The strand is the sole survivor now run by a thirdgeneration owner and we want to thank you for your support. We are so appreciative. Tonight we are beyond excited to have with us journalist and historian Richard Kreitner to launch his new book break it up. Richard grew up in new jersey and studied philosophy in montreal. Since 2012 hes been affiliated with the nation as a intern editor and writer and also published essays, reviews and articles. The new york review of books in the New York Times. His books are break it up and the secret history of america the Perfect Union and a travelers guide to literary locations around the world and also writes only united name and occasional newsletter on politics and history. Joining richard in conversation is rick perlstein, author of reaganland. Before that he published the invisible bridge, the fall of nixon and the rise of reagan. New york times bestseller, one of the best nonfiction books of the year by over a dozen locations. Winner of the 2001 Los Angeles Times book award for history. Former chief National Correspondent for the village boy voice. His journalism and essays have appeared in newsweek, the New York Times and many other publications. Without further ado, please join me in welcoming richard and rick to the stage. Hello. Hello. You have a job to do right now. Yes. We have decided since we are equal in all things, richard and ricky, ricky and richard, eric and richard that we are going to put the coin to decide who asked the first question on the other. We ask you to do the honors. I think ricky, you should call it. Okay. You choose who goes first. All righty. Tales. Its heads. Rick . I will go second. In asking a question . Yes, you will ask him the question first. Audit. I will get my questions here and i think what most people remember about reagans president ial campaign of 1980, which is a culmination of reagan reaganland, your new book is the speech he gave kicking out the general Election Campaign where 16 years earlier the bodies of civil rights worker had been discovered murdered by the clan in cahoots with the local police and people accused reagan up at racism justly for doing that and you shall in the book that reagan was really uncomfortable with that and visibly so and kind of muddled his remarks in the ended up causing backlash. Didnt help him at all. My question is, my whole book is about secession and states rights of what did reagan himself believe in states rights the area of constitution or was he on occasionally using it in strip meant only connect thank you, richard. One of the things that excites me so much about your book, impacts on my so that that i almost felt like you had written the book i dreamed of writing maybe 10 or 20 years from now is that you place absolutely at the center of the narrative the fact that the idea that the United States are united is a myth. It exists in fragment in the four books i read. Why american elites so frantically and insistently want to believe that america is united, so the extent to they deny all the structural conflict american life. That gets into the answer of the question you asked. This is one of the most famous things happening in the 1980 campaign and the reason one of the reasons its so indelibly remembered as it was one of the only things that the Carter Campaign did during the election that was truly effective and competent. The background is really quite striking and ironic. One of the main parts of reagans political strategy was derived from a pollster of his who basically came up with a guidebook, the 167 guidebook, for the campaign. One of his principles was, people think that Ronald Reagan is a bigot, they fear that Ronald Reagan is a bigot but they might have sympathy with his ideas, they might even harbor a little bigotry themselves, so the most important thing they had to do about that was to convince all voters supporting Ronald Reagan was not an act of bigotry. The way they realized they could do that was a template that all republican campaigns have repeated since, in which in fact the Trump Campaign repeated in spades last week at their convention, which is to speak as often as possible for African American audiences and have as many africanamericans as possible speak on his behalf. That this was not an attempted outreach for black loaders but an outreach toward what we would now call suburban moderate. That was why when they decided where they were going to open their general Election Campaign they decided to do it before the urban league. The big africanamerican mainstream civil rights organization, in fact, probably the most moderate of all the civil rights organization. But there was a scheduling snafu so the part that was supposed to be the second speech ended up being the first speech. The idf are speaking at a county fair in mississippi was to send a signal to the Carter Campaign that they could not take the president s home region for granted. That the south was going to be and play really for the First Time Since the civil war. As you understand as well as anyone. He was just going to give his standard speech but he got picked up at the airport by his Mississippi Campaign chairman, a young congressman named trent locked, trent lott had been the president of the fraternity at ole miss that served as the arsenal for the writers who kept James Meredith from matriculating on campus in 1962. If he really wanted the crowd eating out of his hand he would say he was a supporter of states rights. Which of course was the code word phrase that every racist would bellow at the top of their lungs at a place like the Neshoba County fair in order to signal their sympathy for whites of pharmacy. Ronald reagan did this but as i argue. If you actually listen to the speech, his energy drains and drains and drains, the closer he comes to the violation. Its one of the worst Ronald Reagan speeches ive ever heard, he keeps telling three times more jerks than he does, three times more charming stories that he does than usual and by the time he gets to the work he practically mumbles them. You can hear them on youtube. That is because Ronald Reagans most strong psychological drive was his sense of his own innocence. He was not a venal person he was not a demagogue and his ability to project that innocence was absolutely crucial to why he did such a good job of reassuring americans that policies that propounded by other politicians like Barry Goldwater in 1964 was some reactionary national selfish bigoted. He gave the speech and the Carter Campaign and democrats around the country immediately pounced. It was so effective and basically exactly reversing the attention of the entire strategy of the Dragon Campaign and pigeonholing dragon as someone who is in sympathy with africanamerican abwith bigots, that one of his Campaign Workers for mississippi wrote an angry letter to the campaign saying we have mississippi in the bag and now its a tossup. To this day the Neshoba County speech is remembered as Proof Positive that Ronald Reagan stoked the fires of bigotry in order to win the election. The thing that connected it up to your work is that the official code of the gatekeeping media leaves when it comes to electioneering is the fiction that somehow america is united enough ab reagan fell foul of those gatekeepers, those referees, writing editorials about reagans divisiveness precisely because he had stepped over some invisible boundary that reminded people these conflicts exist when we were supposed to pretend they didnt exist at all. The old conflicts had been transformed into the language. We are now a colorblind nation. Then he caught back too obvious which was the trouble that trump got into and charlottesville what did they say online . a the biggest difference between Ronald Reagans appeal to conservative electorate and Donald Trumps is that Ronald Reagan was in fact the master of the dog whistle. Donald trump as the train whistle. You ask, does he in fact hold a section of the constitution that rhymes with the southern doctrine of states rights, the answer to that is abhe opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the same ground that Barry Goldwater did to tell businesses what they could and could not do. He opposed an open housing referendum by saying people have the right to dispose of their property as they wished. He criticized the 19 625 Voting Rights act saying that it singled out the south and that it was unfair. His whole constitutional doctrine, his whole idea of the role of federal government was that it should be as small as possible. He definitely believed that states should use certain powers that had previously been held by the federal government but a big part of his success as a politician was an ability to present this in a way that had shaved off any racial reference. That was why he was successful and thats why it was so dangerous for him to signal this sort of racial entailment in his Neshoba County speech. The fascinating question is, considering the fact that as president he did things like cut the budget for Public Housing by 0. 80, does that make him less of a contributor to americas racial ordeal or more of a contributor to americas racial ordeal. Was his ability to persuade white voters who were voting for him in some sense because he was taking the federal government out of the business of uplifting africanamericans and we know from the exit poll results that people who believe the federal government was doing too much for blacks, voted for reagan overwhelmingly over jimmy carter, was this a reactionary thing . I think the answer is yes. He kept racial policymaking going when it had been on fumes precisely because he had absolved america of the taint of racism unless people vote for him in a way that made life work for africanamericans a throughout American History american politicians find success by subsuming racism into the rhetoric of National Unity, that was the basis on which White Supremacy aup to 1861 and then after 1855. The question was, White Supremacy was to threaten the unity of the nation. Right. I have a question for you. One of the fun things about writing this theory is you get to what denies hindsight in order to dramatize how things that now seem inevitable almost didnt happen. Its especially powerful in your book because it turns around the formation of the United States itself. You have a picture of a continental three dollar bill with the latin motto, the outcome is in doubt, what are some of the reasons the outcome was in doubt that the United States almost did not become the United States . Thank you for the question. To me this goes to why did it take so long for a union to be formed in the first place . We kind of skip over the colonial pretty quickly but it was 150 years from same time a acolonies existed without a union and it wasnt because they didnt have the idea and nobody suggested it, but they rejected it out of hand, they wanted nothing to do with one another, they didnt want to form a union. When the revolution came they formed one as a means to the end. They only joined together because it seemed like that was the only way to beat britain, to rebel against the crowds, some of it at least considered here. That reluctance, i suggest, played a role in the fragility of this coalition and it was fragile from the start. Why did it almost break apart were not even survive through the civil war . The declaration of independence did not create a union, it was this union document, the secession manifesto that adopted the colonies out of their relationship with great britain, united one vehicle with another but didnt form a new nation, it wasnt a constitutional document. To create that, they needed to work on one and draw it out, that was ultimately the articles of federation. The summer of 1776 they came to terms of union they couldnt find any agreeable document they could all sign. It took absolutely forever up until the end of the war. There were a few issues and divisions that really decided the American People one was western lands, who would control this vast landmass on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains that the americans expected they would come into. Who was proand who was con. Of your large state like virginia who had a colony dating back to the early 17th century abthe colony of great britain. Right. They said they had all the land from sea to sea from the atlantic to the pacific, no better abif you are a county like marilyn he didnt have that on your chart and virginia wanted to control the land that it thought was its right and marilyn wanted all the new land to go into the national domain, wanted congress to control it and ultimately break it apart into the new states, the union on equal terms as the original 13 members. This is why maryland was the last holdout state that refused to ratify the articles of confederation right up until almost the end of the war. I tell the story in the book there is very little known story about why maryland finally did that. Thats because they were being blackmailed by a foreign power. We think that foreign meddling like by russia, trump and whatnot, is a new thing but it really isnt. It was all over the new republic in the 1770s all the way up to the early 19th century to stop maryland was facing british invasion in 1780 1781 and requested france, americans great patients to send ships and the french ambassador to the United States took the opportunity to give maryland an offer they couldnt refuse and said, maybe we will see about sending the ships it would be great if you ab ratify the articles of federation because were tired of dealing with states amiles per. We have independence before there was a nation. That the confederate theory. Thats precisely what lincoln was arguing against. He said there was a union before there was independence. Its kind of an academic aat the time im not really relied on that. Another story about that period showed that even if there was a union before the declaration of independence, and lincolns theory it was formed by the trade point the Continental Congress divides in 1774, lincoln was daring with the Secessionist Movement in South Carolina, during the debates in the Continental Congress in 1774 over that trade boycott, South Carolina walked out the congress to protest the provision they didnt like and they only agreed to join once the provision was taken out. Even if there was a union before, it was compromised from the very beginning by the very same tendencies that lincoln was dealing with in his time. The western land was one issue, the other issue is representation, which we know a lot about today. With the people he represented in the congress or with the states . What the states have equal voting power as they did today in the senate. That was a massive thing in the revolutionary period. Good stuff. [inaudible] only the president themselves. Obviously these candidates are in social and cultural history. [multiple speakers] [inaudible] it is a story of the american presidency. Lbj advocates often in march 1968, nixon, we know what nixon did. Discredited the presidency ab and then carter comes along and abeven the best the democrats can say is when hes running for reelection 1980. [multiple speakers] why did biden say . Providing his preserving his viability for 1980. I thought of the review in your book talked about trumps very brief appearance. I think the biden appearance is even more interesting. My question is about the presidency, seems by 1979, 1980 that could anybody fill this office of the presidency . It struck me while reading your book that its faults, ragan mightve saved the american presidency. The ability to do the job. Do you see it that way . Thats a really interesting question and i have a very specific answer that it was very clear, almost from the beginning that became almost doctrine and i think accurate doctrine by the team james follows wrote this cover article in the Atlantic Monthly just as carters presidency is falling apart follows had been a speechwriter for carter, although almost at the same time, Nicholas Lemmon wrote a similar article in Texas Monthly and they talk about how jimmy carter is such a micromanager and trying to kind of keep his finger in all the roles of the administration of the executor ranch and thats one of the major reasons for his failure as a president. He almost causes a full revolt by the entire Democratic Caucus of the United States, these guys. [multiple speakers] there is a moment where he presents the idea hes allowed 150 federal judiciary. This part of it is micromanaging. The other example is one of his big Campaign Promises and hes gonna reform the tax code which he says is a disgrace to the human race and he doesnt explain what that means, lower taxes, raise taxes but to do what he reads the entire 2000 page tax code and comes up with basically hey abwithout concept of the fact that all these Christmas Tree ornaments on this massive thing have these political back stories from past dependencies. He cant manage the white house because he is trying to manage white house. One of the interesting things that happens when Ronald Reagan is running for presidency the same thing that always happens when Ronald Reagan runs for office, including for governor, which is that all the commentators say how can this guy run a government . Hes so incurious, he so poorly informed. He barely knows what his own policies are for and there is a terror when Ronald Reagan became president that the country would fall apart or that we would nuke the whole world. One of the remarkable things that happens is that as every ragan biographer, abputs it at the center of the story of the reagan presidency he was completely out of touch. Even abit turns out that thats a pretty good way to be president. With the complexity of the federal government with all the different political cross pressures at play that a president who tries to have a finger in every tie and monitor everything basically goes crazy. Especially a good strategy if youre on your way to having dementia. Not because Ronald Reagan is any genius and has sophisticated theory of executive power but hes not curious and everything hes learned hes learned it decades ago and hes not gonna learn anything new. Famously out of reception he said to his secretary of housing and urban development, this relates to your first question, who happens to be africanamerican, nice to see you mr. Mayor. He didnt even know who his own officials were. Turns out that delegating everything to the grownups in the room, this is where its donald trump very much a different kind of figure, like the howard bakers, like the a alike the Alexander Higgs the daytoday operations of the presidency in which he basically followed the script written by other people work much more smoothly than the carter administration. I dont think he saved the presidency because of his great charisma or anything but just to give like a parallel, i remember that when i was growing up and new york was going to aand garbage was in the streets, crime rate was astronomical, my dad would say new york city is ungovernable and now i know that was kind of a clichc, thats what everyone said. For various reasons it seems to become more ungovernable, more governable. A lot of that was because this guy giuliani came around and started bashing heads and suddenly people were like, turns out the city is governable after all. This idea the country had become ungovernable much faded during the reagan years and seems to be an epic phenomenon of this very strange president ial managerial style of jimmy carter. Spin the wheel. One of the really fun stories is the western expansion. I love history books, i never enjoy the roots dont like books i read about slavery in the college because i can never figure out how to these guys communicate with each other . I couldnt get a sense the everydayness of life below the Mason Dixon Line before 1860s. One of the pleasures about your book as i really feel like what was it like to try and be a political figure during the 18th century during the 19th century . How great the distances were . How hard communication was, and some things that happen with this is the sheer alienation between these parts of the country that could only communicate with each other with a lag time of days or weeks or months. One of the ways that plays out is as these various chunks of the landmass between atlanta and pacific become part of basically america, say america gets controlled as other countries lose control, again and again and again these various chunks of america that we now think of as american. We can even conceive them. Your consider joining other countries or becoming their own countries. Off of the top your head give us examples of some of these chunks out there that are deciding whether these people a lot of people were talking about how californias succession after the 2016 it was an extremely old concept, even Thomas Jefferson said he didnt know much about california, he knew the first trader John Jacob Astor established the settlement and what we now call oregon in the 1810s he said i wish you well but that will probably be a separate empire. That was an extremely popular position. Daniel webster, who we associate with National Unity with liberty and union one in acceptable. Didnt think that when he came to the west coast he thought it was always settled by white anglosaxon men from america. It would be fine. Into that need to be part of the union. The west coast could establish a separate republic. This was an extremely popular idea there was no Transcontinental Railroad. It took months to get from new york during the gold rush. To stay on the moon. Absolutely. In the populated especially after the gold rush from people all over the place, all over the world. China especially, south america and europe and everywhere, that had no attachment to the United States and no desire to be a part of it at all. I suggest that the desire for Transcontinental Railroad was kind of a threat that californians issued to the United States that you dont build this we are going to secede and form our own union. Effectually during the civil war lincoln decides to Start Building the Transcontinental Railroad as a way to prevent the union from breaking along the west boundary as it had north and south. By that time there is a reason, they have all that gold. Absolutely, thats also the reason for california to want to be and because they were fully selfsufficient nation as many people think today would be as well. One of the interesting things about i almost laughed out loud when i realize how easy it was to form a nation during that period. You have this guy jane was welcome sin, basically you can tell how this plays out all you really need is a gun vote and a porch and there is very little states were very small then. Certainly of the american state was, very little taxation so as long as you can collect the tariffs at the port you could say you had a nation. Then you control everything along every waterway. You almost immediately have an empire, that was erin burns whole plan. This Guy Wilkinson is one of the most powerful i think. He was willing to take money from anybody his allegiance really meant nothing. During the Constitutional Convention he was actually bargaining withsspain, they we subsidizing to stir up in kentucky. He was on the payroll for 20 years. And everybody kind of knew it, he was in charge of the United States army for a long time. Everybody knew this guy was a total trader. Im actually writing that piece that piece of the book theres all this news about traders it seems to me like we are back at the early days of the republic that we have seen our heyday and now back to this position of total impotence and disunity that was not really created but in the position to take advantage of. Basically a settlement and it has this great location and everyone knows there eventually will be a canal here. The canal never comes another railroad is trying to come back time by the political character and culture of chicago is completely formed by these Jane Wilkinson tom dominic Paul Manafort like characters. We actually havent talked about it before. There is a conspiracy to establish midwestern republic. Maybe people realize chicago was in a different time zone and invite me to do a radio show. This one is about ababout this great quote from goldwater that i love which is that coldwater said he ablbj made a great president ial campaign commercial about that 1964 and then in dragon land in the late 70s the southwest is basically cursing for using too much oil. This is kind of return of most people dont really realize it was there. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about geographical tensions in the 60s and 70s and how much you way back to generational gaps. Its really interesting you could definitely reread some sources in light of that insight there was a guy at him if he still around, our wonderful british journalist he wrote the best book about the 1968 election that came out the year after he wrote a wonderful book that you should read called, he wrote a great book about the history of the postwar american consensus i corresponded with him when i was starting my goldwater book, he had written some stuff about the conservative movement and he talks about his first trip to arizona, this wouldve been the early 1960s when goldwater was becoming a National Figure and he was writing about it he said these people around goldwater who basically like plantation ain a lot of ways talked about the east like they were being colonized. Like they talked about colonial power they were suing for their independence. In making the president in 1964 theodore points out that the new york, wall street controlled 50 of the nations banking reserves. Basically financially the rest of the nation, especially the nation west of the mississippi really was almost like a colony of wall street and thats why the greatest term of division further midwestern republicans and the southwestern republicans was wall street republicans. That like these small businessmen who formed the political and social economic base of the right wing of the Republican Party and goldwater basically came to wall street hat in hand for the very survival and a lot of the guys who were the people involved in the original movement the people involved in getting constant conservative, Barry Goldwaters book published, looking at their correspondence in the papers are one of their leaders this guy Clarence Manion was a dean at notre dame they would be like foundry owners in milwaukee, or had a lumber company in tennessee or a toiletry Fixture Company in minnesota, the stationary would have an address in their town and also an address in new york. Because they literally had to have branches in order to basically beg for capital from a company like morgan stanley, which if you read nick lemmons wonderful book transaction man, it was almost like a futile organization it was literally 25 partners who decided who got money. The way things were set up with such a monopoly for finance capital that there was no negotiation. They just decided what your Interest Rate was gonna be they decided how much back they were an issue they decided how much he would charge, who would sell it around the country. Thats very much part of the goldwater movement and then of course i can just say this sentence and say the resentment between the south and the north speak to that profoundly. That the guy the Goldwater Convention after he was nominated in 1964 from the south is that we just push the masondixon line up to canada that was a statement of regional civil war. The thing youre talking about in the 1970s as Americas Energy stores are going to crap in 1979 as a around and bargains their energy, the first thing to understand about why it was so traumatic to the country is that america not only because had there ever been an Energy Problem but energy wasnt even conceptualized as a thing that can be scarce. During the Nixon Administration there was an excellent official that told the president within 10 years energy is gonna be so plentiful gonna be too cheap to abtoo cheap to meter. It was not an economic factor. Like Energy Prices were stable, way below even inflation. For decades. Then suddenly the third world decided they were gonna throw their weight around. Once there is an Energy Shortage and jimmy carter decides hes going to create a National Energy policy, its exactly like a chapter out of your book. How can there be a National Energy policy when some states are Energy Producers and their interests are completely centered around high prices just like her farmers need high prices and lack of regulation and basically they need the infrastructure to get their stuff to market. Then there is energy consuming places like new england and during the winters of 77|8, especially 1979, there is Home Heating Oil shortages. Like a child in the bronx freezing to death. They want price control and there is this enormous regional resentment symbolized by this Bumper Sticker that was very popular in texas that i think you mentioned let them freeze in the dark. And the gas shortage in california when californians are in apocalyptic scenario you mentioned people rest of the country didnt see it like that is all. Theres a senator from illinois who says this is what the california guest from being selfish and building the whole sublimation around abduration last exactly a month until it spreads to the rest of the country. Its a lot like Something Like the European Union where rich countries and poor countries that have completely difficult different abcan become more a athe same thing happens when jimmy carter tends to chief seven summit around oil and some countries are energy independent, some countries have 200 percent gas taxes and thinks its crazy that america has the gas so cheat. The idea of having some common front against opec cant happen but it cant happen in the United States either. Thats another reason why jimmy carter is humorous and thinking he can be an engineer and outside of politics create this jerry Rick Goldberg Energy Structure thats going to completely recombine all the ways energy is produced and distributive throughout the United States. Its a complete pipedream. This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship, as you know. So im asking the questions, right. . Youre getting them from the box. Im going to articulate the questions. You and me probably get some of the questions about trump we probably get a little bit, this is interesting. Interesting. Interesting. Lets go global. Thomas wants to know, richard, what you think about the independence movements in europe like catalonia and ukraine . How they mesh with abmaybe even america is a sense of exceptionalism of somehow we dont have this kind of stuff at crp and think its a nation thing. I talk in the book about how we are exceptional in any way i think its for our fragility we talk about countries like sudan and syria come together after world war i by formal imperial masters people really wanted nothing to do with each other and hadnt historically. Thats precisely how the United States. They didnt want anything to do with each other and only combined together in these ways and then forgetting about the question of indigenous. Feel prepared to comment or decide the benefits of these different Secessionist Movements. Ive been interested by scotland in particular because in america we associate secessionism with racism, and basically localism. Scotta [inaudible] basically scotland is striking you get into the present and to me thats the best part of the book when you Start Talking about cal exit and exits and all this a little less convincing to me one of the things that seemed so salient about the fragility of those boundaries and those lines union and disunion in this to the 19th century was precisely because states were so much more large, complicated, economic ties were not as profound. , frankly, one of the books 1 of the stories i tell in my book and why because most people in america barely paid any income taxes until the 1950s and 1960s. Do think secession might ever happen in large states. I think its possible. These movements are fringe in their states. Its not a day goes by that i dont read the newspaper and find something that tells me we are breaking apart or scanned twitter at 3 00 a. M. And find somebody saying, if trump is reelected we should see it from the United States. She thinks about it pretty seriously now i think a lot of people in california do. Showed the election this november dissolve into gridlock and violence as it relates to the book other elections in American History have in 1818 76 i think very likely you will see more people talking about secession that its can happen in 2020 am not so sure but Climate Change continues to ravage this continent and the federal government as it was with coronavirus this year is totally absent and advocates responsibility, i think you are going to be seeing perhaps more Secessionist Movements but also more regional associations as they did in the spring with three groups of 17 governors on the east coast, midwest and west coast forming these packs among themselves according to purchase and protective equipment and lockout policies. In a pinch which is there going to be more of, i think there will be a reese course abwhat course to that. That would harbor into more formal arrangements. I guess you have a more capacious historical imagination than i do. [inaudible] most of the questions abi think you deserve more attention. Theres a really good question from hamilton came, really smart guy. [multiple speakers] david hector fisher, a writer who wrote a book called al beyond the seed in which he separates various ways that basically americans organically divided into, what you think of his theory . Maybe the broader question is, how big a role does culture play in these regional divisions in the history and now. Its the story of different migrations from england and different parts of england and how they shape different settlements in the future of the United States up to the revolution and beyond. Im not sure that how is any a anot sure weve integrated into both ways of the midlands. The theory was modernized in the book called american nations about 10 or 12 years ago when he divides the United States up until 11 regional cultures. I think were more of a city Country Division at this point. Im in the catskills right now theres a lot of people here who think pretty differently from a any confederate flags . Not here but you mention about pushing masondixon ab we saw confederate flags on the side. [multiple speakers] this is a good question maybe not as related to necessarily the themes of your book when it really was related to the fact that you read deeply in sources and secondary sources on the founding and a question i would definitely want to know and have my own opinions on i will just read it verbatim. Current area of my interest in dispelling the myth that the u. S. Was founded on a christian nation. How big of a role did christian abwhat might be the future impact . Thats really good question. Religion doesnt play as much of a role in my because i would like. Thats regrettable because its a religious concept of spiritual union. How much did religious differences delay the union . I dont think much at all. Anticatholic feelings played a major role in motivating several people to join the rebellion against the crowd because in 1774 the British Parliament passed the qucbec which is awaited us dont consolidate and effectively granted religious liberty to press catholics who were living in canada at the time and extended into the backcountry of angering surveyors and speculators like George Washington who saw it threatening to their land hills but the catholic prejudice played a bigger role in motivating people to back the revolution. Chris has a better way of asking my question and the one about how secession doesnt seem to be feasible because the nationstate is so much more powerful and does so much more, richard, would you agree that secession is not economically feasible. It wouldnt occur because of a large impact the federal government has on the states economy . Thats a really good question. In the spring Mitch Mcconnell a lot of people pointed out that thats not at all how our government or our country works, the blue exit, democratic states should withhold federal revenue until the government is doing what we want. So theres economic competitions and problems but california, new york, the states send a lot more money the federal government then they get back in return. I would like to see a lot more study of this very question and see where whether its economically feasible. Room. We meeting the people who believe in Climate Change . I dont need to define the we anymore, its so obvious. We nonfactionalism. This is a question i think we both can answer but i will give it to you first. Racism wall street it feels like our division is really stuck in emerging has any of the been been resolved . I think immediately of the religion question we were just talking about. This is kind of after showing your book otherwise i think the differences we were talking about california earlier 1840s and 1850s where divisions and tensions that were caused by lack of communication ab thats why people have always favored major infrastructure products in the abprojects in the United States. From the erie canal to the new deal project to the great new deal today. The regional differences. In my stop your moments all we need to do is travel around the country more. Maybe that would do it. Wow, thats so like walter isaacson. So lame. You can get a visa. [laughter] my answer to that question, i think a lot about how america handled division and doesnt handle division. I think of it in psychoanalytic terms that when you request conflict it just comes back in a worse form. To call the return of the repressed and one of the problems one of the reasons america is such a bitter angry dysfunctional country is that, this is a big theme of the subterranean theme in my last book invisible bridge is that when moments come about in which people begin institutions began, movements began, beginning a real period conversation reckoning with the divisions and challenges and laws and injustices for our country then the reagan card gets played with basically are being divisive you think you are apologizing for america, you are creating conflicts instead of addressing conflicts. To me what was excited about the period right after watergate and during vietnam during the first Energy Crisis there was a leftwing patriotism discourse which people were talking about, what would it feel like what would it feel like if america was not the worlds policeman . What would it mean if we had foreign policies based more in International Cooperation the neocolonial domination. What would it mean to really address our racial ordeal as we see people dealing with now. We see that being completely pushed back by the republicans who basically call the active reckoning itself almost like an act of violence. To me the countries that have really done the profound work of transcending conflict in a bone deep in history transforming way are the ones that have gone deepest in the process of acknowledging the conflict and thats kind of the model here is south african truth and reconciliation in which basically you offer people a blanket pardon exchange how can we possibly have some unity between the various structural abrasions within the National Body if we are not even doing surgery. Another example not quite divided but another example deaths that have mature, historical process going on would be of germanys reckoning with its past, the holocaust, and complete and imperfect but still happening. Ive been doing a lot of reading about social democracy and one of the ways these Northern European countries that have Strong Social democracies it didnt happen to people that sat down at a bargaining table and looked each other and that i and struck deals happen through blood and conflict. We have to find a better way. Is not like these countries there is these myths that these Northern European scandinavian countries can basically share so well because theyre so homogeneous. I think it can be done. It requires spiritual depth through american citizenship is lost if you consider the nation as a whole is not were getting to the end do you want to say some last profound words . What you have coming next . Youve written your book, its amazing its up project of a lifetime. Whats the second album . Im not really sure. Im gonna go back to what you are talking about and then maybe the profound words worldcom. I saw a sign at one of the george floyd protest said were trying to make this country something its never been. That struck me because i think that is the case. The problem is, as you know. Even as a the problem is on the other side they see it too they also think we are trying to make the country something its never been and they dont want a part of that. I dont see how we get over that. I dont see how we get over those positions and if we want to make the country different than this one has ever been we might need to start a new one. Here is my last word, it has to do with this dream book im gonna write 20 years from now about how america the denial of conflict, structured organized denial of conflict is the hidden variable that makes america what america is. And why america couldnt get its stuff together. And the ask a question box says Say Something nice. Say something nice. Thats the reason america cannot be other than it is because you are culturally required to Say Something nice you are not allowed to bring to the floor the nastiness, the ugliness, the hard words it takes to sound out and create reverberations of tension that it requires to resolve tension. America will not become great again until we drop the imperative to Say Something nice. We are going to sign off. If you only have 26 to spend on a book, by his, im doing okay see yall later. You are watching booktv on cspan2, television for serious readers. Here are some programs to watch out for tonight, professor Jennifer Todd offers her thoughts on the repercussions average americans face when the rich break the law in order to accumulate more wealth, political commentator candace owen shares her thoughts on why black americans should vote republican and fox cofounder matthew
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.