other words, prevention. And when i first said that in 1984, it was very controversial but after 9 11, people have said of course, we should be trying to stop that from happening. And so i think this doctrine of trying to prevent things is very important and its become common. We did a great deal in this country and i think thereve been lots of acts that have happened because we found out about them through intelligence and presented them. We are talking with former secretary of state, labor, former secretary George Shultz about his book issues on my mind. Mr. Secretary, what was the favorite job you ever had . Guest usa job. That implies something you have to do in order to get money and if you see that, i never had a job in my life. Ive always done things that i found rewarding and interesting. If i wound up doing something that wasnt like that, i would find Something Else to do. In government, it is a great privilege and opportunity to serve. And i had a succession of jobs. All of them were rewarding starting with my two and a half years overseas in the United States marine corps in world war ii. There i was fighting for my country and in the end we were victorious. I didnt have much to do with it but i was one person out there. I served in the Eisenhower Administration on the council of economic advisers. It is was a great privilege. I remember going down my office was in a Big Office Building right next to the white house. It used to be called the old state building. Anyway, i had an office with a window that looked out at the south lawn of the white house and my father died not long after that butoo longafter thati took into my office and he said you have arrived. So, it was great to work their. And then you have a view of the whole government. And i learned a lot about how you put the statistics together that we talked about all the time, so that was a great experience. And as the secretary of labor, i had i knew the subject matter very well and i knew the department very well because we talked about things in the kennedy and johnson administrations but i didnt know anything about washington or politics or the press so i had a good base of knowledge from which to learn about these things. I was fortunate in persuading a man to come and be depressed person. He had worked at the New York Times for decades and was a labor reporter anywhere and he was really good. Everybody read his stories into the subject is. He said he would sign on but he had conditions. I said okay what are your conditions. He said first of all, i am going to be a spokesman i have to know what is going on. I have to be able to work. I dont want to be blindsided. If im blindsided, then i am over. I said of course. Anybody would be glad to have you. Youd be surprised what happens to people. They come down here, get under pressure, they mislead. Misleading is as bad as lying. Never have a press conference unless you have some news. I said dont reporters kind of like to slip around and he said you dont understand. Reporters are guys trying to make a living and the way you make a living is get a news story with your name on it and it gets on the front page of the paper. You call a News Conference and they think this is my story. She comes and you dont have any news, what are you going to . I learned a lot about the press from joe and sometimes people write things they dont like. You have them get the facts straight. There was a guy in the white house that was the political counselor at relations guy and he took me under his wing to a certain extent and have fools. If it turns out its hard to deliver, try all the harder. His word was trust is the coin of the round. The Labor Department i had my first big battle in the Congress Said there is a great learning thing. Then i went from there to be the director of the budget and there you have the whole government out in front of you. So that was great. Then i became the secretary of the treasury. There was a time that we read id the International Monetary system that had a lot of dealings with people all over the world. I learned a lot about how to do Something Internationally, so that was a great experience for me. Of course when i was the secretary of state the tectonic plates of the world changed. When we took office, the cold war was as cold as it could get and when we left it was all over but the shouting, so that was a huge thing to be involved in and to watch unfold. Host in your book issues on my mind youve got some rules for leadership and a couple of those who have already expounded on. But your first goal is to be a participant. Guest thats what democracy is all about. Early on when i was working in the primaries then the tide said democracy isnt a spectator sport. So, big part of it and big part of politics, but be willing to serve and be a participant. Host rule number five, competence is the name of the game and leadership. I had him experience and i had a bunch of political appointee spots to fill and i realized you are trained to work with a constituency and we need the best management guide in this relations field. Everybody told me it was a guy named jim hudson. Somebody thats negotiating contracts and the rankandfile. Somebody that has worked in this discrimination workplace. The president elect nixon thought that it would show progress in his administration. So we have a meeting and to introduce jim hudson and we ask all kinds of questions. I remember he was dazzling and says i am a democrat. The last i was just more who iss our nominee to be the bureau of labor statistics. He was very close to president nixon and i thought finally, weve got a republican. That he finally says i guess you have to say im an independent. Anyway, i get back to my hotel room, the phone is ringing off the hook and all the republicans are saying and i cleared of these names were for the ranking republican but anyway, all of them did terrific. Jim hudson succeeded at me and became the ambassador. If you have confidence people around you, you are going to do much better than if you dont. You get people that are competent. George shultz is one of several authors we interviewed in 2013. You can find them all on the website booktv. Org. Another former secretary of state and soontobe director of the Hoover Institution, condoleezza rice. In this portion of the program and the Reagan Library in 2017, she talks about her book democracy, stories from the long road to freedom. Its kind of a mysterious thing people are willing to trust these abstractions, constitutions, rule of law, elect people to represent them rather than going into the streets over rather than buying into the families of the clan or religion. That is a very mysterious process. And i think growing up in birmingham alabama i was perhaps one of the very early on saw something even more mysterious. In birmingham alabama where you couldnt go to a Movie Theater or a restaurant if you were a black person or you are most certainly a kind of second class citizen i saw black citizens feel devoted to the institutions and democracy. It encapsulates this for me and i was about 6yearsold and my uncle my mothers brother picked me up from school and it was election day and there were long lines of black people waiting to vote and i said to my uncle this must mean my uncle also said we are minorities, so hes going to win. I looked at my uncle and he said that they know one day that vote will matter. As i went around the world as the secretary of state and salt along the lines of afghans were iraqis, South Africans in latin america, people voting sometimes for the first time. We are blessed with this extraordinary gift from a democracy. Americans in particular were blessed with Founding Fathers who understood and institutional design that would protect our liberties and rights to say what we think and worship as we please and have the dignity that comes with having those that are going to govern and have to ask for your consent. But if we were blessed with that and believe that we were endowed by our creator in those rights come it cant be true to us or not for them. One of the marvelous legacies of the United States of america and the building with which we sit and library with which we said was he never forgot our obligations to speak for the voiceless. He never forgot the obligation to do the right thing in supporting those who just wanted a simple freedom that we have, and he delivered because he believed the United States of america is an idea, and its an idea that is universal so thats why i wanted to write this book [applause] you were in that position to know the actions better than any other unsure. I know you are not in office n now. Its how they are viewed as we transition from president obama to president trump. I was in europe not too long after and the first thing i said is just settle down. [laughter] the United States of america is engaging in a little bit of a democratic experiment. We just elected somebody thats never been in government before, whos never even sniffed the government before, and that president is going to take a look alotof time. It is a learning curve but america has institutions that are absolutely firm and absolutely concrete. They created a congress as a separate and equal branch of government as the congress will constantly remind you in the executive branch. He has court which he learned will tell us the president. He has governors, 50 of them and they have legislatures. Eitheby the way, he has a presss well, Civil Society and america is ungovernable, so the job of getting to the president is one thing. Once you are there it is quite another. The learning curve has been steep but we see some things the world really likes and what they see in america. I think the decision to strike syria and every step o cent of e chemical weapons attack by a solid on his own people was an important protective. This far and no further. But he was really saying is as president of the United States, i cannot sit by and watch babies choking on chemical baths. So we are still learning in many ways. We have only one president at a time and we have to do everything we can to make our president successful we think that there is a foreignmade argument thats really important for the americans to grasp . It is a little but the same argument i would make about democracy. You can say all of those things but i think they are two very powerful arguments against that kind of thinking and one is a practical argument. If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness over universal and good for us than it cant be good for us and not for them. We are at our best when we lead from power and principle. Because we are a compassionate nation that actually believes that as many problems as we have, weve been given an extraordinary bounty. If youve gone to some of the places in the world, i dont care how bad it looks in the United States of america, it is much, much worse. How can you turn a blind eye to those playing in tv and turn a blind eye in ebola . The moral argument is that im christian and for the least of my brothers you do for me and whatever your tradition is and whatever that impulse comes from of compassion, america has had it. They can deliver and do not invade their neighbors. They dont track the soldiers that or ten or 11yearsold or traffic in the human sex trade. As the democracies dont fight each other we know that, it is called democratic peace. So there is a reason that we have believed we are better off when other people beyond the borders can live with decent governments to try to take care of them. Now as the foreign assistance, and yes i think there was a time when it was given strategic reasons, the Strategic Union was giving money so we gave money to somebody else or maybe a little bit of guilt about colonialism or whatever but those days have been long gone for a long time. And if you look at some of foreign aid programs that we know now, the millennium challenge is a good example of this, the millennium challenge is to countries you will receive large foreign aid packages from the United States only if you are governing, fighting corruption, if you are investing in your people. Then w we will give you foreignmade. I will give you one example. Listen to this millennium challenge compact. We wanted to do the third world they are inefficient because they are small farms and one of the problems with combining them is nobody knows the title. So they wanted to do land titling. But there was the law in the book that women couldnt hold land in their own name. So the United States of america said if you want to see a dime of this assistance, you will change that law, so they did change that law. Whens you go abroad and look at what america has done in aids relief for the humanitarian crises or the kind of programs that we have run all over the world, with the largest donor of food aid coming to recognize the most powerful country in the world also ought to be the most compassionate. And it is good for us, too because when you create responsible sovereign subjects in the International System in a way that it enhances prosperity and security, we are all better off. So for an aids i eight is a very inexpensive way to keep us from ultimately having to intervene in other more expensive ways including by military force. The Hoover Institution was founded in 1919 by Herbert Hoover with the purpose of collecting material about world war i. It has grown to nearly 200 to specialize in the range of Public Policy fields. Ever look at the books written by the Hoover Institution fellow is continuous with economist thomas sole. He appeared on the Author Interview program booknotes in 1990 to discuss his book preferential policies. I was fortunate enough in the one sentence. Life is shifted between Different Levels of education so i was a top student in my class in north carolina, then i was immediate the bottom student in my class at harlem, and i was way behind because the education difference was just that great. A very painful. How of adjustment but there was no racial issue involved. The kids ahead of me were all black and so i got through that and then for a second time in my life, going out on my own and i didnt return to college full time until i was about 25 comes with a second time i went into an environment that is very different than i was used to. I was at harvard. First time in ten years you are a fulltime student and at harvard without a high school diploma. Cspan and studying with . Guest the age i was studying general things but i majored in economics i and all y degrees were economics. And again coming enormous adjustment but there was no one there to tell me all these professors have it in for you and that is why you are doing badly. I had done badly in harlem and overcame it. Cspan what happened in that harvard experience, how long did you stay . Guest graduated. Cspan im sorry, i thought you said he went to howard. Guest for a year and a half and then i transferred to harvard. I was working fulltime during the day. So at harvard i was a fulltime student for the first time in eight years, so that was cspan cspan what years did you go to harvard . Guest graduated class of 58. And that is not unique. At stanford students complained the establishment has threatened them and they claim that only 15 percent of the students have ever attended a single event sponsored by the establishment that speaks boldly in their name. So you have this kind of thing going on. Last year the students who cant meet the academic standard and then theres professors who cant make the academic standard and then you have to create courses. Correct me on the names Harvard Law School black man threat and the law school didnt hire a black man . He is taking unpaid leave until such time as they hire a woman of color as he says. But he also said that by black he does not mean skin color but those really black not who think white and look black he really is saying he wants ideological conformity in the people he wants to hire. Thats not uncommon either i know black women for example who had a book published and a contract on another book and having one hell of a time getting a job at any job teaching at the college and the reason she is blackballed by people who dont like her ideology. And law school i learned recently a woman that was trying to get a tenured position all the men voted for her all the women were against her because she did not follow radical feminism. So while they say diversity there is a conformity. What are your politics . To say im biased against politics have been a part of our racial parties since 1973 and im disingenuous of politics. Why . Just by what they do and how they do it. They are quite clever with the things that they do all issues in general not just race. Has a been changing over the years . It has been for the worse. I see some hopeful signs i would like to see a limited of you are going to allow the house for example four years in washington that would should be one fouryear term instead of two, to your terms because the reelection that i have to raise the money they sell out the Public Interest to get the money its quite simple. If you have an industry like the cigarette Industry Congress will appropriate enough money with put a sstop e economist. Giving the money. At the couple of your one the cover of your book preferential policy so in history who are your favorites not the politician but your favorite people . Historic figures . Or people i look up to . Food you follow . Like the Winston Churchill type . I think Winston Churchill the greatest man of the 20th century. I find it horrifying that most americans High School Students do not know who Winston Churchill is. One thing alone that anyone man could be said of Winston Churchill that he saw an enormous dangers that led to world war ii because millions of people would not have lost their lives but even at the 11th hour it was enough to pull been through if they had not pulled through we dont know if the United States would have pulled through that would be highly unlikely i would be sitting here now. Your favorite american president . Abraham lincoln i guess. But its a shame you have to go back to lincoln to find the president you can admire. Among the modern people, and different respects fdr, jfk and ronald reagan. Domestically reagan and fdr but they recognize a danger without which all the other issues would not matter. Is not a political parties. I am a great believer. A libertarian . Not with the aclu. I agree for thems should be kept in school because of the constitution. People have to recognize that all people all their lives in society cannot simply demolish just because its unjust. Its always been unjust and then it has to be within the context. So i want more for the individual. I dont want people making a decision that dont pay the price of their decision politicians dont pay the price of their decisions. In the jim crow era the politicians did not pay the price. But the politicians who put that in, they drew full salaries irrespective of that. I want someone who discriminates who lose money discriminating because people tend to back off if they lose big money. Harlem is an allwhite community and became a black Community Despite the organization to keep blacks out. They were losing money and people in the Civil Rights Era by not trying to promote more free market because that is discrimination. One of the most interesting sentences is about india that the most diverse country in the world at 180 languages have more melting pot than the United States. They are polarized. In fact one of the tragedies if the organize groups in the United States to vulcanized the United States is to create a United States is enormously handicapped under which of subs to have for an africa are laboring due to historical and geographical reasons and now having one language and culture over a distance in europe from madrid to moscow now you throw that down the drain . Not being aware of what is happening if you have people that speak different languages or different beliefs trying to be in the same society. We say the relations are bad on campus. If this keeps up what will happen . It will get worse and worse. It already has their skinheads on college campuses. There are already harassments of minority students on a scale unseen 20 or 30 years ago. And of course the reaction on both sides to escalate because what you do is get a lot of leverage from all the different groups. So in israel because this is one of the six or seven arrows so any thought right now ever approach meant between the arabs and the jews so you have to say one man has a leverage for millions of people on both sides to have a livable arrangement between the two . Once you get that racial hype you put that power into the hands of demagogues to prevent vast numbers of people who are not to do anything because once they are polarized of crazies or whatever. Back to the campus and what is creating the prejudice other than the elites that you talk about, what is it among people that creates the differences they dont get along . Blacks and whites were different but you didnt find all the black students sitting at lunch time at a table like you do on many campuses today. All the black students had white roommates. And then i would say the ones that i knew were all popular. Other than me. What is causing it . The fact you do have the elite, another agenda so the students are forced to come out to do the demonstrations. The fact that you have students there because they suddenly find themselves in the situation is all we can do. If someone was to tell them you cant hack it that is your problem. That is called insensitivity but it is so reinforcing now there are some reactions are not for some key feeding each other on these new colleges invariably the first thing that will be said is now theres a larger quota of minority students and faculty and we must now subject the white students to sensitivity courses or what have you that will not make things better. But if they get worse it is an upward spiral. I see that leading to bad things. What would you do if you are the administrator of the college . Now youre bringing me in 20 years later. Twenty years ago i said dont do it. I said if you do it this will be the consequence and i was not the only one. So i put the blame on the administrators. Now nobody wants to hear what i have to say but asking if i would come to princeton and i said no. No one has ever asked me to come to the university to do this. Not at princeton or anywhere else. Because the ideologues they dont want me to confuse the issue or just across the country this is the first of a two book authorized biography and in the preface you say not only has a been written with his cooperation but even his suggestion. How did that happen . Authors should be nervous to hear the word authorize that he has some control over it but when he suggested this to me which is more than ten years ago, i said yes. I would be willing to do this but on the condition i have a completely free hand then if you ask me to do this you give me access to your private papers i will write what i think is the truth which incidentally was the basis on which ive written the previous books. He agreed to that. How does that happen . Did you know him before hand . What was the moment . I met him. He read my stuff we met at a party in london i say in the preface of full disclosure and we were talking about one of the books i had written because he had already read it we are having a conversation about that. So we met on that basis i forget exactly when but sometime after that the subject came up i think he was attracted to the idea of a scholarly biography. Wasnt the first person who was considered for this job. But when he put the question to me initially i said no. Then he wrote me a very Henry Kissinger letter. It was a letter. Not an email. It said what a great shame just when i had decided you are the ideal man to do this and just as i found 150 boxes of my private papers that i thought were lost so then a week or two later i was looking at those boxes of papers. And then i decided i should do this. So here is an extremely difficult life to write or for a range of reasons it is undocumented, controversial or difficult to do that these papers in particular your with the early correspondence and within a few hours i thought i have to take this home. This is not a man who has been undocumented. There has been memoirs extensively even longer than your book. So why do you think he wanted . And he also shared with Walter Isaacson for his biography. One of the claims they make in the book is by nature a historian and a historian knows that a memoir is different from the history and the biographies. His three volume covers his time in government and he left and 69 but it was nice that he had written that and something i knew so little about and those noticeably few documents and the idea was somebody should write a scholarly biography based on the documents and archival sources because that did not exist. And a bunch of books you can find the libraries that are thought to be biographies of kissinger many not much more than hearsay. So the argument for a scholarly biography as a figure in history was compelling and i was lucky because that hole. From his earliest days growing up in germany right down to nixon offering him a job as National Security advisor and 68 was largely neglected by previous writers. Host your described as a conservative historian. Do you think he chose you for that reason with the other unnamed person conservative . Yes. He was. I think its more important because i think there is some advantage to being and outsider. And one characteristic feature has been the extraordinary diplomacy from the early 1970s and in some ways from that generation of 1968 that came of age during the vietnam war. And your generation i need somebody who can come at this as history with memorabilia from woodstock in my attic. [laughter] in the question of conservativism and may be adding up because i mean Something Different if you grew up in the uk. It is not republicanism and the us version and im not by any means a republican in my politics now that i live in the United States. I am a conservative more than kissinger was as a young academic a european conservatism because if you are the american conservative it may be shocking to use of in that same kind of way that kissinger is concerned with that european variant so is mine. When you say a european conservative is at the National Security realm . It is social issues. And with the politics are National Security issues is often the case that people get confused into thinking there is an argument going on about National Security i have been critical in recent years of president obama and his predecessor and that was extremely critical of the invasion of iraq in the way the occupation was handled. So suppose i was drawn into the debates of foreign policy. And i probably approached it rather naively i could criticize the public one republicans and democrats. Its hard to be in that position but on National Security issues to be more independent. There is no question theres been a convergence is the end of the cold war like bosnia or iraq itself that the humanitarian challenges for those on the right or the isolationists. Im not sure the independent what that is maybe thats a case by case . Or somebody recognizes they are cant to be a simple partyline on National Security issues. Somebody doesnt on social or cultural issues. And kissinger as a young man is in the same position he is a small see conservative and certainly look like a liberal the 19 fifties or sixties. And real american conservatives like goldwater in the 1964 Republican Convention there was a very unusual relationship with the rights of the Republican Party and that is kissingers predicament and we explain what he is a controversial figure. And then Christopher Hitchen hitchens, he had those enemies on the right especially of the debates with the soviet union. The book is called the idealist which is a contrary and take on kissinger even with that type of description is a descendent of machiavelli and that of which you explain in the book is not that notion of idealism. Can you explain for the audience at home the idealist like kissinger but thats not the description you are using. It is true most people think kissinger has the arch realist in the machiavellian so maybe its not surprising people fall into that trap but a show in the book it is a trap. We argue the United States with that narrow selfinterest and then are critical and with that machiavellian notion to think thats not what they have done but i was struck and critical the realism and then the essay is highly critical and then look at kissingers Actual Development it is pretty striking. Growing up in the twenties and thirties to see germany in 1938 and to be highly critical of appeasement that when dad is the interesting essay and that narrow selfinterest approach and to be disregarded as human rights abuses so when the 1930s as a realist and then to try to get rid of this pushy undergraduate and then to put that in. And the problem on the one hand and with dad experience but on the other hand and in the world and with this discussion and then to be reconciled. And then the freedom as kissinger defines it that is a terrible experience thats a crucial one given the cold war complex by the academic career and then the theory of the soviet bloc and those capitalist theories that says of our growth rate is higher than we will in the cold war. And that diplomacy in the 19 fifties so let me briefly describe the case versus texas and to encapsulate a lot of the issues in globalization. The university of texas is a case of a Mexican National who crossed the border and committed murder and was sentenced to death by the state court in texas and was not however given his warnings under the Geneva Convention that requires when an alien is arrested in the United States to be given and warnings he can seek access to his consulate. Texas refused to reconsider the decision even with did not provide warnings as required by the treaty. The state of the country of mexico and the International Court of justice to seek relief United States has violated treaty obligations they found against United States and said it had violated the obligations under the treaty and issued an order to halt the execution and the other aliens on death row in the United States also in the same situation. President bush issued an order to the governor of texas to governor perry ordering him to stop the execution so the United States could come into compliance with the Vienna Convention and that International Courts decision and texas refused to obey and that they refuse to stop the execution and was executed shortly thereafter. The Supreme Court said even though we signed the Vienna Convention that require these kinds of warnings that Congress Still had yet to do something and had to act and then Tell Congress did that they would not get into the business of enforcing the treaty even if on death row. So one case it is complicated but it summarizes a lot of issues in this book and the first is that globalization although we use the phrase a lot has caused a lot of changes in our political needle system when we say globalization is key things it is the easy and Rapid Movement across national borders. And millions of aliens cross our borders every year coming in out of the country. Billions of dollars of goods and services and the economic report of the president a few years ago, 30 percent of american gnp is related to imports or exports. Billions of dollars move with the press of a button here and abroad. Globalization refers to the ease of communications in the rise of the internet and do networks that make it extremely easy and cheap for people to communicate and affect us the way they didnt 50 or 25 years ago. If you look at the american stock markets moving up and down in reaction to what is happening in greece they can pay back the bonds has an effect on the dow jones but the speed and quickness of communications makes that possible. However the first to admit that globalization is not an dilated good. Globalization makes bad things possible such as the transnational criminal networks, drug smuggling, pollution, terrorismn fact a lot of these problems use the same channels of International Commerce to move around the world just as good thing muppercaseletter people do. That has sparked a response with regulatory regimes that control these types of globalization. We call it world of governance but it is outside the power of a single nationstate to regulate any of these things. It would be affecting most of the goods and services and capital to control those pollution and crime that because the transportation and ease of communication and globalization it was outside the power of the nationstates to regulate these new types of problems. So we argue any kind of governance. So why is the International Agreements try to regulate worldwide to effectively regulate Something International law has to have a scope it doesnt have to have cracks and those Chemical Weapons Convention regulates the production and storage and existence of every chemical in the world. And those held by Research Laboratories and private persons fall under this convention. And broad scope that wages well into the nationstate. Second and with those International Institutions that are neutral and independent from the control of any one country. They wouldnt do their job and as they had those characteristics to effectively regulate and enforce these new International Law the institutions have to be seen outside the control of any single country. Things not just like the United Nation and Security Council that things like the Chemical Weapons Convention of secretariat and wto has new forms of regulatory bodies. That said outside of the any one country but has a kind of power the International Institutions did not have before. Its fair to say they were more directly under the control of the few nations are some nations now seen as the independent. Just to give an example and then to reach an agreement about Global Warming would have both of these characteristics treaty to be effective would have to reach into Energy Production and use and the country the federal government doesnt regulate here at home related to the extent of Home Energy Usage at the same time International Institutions to decide how much each country was allowed to produce how much pollution it was allowed to make and then in violation to issue sanctions nobody would trust that if it was under the control of the United States of european union. It would lose its legitimacy unless you have the independent institution separate from the control of the nationstates. And the controversial all descriptions and then accelerating the last few years and as globalization ties the economy tighter to the rest of the world he will see more and more of these kinds of agreements and institutions. And the question of the book is how does the United States political needle system respond can the United States cooperate with the new kinds of regimes and how does it do it . Thats the fundamental at issue at the heart of the book as you can guess in my description because those regulation and institutions that that traditionally exercises public power and particularly into the prerogatives of congress especially with control over domestic law or taxation and the prerogatives of the executive branch and the judiciary. For one example, when a treaty regulates an issue, the standard doctrine among many scholars and people working this area that treaties are not limited by the same restrictions on behalf of federalism to congressional statutes a famous case missouri versus holland in the 19 twenties it was thought congress cannot regulate and protect the species of birds for endangered species. The lower court struck down and then to enter the treaty with canada and the Migratory Bird treaty act where congress did exactly the same thing they said they could not do under domestic powers and the Supreme Court said yes and the powers could be broader to regulate things domestically it could not do just with normal congressional statute. Another example of separation of powers. If the courts of claim role and called into areas because of International Law and regimes with more and more that by nature will draw the courts into delicate decisions of politics and Foreign Affairs that they use to try to stay out of. This interview took place at the libertarian conference freedom fest in las vegas 2017. He was there to talk about his book, shame. I wrestled with the title for a long time on this book there are many different themes and finally i came upon the word shame and that brings together. What is the central theme you were going for . The theme is that america arguably the greatest country in history also perpetrated the greatest sins and to dehumanize relentlessly year in and year out amidst stunning greatness. And from what we are doing wrong. But on the other hand it is a shame we will now have to deal with. And it is one of the most certainly how this society and having be traded. And so it tries to look at different aspects of that irony. Host but that 19 sixties liberal movement in your view cause the current political polarization. Yes. Thank you. Very fair assessment. And the mixing with shame and that ideology would redeem them to bring back legitimacy and democracy is our mission and has examine a dead american and politics for the last 50 or 60 years. s of propriety over this terrible shame and we will and racism and sexism. And i wars on poverty and to bring them up to power with everyone else. And that will restore our legitimacy. Host in your book the and word is used pretty liberally and some groups coopted it they didnt necessarily want to coopted the n word word but they did. Yes. And with that political purpose. And so to ascribe to that word and then never before but then to serve their argument. And for the last 50 or 60 years. Now you have two americans and we now demand in the name of for we suffered that empowers us to give us special considerations so that is what contributed to the larger point of view of power and victimization. Host why did you put the story of the swim team in the book . Talk about quitting the Swimming Team in the story i was the only black kid on the Swimming Team. I was the kept in mind the captain. And before my senior year and with Summer Vacation for the entire team and his mothers home in upper lake michigan. And then they organized without knowing anything about it. And i was never told about it. And then to collaborate. We like each other but mother said no blacks. So he honored that and plotted with the parents of the other swimmers so that did not happen. He liked me. I like him. I babysat for him. And then we collaborated in a way. And that there is something unacceptable about me. And then to talk about him is this is the situation of the profound hypocrisy and those that is much looked at me and he called me every name in the book and got mad. Because he was wrong and he knew he was wrong in america now stands apologetic and begging for some relief with the stigma of racism. And that is minority power now for 50 years. So that incident because i did not quit the Swimming Teams because they excluded me i grew up in segregation. I saw it all the time. I knew he was compromise. What was the parents life like in 1940 chicago . They were Exceptional People my father was in the south a third grade education my mother was uppermiddleclass white daughter of a contractor so on the surface they were very different once you got to know them you saw my father was better but i spent more time reading than my mother but for them and that they knew for American Life and they did it without ever complaining or compunction and that this is what those core baby. I was one of those and then to demonstrate what i came out of. And they were true and admirable people. With a wrong . They were not. They were right. This is important. They were not wrong. This was deeply blanket leave racist society. I could not go here or there in the restaurant until i was 17 because blacks cannot go into the restaurants are get a job there. Segregation was everywhere. They were fighting a concrete, unapologetic in American Society that said listen forget about it for like William Faulkner said and to go slow. Give me freedom or give me death. My parents were never apologetic and fought to the bitter end so i grew up seeing all that had an impact with who i became in the long run. And 50 years later that was a different place. America is not inherently racist you can do anything you want you can be president , ce president , ceo, dishwasher, anyg you choose to be in america today. Does that mean every white person will love you . I dont know when i care but its important you have that opportunity. So the Civil Rights Movement today is very different from back then. They are not fighting against real enemy with bigotry they are fighting now for they are manipulating the white votes and using the story of black civilization to manipulate our society into entitlements and those that do nothing but shakedown major american corporations this is not the Civil Rights Movement of my town or what i grew up in. Its very different. Host what is your connection to stanford . I am a fellow at Stanford University that ive always been very happy a great the institution happy with people there a grade environment and colleagues it has meant everything to me into my work that has facilitated that. I am a fan. [laughter] in 1940 is when we start in the book is the day churchill became Prime Minister for what he wanted most of all he became Prime Minister and the consensus that Neville Chamberlain was not up to the challenge of dealing with hitler in germany but so those phony wars became when hitler invaded the low countries so here is the situation where churchill the greatest day of his life in the history of the world this did not donned churchill with added space to be in charge of this great empire in such a dire time fooled him. So he becomes Prime Minister we could talk about the other people or the main characters that have been relegated to that secondary posture and talk about the existential threats with that presumption at the time that once germany consolidated with the British Expeditionary forces the chaos at dunkirk that the entire strategic picture would change. Prior to france that this would keep the riffraff that they and they would not have the endurance so now with france falling there is german airbases on the coast of the English Channel just minutes away from england and minutes away from london something they had never even speculated on. So you have that thread and its very real that they would invade in the cross channel attack that with that superiority so if you can imagine taking control at this time not only has hitler begun evading and succeeding with that existential threat across the channel and what a hellish prospect but not for churchill he took this on time and time again. Let me jump right in. You talk about the power of unrestricted cash transfers to transform the lives of people. I know yo you can do this slowly but surely that every time i ask others about this idea they say why should we trust people, wont this make them lazy, how do you answer that from your own experience . Guest first off, thanks for having me. I look forward to having the conversation today on this import