Transcripts For CSPAN2 BOOK TV 20160618

When swanson, the secretary, found the dummy account she was floored. This is rita, after all. She immediately brought it to the attention of the mayor, who wasted no time in calling the fbi. Six months later they were ready and one morning in april 2012 rita called into the Mayors Office where the fbi was waiting for her. Rita confessed. After all she was caught redhanded. There was nothing much she could do. And fully cooperated with the fbi. This is not the mayor was so upset by now when asked what his thoughts were on the episode was he said, turned out Rita Cromwell didnt give a shit about this town. You can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. Mike jacobs, its a pleasure to get a chance to talk to you here at the carter center. I am also welcome the audience thats come out tonight to listen to our conversation. Mike jacobs is the author of panic at the pump the Energy Crisis and the transformation of american politicness the 1970s. Mike is a teaches history and Public Affairs at princeton. You have written this is third or fourth book . Something like that. You wrote a book i was interested in because were going to be talking about conservatives and liberals. One of them is you were the coauthor of conservatives in power, the reagan years, 1981 to 1989. Interesting. Were going to talk a bit about conservative politics and liberal politics for that matter. Lets start with this, if we can. Okay. You correct me. You have a thesis for this book, and ill let you describe it obviously, but essentially what you argue in this book is that the two Energy Crises of the 70s, 73, 79, essentially were part of and major factor in the transformation of american politics and, among other things, made americans realize that perhaps government could not take care of them the way we had assumed for a long time, and thus paving the way for a conservative revolution. Fair enough . Fair enough. Very good job. Thank you. Thank you for having me here. That is what i discovered in writing this, and its really it became a really interesting story the way that all the anger, frustration, as americans waited hours upon hours on gas lines during the two oil shocks, really led to a transformation in how americans perceived their relationship to government. That government in fact could no longer take care of them, provide for them, guarantee them access to the kind of lifestyle theyd been living, and that really comes to a head in the summer of 1979, when people are just furious, and blame washington, hold washington accountable. You will, of course, explore that in more depth in our conversation, but some of the people who will listen to this will have no recollection what either of those crises were like. In both cases these were tremendously traumatic episodes in our contemporary history. If you think about it, regardless of when you were born i think this still holds true if you ask americans what possession best symbolizes your sense of being american was the cars. A long roman with the car and right up until the Energy Crisis, american cars were getting bigger and bigger, living rooms on wheels. And people felt a deep attachment. Now you take the car, the symbol of progress of american success, and now its become the opposite. Its a sign and symbol of weakness, decline, decay, as people wait for hours upon hours in these milelong gas lines. That is it. The gas lines were the most dramatic symbol of how americans had to rethink how we lived. And they were i remember them quite well. I remember the fear that we had of driving with almost no gas left in our cars, and hoping that we could get to a gas station that might have a short enough line that there would be gas left it was really extraordinary. It was not the america that we thought we lived in. Right, as far as the title panic at the pump, a phrase that reported and journalists used at the time and i thought it was apt to call the book panic at the pump because that captured americas mindset and its interesting to think about why. The actual shortage of fuel was not overwhelming, did not in and of itself require a massive change in lifestyle, and yet americans reacted as if this was the end of the world as they had nope known it. So this triggered a kind of paniclike behavior where as you describe this fear of running out so people were driving around with month a months supply of gasoline in their tanks rather than in the ground, which exacerbated the crisis. The Energy Crisis of the mid70s the continuing Energy Problems that led to the crisis at the end of the 70s, had major impact on the carter presidency as you talk about in great detail, and because were sitting here in the carter president ial library we will get to a little bet more in depth cooperation specifically about carter and what he experienced in trying to deal with the problems that he faced with energy. But lets back up. You bookend your book with george h. W. Bush. You open the book with george and barbara bush moving to odessa, texas to do what . They go in search of oil and the american dream. So, george h. W. Bush graduates from yale in 1948. He decided he doesnt want to follow in his familys footsteps and go to wall street. Hes going to go search for his own fortune, albeit with some family connections, out in texas, and i sort of captures what i was taking bat moment ago. This sort of sense of endless abundance. So this is a moment of great discoveries in west texas and he arrives right at the right moment and he is going seek his fortune and help build the Republican Party, which we can talk about, too, in texas. And so we start there, before the 1973 arab embargo. Want to capture what American Culture was like, what expectations of the average american were like, that sort of best represented by this freeflowing black gold that came out of the ground, and i end the book in 1991, after weve been through the Energy Crisis, which americans saw as a crisis of shortage, a crisis of scarcity, a crisis of dependence on foreign oil, and so the book ends with george h. W. Bush, the oil man, as president in the white house, with the gulf war, when americans go to secure the access of oil from the middle east. Fascinating story arc, actually. One thing you point out is in terms of searching for the american dream, when he and barbara arrive, they arrived in texas in 48 and theyre the perfect time because theres been a huge a discovery of a huge oil reserve, this brayberry trend. So this was a promise that wed made the right decision. We were going to make it big in the oil business. Yeah. What is interesting and what sort of then sets the story in motion is when that appears to no longer be the case. So america had been the great energy producer, oil producer, throughout the 20th century, what literally helped fuel the growth of our economy, sort of cardriven economy, but by the late 1960s, there was the sense that we had reached our geological peak of protection, of domestic production. Lets back up. Bush may have gone to the oil fields hoping that he would just be an oil man, but when youre teaming with oil in this country you cant escape politics, and he learned that relatively quickly. In 1954, you remind us, the Supreme Court made an important ruling that would help trigger george bushs interest in getting involved politically in the production and distribution of oil. So, the Supreme Court ruled that the government had the right, the ability to control natural gas prices, and natural gas and oil often come out of the same well in the ground and seen as interchangeable fuels in some instances, and so the fear and concern of oilmen like bush is now the government is going to interfere across the board and control the price of oil, too. And what is interesting about the Supreme Court decision is it comes out of this sort of new deal mentality that americans have the right as fdr said in 1932 when he was first running for president , that americans have a right to cheap and affordable energy, and americans have that mentality, and it hadnt really been a problem until we start to have demands that exceed our supply. One of the important points you make in the book is that we get associate the new deal with roosevelt, the democrats, but in fact the new deal infused a lot of republican thinking of the time as well. Federal government having a major role in helping people live better lives. I think that we can see the period from the 40s, 50s, as a consensus of that position. Then there were interesting people, like george h. W. Bush, who in response to the Supreme Court decision, and then also later to the Environmental Movement, thought that the problem is too much government interference, and so bush quite deliberately, and its an exaggeration to say singlehand deadly but very instrumental in trying to build up the run party in texas. With the argument that if the Republican Party that supports free enterprise, and so to actually increase our domestic supply to make us secure, that we have to sort of vote republican and remove all of these controls. And this sets up a tension, a dynamic, that will be at play throughout your entire book, controls, deregulation, where do we get our oil from, domestic or foreign . And this plays out through the entire history of this period youre writing about. Yes. One thing we tend to lose sight of is that the new deal in some ways, that kind of mentality, lived longer than we remember. This sort of expectation that government will take care of us, and if all of a sudden theres a shortage and gasoline prices spike through the roof, well, then, its governments job to do something bit and that mentality is in play including when president carter has to deal with this problem in the summer of 199. Summer of 1979. Fascinating to think about in light of contemporary politics right now. The notion that government will take care of us is probably less manifest right now than maybe ever before, i think, but youre the historian. I think thats true, and so one of the reasons that i set tout write this book is i wanted to see when that changed. When and how that changed. And it looked to me like a crucial moment came with the Energy Crisis. Of course, the stories that sort of the disillusionment with washington started before so we have vietnam, watergate, and i see those events as playing out differently than the Energy Crisis. Go ahead. So, the argument essentially is that if vietnam and watergate taught americans they could not trust their political leaders, then the Energy Crisis demonstrated that washington didnt work. Lets walk through these crises, and well look at the first crisis at bit more quickly because we want to focus on our host here tonight, jimmy carter. By the way, we will, at a certain point, turn the microphones over to you so if youre going to think about questions you may want to ask when we get to that point of our conversation. 1967, the arabisraeli war breaks out, and that is the first time that the arab states decide that perhaps they should Work Together to use oil as a pressure against americas involvement with israel. But they cant make it work at that point. Why not . Well, this is what the difference between 19 of 2 1967 when its ineye effective and 1973 when they, is the changing situation in Global Oil Market and the United States played a key role in that. So, its just at this moment that demand for energy is endless in the United States, so we make up about, at that time, five percent of the world residents population but we use Something Like 80 in the book . Is that right . No, i think we use a third of the world Residents Energy worlds energy. So, theres this greg demand, that people growing demand that people move far center farther from work and drive more and more and expect all climates to be fully air conditioned and at the exact right temperature, but theres declining domestic supply, and that transformation happens pretty quickly from the late of 60s into 73 and because of that situation the air back producers realize they have more control of the market. The fact that it was nope that the are ran states were thinking about using oil as a weapon woke some people up in the Political Leadership here that we could not risk dependence on middle eastern oil. By 1970 you say opec was producing twice as much oil as the United States so we were in a dangerous situation. And yet one that leaders actually are not fully aware of because the other thing that happened in this period, as sort of domestic decline supply declines, is for the first time we also become a major importer of oil. So in 1970, we dont import that much. By 1973 we import about a third of our oil needs. So, actually george w. Georg. Bush i thought and maybe im wrong but i want to clarify. If it isnt right i want them to be aware of it and we can deal with it in the radio broadcast. Thought h. W. Said war brought ohm the fact the world could not have depend sense on the middle eastern oil. By now he is in washington as a congressman, and theyre up soing the warning. Theyre sounding the warning but no one is listening. Not the political leaders. Its the oil interests. Yeah. He is there their lone republican voice from the south. But no one is really listening, and so when the arab embargo comes in the fall of 1973, one of nixons advisers describes it as an energy pearl harbor. Sort of comes as that much of a shock. Lets talk about that. Although we could say in 1969 nixon is in office and we have the San Bernardino oil spill, at the time horrendous natural disaster. Yes. And forced nixon to think about becoming a conservationist of all things. True. And we could say that nixon did a lot for the Environmental Movement and signed into law the National Environmental policy act, which is this sweeping piece of legislation, one that is impossible to imagine today. Where it talks about the coexistence between man and nate tour and nixon does this, thinks this will boost his standing for this reelection battle in 72, and these are the pressures that the oil industry is experiencing. So, as theyre having to drill in sort of more remote and harsher locales theyre now per serving themes to be found with all the new regulations and this intensifies the crunch. And theyre the first ones who Start Talking about this crunch. Terrific. Thank you for setting that up. Now we come to 1973. Okay. When you point out that the Energy Crunch really hit hard. The northeast, midwest, had tremendous shortages of heating oil. The arabisraeli war, this yom kippur wore cams looming war comes along and this time the arab states say, yeah, were going to use oil as a weapon, and they announce an embargo. Right . Yes. So, in retaliation for the United States support of israel, the arab producers announce an embargo, and they also do another thing which is even more its a cutback in production which is going to some rink the supply and allow them also to do a massive price increase. So its the combination of a shortage and a surge in prices that americans are completely stunned by. What is the Nixon White House to do to respond to this . How do they decide first to act on this . Well, nixon was a good politician. He understood issues that resonated with voters. He understood that this would be what his pollsters said was a gut level issue, and he is trying to figure out what to do, and is faced with a democratic congress, and the congress says, well, you know, lets ration. Which is impossible for us to imagine today. In some ways the 1970s are closer to the 1409s than they are to today, and rationing actually falls only eight votes short in the senate and also say, lets put lets roll back the prices at the pump. And these things actually happened, which is impossible for us to imagine today. But the sort of anger and even violence, a sense of chaos on the gas lines is quite intense. So under pressure, nixon appoints the first ever energy czar, and as a reminder theres no such thing as a department of energy because energy is not perceived to be something we have to do anything about. We just have a lot of it so we dont have to do anything about it. So, the is no department of energy, and nixon appoints under pressure the first ever energy czar, william simon, who is a sort of freemarket, wall street guy, but finds himself under pressure to make decisions like, which Public Events should go on as planned . Should we have the daytona 500 or maybe this year it should be the daytona 450. That was an actual conversation. An actual conversation. And decision. That he had to decide. So, you have so this really sort of elaborate intervention to try to deal with sense of crisis coming from the gas lines. At the same time, what was happening with inflation . Oh, thought you were going to Say Something different. So, this is the beginnings of what will become this sort of decadelong problem with inflation, which the Energy Crisis magnified. And so this also is sort of generating support for something that is impossible to think. Now. Government should just set the prices. If theyre too high do something about it. And its really hard for us to imagine that being in place today. But as i say they not only put into place price controls but actually insist on rolling back the prices retailers are charging. Inflation you point out that inflation was so bad that the price of meat rose, like, 70 , and so we were really feeling this incredible pressure. Again, an america was totally foreign to us. Yes. Later in the decade youll have this phenomenon of rising prices at the same time you have a stagnant economy so this sort of double whammy. I think really important, on october 16th, opec expect imposed the biggest price hike we had ever seen from 3 to 5 per barrel. What is oil a barrel these days . Do you know . Well, its about between 30, 40 in that range. These are both 1973 prices then they decided to cut back production, and this is what you say about all of that. They decide to cut back production as long as israel remains in the occupied territory. Right. You say in a single blow these arab acts against the United States and its allies signaled a substantial shift in International Geopolitical power to the third world. The psychological shock was devastating. True. Again, nobody saw this coming. Not hengery kissinger, not any of the other members of the Foreign Policy team. This idea they would unleash the oil weapon, even though the Saudi Oil Ministers said were going to do this. And nixon said, yeah, dont think you will. November 7, 1973, president nixon goes on National Television to address the Energy Crisis, and he makes a statement that you have already basically kind of told us we were going to hear. Some of you may wonder whether were turning the clock back to another age. Gas rationing, oil shortages, reduced speed limits. All sound like a way of life we left behind with glen miller and the war of the 40s. Then he goes on to say, but theres no crisis to the american spirit. Right. That would come later. Exactly. What he does in this speech is he declares project independence, and by virtue of announcing project independence by which the United States this is the early version of drill, baby, drill. So he now sort of won reelection and says, even though he didnt have the political muscle to do this, he says we need to get rid of all these regulations and well stimulate production here, and he says we can be energy selfsufficient in energy by 1980. Its this sort of big and he didnt make this speech but he makes the next speech from disneyworld in florida without any sort of apparent irony. So, he declares project independence and thereby naming the problem, that we perceive ourselves to be dependent, and that was that came as a shock, that we were dependent and therefore vulnerable. So all this is playing out while watergate begins to kick in. The investigation starts to develop, and hes got to deal with both of these things at once. You point out that, lets make a side trip to jimmy carter right after the saturday night massacre when he fired three attorneys general and would not do what he wanted them to do, in terms of the tapes, he governor carter in georgia called him unfit to be president. George h. W. Bush got on an chairman of the national run committee. He came down here for a republican fundraiser, and to try and sort of preach to the converted he blasted carter. And he blasted carter, and sort of the thing that is really interesting is this sort of overlap between the Energy Crisis, the embargo and watergate, because Public Opinion polls at the time we remember watergate some so much of the literature in this period is focused on watergate. This is the first book on the Energy Crisis if you can believe it. But polls showed at the time the Nixon White House believed it at the time, that the headlines at the time, americans were more focused on the pocketbook pain they were experiencing at the gas pumps and the sense of crisis than they were whether the president was lying to them. Right. Okay. So, lets get nixon out of office. Okay. The house votes the article of impeachment. Four days later president nixon resigns. Gerald ford takes over. We have a great quote from ford in his in the days he came into office. He says i think its a direct quote the state of our economy is not so good. Right. The gloomiest speeches. No interruptions for applause. And he really had this sort of dooms day mentality, and the advisers around him did, too. People like alan greenson and william seem mob and Donald Rumsfeld and dick cheny and they believed that the oil crisis was going to bring the United States down because it was making us vulnerable on the international stage. Oil shortages were a problem for our country because we used so much in the aggregate but proportinally even bigger problem for europe and japan who were even more dependent on oil imports so they were incredibly worried for policymakers that in their sort of need to secure their own access to oil, at that time our allies would break off from us. Were going to make a quick trupp through the ford administration. Im ready. A massive expansion giving the democratic liberals others chance to extend the federal governments reach. Say a few words about that. The concern when nixon resigned from the right, they were unhappy. Watergate, but they but someone like milton freed moan, they were more upset about chicago in economist. The policy legacy that nixon leaves behind, environmental measures to the economic controls, to the complete control of the energy industry. They think this is going to be an even worse legacy. And theyre quite concerned. And so you have fords advisers saying youre on a crossroads here. What are you going to do . This as nixon, carter and now nixon, ford and now carter are going to grapple with his a monumental problem. Yeah. It is a gordian knot. Not to give it away, but it is history. [laughter] spoiler alert. Yeah. So nothing good is going to come of jimmy carters very sincere efforts to try to grapple with the Energy Crisis. So jimmy carter comes into office in january 1977, and we might all remember one of the sort of iconic moments is when he gets out of the limousine, and hes going to walk from capitol hill to the white house. Its freezing that day. You just stole my line. Oh, im sorry. [laughter] lets go back. What was one of the iconic moments . So [laughter] we all remember this, but whats amazing about this moment is its one of the coldest days in all of washingtons history. The country was suffering from this deep freeze. We recovered from that, right . So countries suffering from, you know, so its snowing in miami, you know, its this really unusual, historic weather. And here he is shedding his overcoat and walking. And its a problem, the Energy Crisis is a problem from day one. And its not long before he appears on tv. This is the moment when he wears the cardigan sweater, and he sits by the white house fireplace, and he announces to the country the Energy Crisis is still with us, its permanent, this is going to require sacrifice, and the only solution is for us to change our wasteful ways. And, you know, this is after two weeks of him, you know, wearing long underwear, and he announces that, you know, the solution is going to be to cut back. And so if relationship afford nixon during Richard Nixon said we have to dial down to 68 degrees, now jimmy carter says it has to be 65. You, there are a number of things they do symbolically in the white house. You note that they posted signs all over the white house signed by the management. What did the signs say . [laughter] you might have to remember. Please keep thurm stats at thermostats at 65 degrees, the management. And these appear all throughout, you know, and so the its this combination, right, of carter urging americans to use less, to put away their cars one day a week, to carpool, to use mass transit. He ends Limousine Service for white house staff. You know, theres this combination of sort of conservation and cutting back with the embrace of possible solutions. So jimmy carter very much was a believer in technology, and technology can solve our problems. So after he walks down pennsylvania avenue, he watches the rest of the parade in a solar, solarheated viewing room. So, you know, its this sort of combination of cutting back and sort of trying to figure out hopeful solutions for the future. That first talk that you just described really sets the tone for his entire administration. Its, you know, its all about sacrifice. Its all about permanent problems, permanent changes. And you describe it, i think, in a really wonderful way in the book. As you begin to talk about carter, would you like to read a little of that for us . Sure, if youll let me. Great. For carter this was, in fact, a moral issue. Bo all else above all else, carter believed in the necessity of conservation. A doe vote bornagain christian d devout bornagain christian having grown up during the Great Depression in a house without electricity or indoor momming, he worked side by side with his father on the family farm. For his inauguration, he shunned traditional formal attire and instead donned a suit he had purchased the week before off the rack in georgia. In his first president ial address he preached we have learned that more is not necessarily better. Even our great nation has its recognized limits and that we can neither answer all problems, nor solve all problems. We cannot afford to do everything. Thank you for reading that, because i think that really says it so well. This is a guy who saw everything in those moral terms. And the Energy Crisis was among those things. Yes. He believed it. I mean, he believed it from a moral standpoint, he believed it also from a Foreign Policy, you know, he was sympathetic to the idea that now if we during the air babb em bar arab embargo we were importing a third, and hes mindful that this is making the country vulnerable. And as you say and as i say [laughter] theres this sort of moral ethical component to it that hes deeply committed to. And, you know, i dont want to, i dont want to steal any of your questions, but, you know, this is going to cut against the grain of america. I was going to say as were going to discover, it is this attitude that ends up costing him the white house, essentially. I mean, hes facing monumental problems. He may not have been able to win reelection anyway. Nevertheless yeah. This didnt help. Yeah. We all tend to remember the malaise speech in which he didnt use the word malaise because he wouldnt have used a french word. [laughter] but, and its in this speech which he delivers at the sort of peak of the 1979 summer gas lines in which he urges americans to cut back. He says, you know, basically hes been shown polls from pollsters that say, you know, for the first time a majority of americans are more pessimistic than optimistic about their future. And carter really takes this on, and hes, you know, he says basically we can restore our faith in ourselves if we embrace the Energy Crisis as this urgent priority and change our ways. And, you know, that weve learned, he says, that piling up goods and consuming more does not make us happier. And he says this to the american public. These were themes, though, that he started from the very beginning. From the very beginning. Pat caddell, his 29yearold pollster yeah. When he presented these findings to the president , you report, said that he found them, that caddell found them chilling and dangerous. Yeah. I mean, you know, they he believed and carter was sympathetic to this point of view that the country was really sort of in this moral decline. Any sort of sense of community, of goodwill of common purpose was framed. And the Energy Crisis was magnifying that. Fraying. And you can see this in carters remarks, his sort of urging people to cut back. He flies when the gas lines start in may 1979, they start first on the west coast, and he flies he starts the morning in iowa which is sort of the beginnings of his reelection campaign, then he flies to los angeles. His motorcade has to to go 20 miles out of its way just to fuel up, you know . Theres gas lines with 500 cars at them, and he says in a courageous way, he courageous way, he says to the american public, you know, youre going to have to change. Yeah. And its not what the public wanted to hear. So, again, if you dont mind, were going to just back up a step on this because i think its worth pointing out. Weve alluded to it. When he took office, it couldnt have been a worse moment. As you said, i mean, the weather in the northeast well, across the whole eastern seaboard yeah. It was the coldest winter people have experienced in forever. Heating oil was at a premium, and you say navigating the current Political Landscape would have proved challenging for even the most skillful leaders. But carter is an outsider, operated at a distinct disadvantage. And we know that to be true. However, many of the people here in georgia love to think about jimmy carter and jodi powell and hamilton [inaudible] they were outsiders. They didnt understand the washington environment at all. Yeah. And thats certainly true, and it certainly worked for carter in a certain way because it allowed him to craft this incredibly Ambitious Energy proposal that nobody, had they been advised by washington insiders, would have said you can do this. What did he want to dosome. Everything. [laughter] he wanted to do everything, you know . When tip to oneill, who was the new speaker of the house, got this, he just groaned. This was the size of five phonebooks put together, 113 different proposals, you know . And he just thought i can sort of solve this problem, and i can balance all of the different constituents within washington. And it was truly ambitious. But i do want to add that it wasnt simply just that he didnt receive good advice, nor just that he sort of was stubborn in his insistence. He was facing real divisions especially within his own party. Yeah, lets talk about that. Thats really important. Because weve already talked a little bit about how the Republican Party was shifting ground because of the Energy Crisis. So talk to us about just that. How did things play out for the democrats in the middle of all this . Well, there was no love lost between carter and tip oneill who remarked after watching the cardigan sweater speech, you know, that no northerner would have used only one log. [laughter] and, you know . And so for tip to kneel who was a new deal democrat through and through, the idea that a democratic president would sort of issue forth the same austerity agenda that had existed under ford, you know, was an abomination. And really unforgive bl in a certain way, because people were experiencing real pain. And forget inflation. That was not the problem that he and ted kennedy and other liberals wanted to solve. It was the stagnating economy. They wanted a Massive Public works program, you know . Their solution for the Energy Crisis was to hand out fuel stamps, so if people couldnt afford it, you know, this would be like food stamps. You sort of supplement their income. So thats one constituent. But this is also a time period when southerners were still part of the Democratic Party yeah. [laughter] i remember those days. Yeah. [laughter] and that included all of the south and southwest energy producers. And so carter was sort of caught between these two groups. And the, you know, the Oil Producers had the same point of view as the republicans, you know, which is lets get rid of all these regulations, and well be able to produce more. And if you dont, then their solution came in an aptlytitled bestselling song in the summer of 1978, free as a yankee. That was their solution to the problem. [laughter] and, you know, bumper stickers in louisiana, texas, oklahoma, drive 75 and freeze them alive. [laughter] yeah, these were sort of, these were well worn themes. So you had these different groups, and then you had another group also vying for carters attention, a group that he was sympathetic to which were the environmentalists. And everyone had different understandings of the Energy Problem and solutions to it. And the environmentalists, even though carter was sympathetic to their agenda, didnt think he did enough. So, you know, hes the president who installs 32 solar panels on the white house roof and promises that by the year 2000 well get 25 20 of our energy from renewables, you know . But for them it wasnt enough either. And everybody was suspicious of the other one, everybody. And the American People particularly were beginning were continuing to be suspicious that the crisis was perhaps artificially produced with by the oil industry which was trying to jack up prices which contributed to the pressure for control, price controls, that sort of thing. You have a, you describe in the book a tv commercial that the group Energy Action ran oh, yeah. Which i think describes this pretty clearly. Can you tell us what we see in that commercial . So this is a commercial so as you say, just to set it up, as you say, the vast majority, more than threequarters of americans, believe that the Energy Crisis was a big Oil Conspiracy with a capital b, capital o. Big Oil Conspiracy, you know . Even though foreign events had precipitated these shortages, they could not imagine that, you know, the inheritors of, you know, john d. Rockefeller, these oil to companies, were not allpowerful. So they were quite certain that, you know, oil tankers, for example, were just waiting offshore until price, you know, until prices went up to deliver. That was sort of what most americans believed. Yeah. Which made it very hard for carter then to sort of propose real solutions. And as you say, generated support among liberals for continuing controls of the industry. So Energy Action is this liberal group, its sort of a ralph nader type group. Its led by this guy can, james fleug, who worked for kennedy on the hill. Its financed by people youve heard of like paul nullman and Robert Redford newman and Robert Redford. This was the hot issue of the day, regulation. [laughter] and they run a commercial called mugging in which they have somebody dressed in arab garb with a gasoline nozzle going up to an american driver, you know, holding him up only then to reveal that the clothes come off, and its a big oil executive. So thats the popular perception at the time. This is all that carter and his team in the white house have to try to deal with. Its just completely overwhelming. And into this a couple things happened. Number one, the 78 midterm Elections Come along. The democrats retain the majority, yes . But they start, but its clear theyre losing finish. Yeah. Seats. And you describe, you say there was a panic at the white white. Yeah. You know, i mean, this is when caddell really kicks it into high gear and says, you know, were going to get creamed in 1980. By the way, here we are in georgia. We should point out, who won a seat in congress that year, do you know who im talking about . Newt gingrich. Newt gingrich. Yes. Third try. Yes. You know, they see it, theyre looking at this, and they see these election returns, and this is when caddell really says, you know, americans are disheartened and disspiritted, and they, you know, have no confidence in the future, and this is a real crisis. If you want to really lead the country, youre going to have to speak to these larger themes, and this is when carter starts to listen to him. Thats november 1978. This maps perfectly with the beginning of the iranian revolution which is going to destabilize the oil markets, and they see a disaster coming. I mean, by january 79 they know there are going to be gas lines coming, and theres going to be no good outcome here. And there isnt. The iranian revolution is complete, the shah is deposed, the ayatollah comes in, and thats when the panic really, really hits hard. Was this in some ways when i read your book, everything that followed the truckers strike, truckers blocking highways, violence in the streets yeah. This crisis manifests itself in a much more dramatic and sort of scary way. Did it, am i right . Yeah. I mean, you know, so its summertime, first of all. [laughter] so, you know, people are just hanging out an these gas lines. Some see it as a party, but most are not seeing it as a party, you know . This is just one of carters advisors says people are hot summer mad. Maybe thats a georgia expression, i dont think. I dont know. [laughter] and the temperature is really rising on the gas lines. So there are fistfights, there are stabbings, there are shootings that result in deaths. People are getting, stealing gasoline out of other peoples cars, siphoning it off, so people are buying, you know, locks for their gas tanks and sort of all a sense of chaos has broken loose. What happened in leavitttown, pennsylvania . So it goes up in flames. Heres sort of the quintessential american suburb, you know . The symbol of all progress that goes up in flames. And the thing that really sort of magnifies the shortages and the sort of sense of chaos in the summer of 79 is that theres a truckers strike. Theres one in 74 too, and they do it and the truckers go on strike again, and, you know, because they cant get diesel. They have to stop every 25 miles, you know, to fill up. Its, the costs are, you know, through the roof. Theyre still suffering under this 55 mileperhour speed limit, and so they go on strike. And in order to make sure that all truckers comply with this, they set up snipers on the side of the road, they drop bricks from overpasses, and, again, there are deaths, killings. And the nations interstate commerce comes to a standstill for many industries. So whats interesting, though, about this is that gallup released a poll, you tell us, at one point many all of this in which half of all americans said it was inflation that they were most concerned about, and only a third of them said it was energy. Well, thats is that later . Yeah. Thats a little bit okay, all right. Thats just a slightly, little bit, thats a little bit later. Okay. Lets not go to that. I apologize. Thats okay. Im sorry. So what does happen is that carter gives another speech. Yeah, so and he has an opportunity to do, have unspiring words, you know inspiring words to help the American People through. What does he do . I mean, you know, this situation is unfolding. Theres a truckers strike, then theres the leavitttown strike, you know, which goes up in flames, and people, you know, have signs that say, you know, more gas, more gas and then things that rhyme with gas that maybe im not supposed to say on tv. [laughter] no gas, my ass. Were adults. And carter, kiss my and, you know, so theres this sort of utter sense of collapse. And its right at this moment that carter puts the solar panels on the white house. So this does nothing to really mitigate the breakdown on the gas lines. And then right at this moment which contributes to the inflation part of the story, opec announces a massive price increase. And so now this seems like weve been had all over again. And so stuart eizenstat, one of carters advisers, says, you know, heres your chance. This is what you should do blame opec. Blame opec. Rally the country. You want to sort of have this massive sort of alternative energies bill, you want mass transit, you know . Rally blame opec, rally the country. And carter says, no, im not going to give that speech. Im going to listen and try and do the stuff that pat caddells talking about because, you know, i believe that if i dont talk about this larger crisis of confidence, i wont be able to lead the people. So he goes on television after ten days at camp david where everyones wondering what exactlys going on, and he says to people, you know, we have a crisis of confidence, and the way to end this is by using less. He blames it, im going to quote, if you dont mind. Carter responded to the gas lines by criticizing the country for selfindulgence and overconsumption. Because americans have little optimism about the future, carter said, they turn instead to mindless consumerism, and then the quote from the speech too many of us now tend to worship selfindulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. Weve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. Wow. You know, let me throw something out here. Okay. A couple weeks ago in this room randall wood, university of arkansas history professor, talked with me about his book on lbj and the Great Society. And one of the things we discussed was that lbj went into office with such extraordinary dreams and visions for the country. Yeah. And more than anything else, the vietnam or war and then unintended consequences of some of the Great Society programs brought him down. So we talked about the fact that in many ways lbjs story is a tragic one. Yeah. We are going to let people read your book, but as we come to the end of our time, theres a tragic element of what jimmy carter had to go through in the white house. This, too, is a man who came into office with tremendous hopes and a moral belief yeah. About what america is and could be. And yet this problem, the iranian hostage crisis, so many other things really were unsolvable problems. Yeah. I mean, he declares that solving the Energy Crisis is the moral equivalent of war. He says this early on in his administration, and this is where it ends up. And so, you know, hes so far down in the polls at this moment yeah. Because people are so displayed and angry. And theyre angry because they believe this is an artificial crisis. They want washington to do something. They want washington to bring the Big Oil Companies to heel. And thats not what jimmy carter tells them. He explains the situation as he sees it and lays out a plan, and it doesnt really have political traction. And there is a real tragedy to that yeah. If you were writing this as a novel okay. And carter were your central character, you would look for some resolution. You would look for maybe not a happy ending. Yeah. I mean, who knows . But the bigger point is its almost as if there is no ending other than that carter, like nixon, like ford, did not solve this problem. And left office with it still there. Yeah. I mean, ill say just a couple final things. You know, one is when he gives this speech, he has advisers telling him, you know, this is going to get thrown right back at you. And this is what happens when reagan runs for office in 1980. And reagan really used the Energy Crisis as exhibit a in the failure of washington to solve a problem. And, you know, never has government tried to do so much and achieve so little. So this is what he says about carters handling of the Energy Crisis. And, you know, it makes carter incredibly vulnerable and gives reagan momentum. And then the other thing that happens too is the sort of failure to embrace conservation. He did i should say, let me just add a little, let me interrupt myself to say, you know, he did accomplish a lot of things. So we should say that. In the same way that lbj did. Yeah. You know, so, for example, you know, he passed a Clean Air Act amendment sure. And he antistrip mining bill, he protected much of the lands in alaska. He had that sort of mentality, and he also encouraged Public Policies to help try to improve energy efficiency. And so, you know, so a lot did happen in the energy area, he was able to accomplish some important goals. Yeah. But where the story sort of also tragically ends up, and this is not unlike the lbj story, is in the Foreign Policy arena. Right. You know, so what happens is by 79 you dont really see this in 73, 74, but by 79, especially with that massive opec price increase, theres the sense that we are literally being held hostage. And then, of course, we do get held hostage that following fall. And so theres this momentum, a sort of shift to blame not only big oil, but also the arab sheikhs that sort of build up momentum for more aggressive action in the middle east which will ultimately come to fruition. Im sorry. By introducing reagan, you bring us full circle in terms of your thesis. Weve started at a point with george h. W. And barbara bush going down to odessa, texas. Were living in a country with unlimited resources, postwar euphoria that america can do theres nothing americans cant do. Government will take care of us. Republicans and democrats believe that. We go through all of this, and the oil crisis is crises are a huge part of it. We come to Ronald Reagan who says, no, government isnt the government isnt the answer to your problems, government is the problem. Yeah. And that completes this fascinating transformation that you write about in this book, yes . Yes. And, you know, so one of the things that reagan promises hell do, for example, is get rid of the 55 mileperhour speed limit. We hated that. Yeah. Some people in here may not remember that that was how dare you tell us well, i finally came to understand why my father got so many speeding tickets when i was a kid. [laughter] he just didnt accommodate. So, you know, reagan makes this promise that, you know, well get rid of the speed limit because thats not who we are. We dont need to live in an age of limits. And what you see happen, actually, by the time george h. W. Bush is president is that our reliance on imports, where it starts and the arab embargo at a third is now up over 50 . And the move is away from sort of conservation to, and fear of sort of dependence to a concern with security. Yeah. And so, and that will culminate in the intervention in the gulf in 91. Peg jacobs, we have time for just a few questions if any of you have them. Great. If you do, we have microphones on both sides of the room here. So youre welcome to come on up and ask a question, but if not, i do want to ask you one added question. Okay. How do you put all of this into context of what were living through right now . Especially donald trump. Because i think youve written about that. Yeah am i right . Yes. I wrote an article about that. The point of donald trump was simply to say as outlandish as he sounds, you know, and, you know, he says things ill just go in and take the oil, you know . That it actually echoes a longer trend especially in the Republican Party to solve our Energy Problems by military intervention and security in the middle east. Yeah. So, but, you know, today were living in a very different world. And fracking has really changed the calculus. How has it changed the calculus . Well, because now we appear to be living with abundance and low prices. And so, in fact, the concern in the middle east is more on terrorism than it is on oil because we perceive ourselves to be doing okay in that regard. And its hard too because, you know, what happened with so much of the momentum of sort of the Environmental Movement, of those who believed in conservation, those who are advocates of solar energy, its not unlike today where when you have a decline of energy prices, you know, the question is can we sort of sustain our interest in alternative energies even as, you know, people tell us that were almost at the point of no return with Climate Change and all that. The question really is how much do Americans Care about that versus that same old concern of having the full tank. Meg jacobs, the book is panic at the pump the Energy Crisis and the transformation of american politics in the 1970s. Thank you for taking us on a really fascinating journey. Your research, your thinking through what happened, i kind of marveled at it as i read this book. Thank you so much for joining me for the conversation and sharing it with the audience here at the jimmy carter president ial library. Thanks. Thank you. [applause] meg is going to be signing copies of her book in the lobby, so please join us in the lobby. Thank you all very much. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] youre watching booktv on cspan2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. Booktv, television for serious readers. And coming up this weekend on booktv on our weekly Author Interview program after words w Political Science professorrer looks at the rise of isis. Plus, a round table discussion on Donald Trumps the art of the deal, and Kareem Abduljabbar weighs in on political and social issues. Also this weekend, siddhartha mukherjee. And we visit nashville to talk with local authors and to take in the citys literary sites. And those are just a few of the events coming up this weekend on booktv. For a complete television schedule, go to booktv. Org. Booktv, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. Television for serious readers. With regard to the haitian revolution, 17911804, that rare event, a successful reso the of the revolt of the enslaved, you cannot begin to understand the haitian revolution unless one sees this spectacular event in some ways as a sequel to the revolt against british rule in north america in 1776 that led to the formation of the slaveholding republic still known as United States of america. That is to say as i argued in my book, the counterrevolution of 1776, contrary to the Broadway Musicals that use the hiphop form such as hamilton and contrary to what is routinely taught in schools from the atlantic to the pacific, the foundation of the United States of america in 1776 took place in no small measure because it was revolt against incipient abolitionism in london. That is to say, somersets case in june 172 seemed to be suggesting 1772 seemed to be suggesting that slave property which even then in north america was worth in the millions, might be headed for the dust bin of history. As i explained in some detail in the book. And just as those in the state now known as zimbabwe, then known as rhodesia or southern or rhodesia revolted against british rule in 1965 because they thought that london was moving towards decolonization and one person, one vote. One person, one vote leading to africanamerican majority rule. And rather or than accept that, they tried to continue their white racist minority regime by setting up this new set of rhodesia. They said at the time that they were walking in the footsteps of 1776. That is to say, the that 1776 was an attempt to escape the logic of abolitionist slavery, and november 1965 in Southern Africa was an attempt to escape the logic of decolonizationing and one person, one vote and africanamerican majority rule. Therefore, you cannot begin to understand the travails and the tribulations and the trials experienced by people of african descent in north america unless you understand that by several orders of magnitude they fought against the formation of the United States of america. They sided with london in its attempt to crush this slaveholders rebellion just like the africans did not accept the establishment of the new state of of rhodesia in november 1965. And when you fight a war and lose, you can expect to be penalized and pulverized forever more unless and until you are able to turn the tables against your oppressors. And one of the ways we were able to turntables against our oppressors was through the haitian revolution, 17911804, which follows quickly upon footsteps of formation of the u. S. Constitution and the first convening of congress. In some ways, it was a rebuke and a reputation of this new slaveholding republican which is why i start the book with u. S. President George Washington expressing reservations about the haitian revolution, what was to come to be known as the haitian revolution. In any case, what happens is that the africans in the islands then known as hispaniola were able to succeed against the french military. One of the most powerful examples of valor and fortitude known to history to this point. And established this independent black republic in 1804. But, as you might have surmised, there was grave consternation in the slaveholding republic about the success and the victory of the haitian revolution. You may recall that if you look at many of the major slave revolts that rocked north america in the period leading up to the u. S. Civil war, gabriels revolt in virginia circa 1800, 18212 in south carolina, nat turners revolt in virginia, they all had the fingerprints of haiti all over them, particularly gabriels revolt in virginia in 1800 which takes place at the same time as the haitian revolution is unfolding. And also vessys revolt in charleston, south carolina, was a seafarer. Purportedly, part of his aim and ambition was to not only revolt against slavery and then escape with numerous formerly enslaved, but perhaps even to sail on to freedom in the island then ruled by africans; that is to say, haiti. Now, whats interesting about many of these revolts is that theyre not unlike other revolts that are faking place taking place within the hemisphere in which theres either inspiration by the haitian revolutionaries or direct instigation by the haitian revolutionaries. In fact, the argument that i make in this book is that the haitian revolution ignited a general crisis of the entire slave system that could only be resolved with that systems collapse. So if youre trying to understand why slavery collapsed in north america, you should not only look within the four corners of north america, but you should look to haiti. And as i said in the previous book, negro comrades of the crown, you should also loo to the inspiration if not the instigation of british abolitionists in london. You can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. Booktv attended a party in northwest washington, d. C. For the publication of Steve Hiltons book more human designing a world where people come first. Mr. Hilton, former Senior Adviser to british Prime Minister David Cameron, mingled with guests and spoke informally about the book. Prior to the start of the party, he did interviews with several news outlets. We are here at a party at juliana glovers house celebrating the u. S. Launch of your book, more human. Tell me a little bit about this book and where the idea came from. Well, more human is really born of my experiences in government in the u. K. I worked for David Cameron for years in downing street. Ive been living in america four years, i live out in california. So ive been observing whats going on. I have a political tech startup out in california. Ive been not that much involved in the actual daytoday political debate. But honestly, i think that notion of promoting real competition in the economy, so you dont allow these corporations to accumulate all this power, that to me is a very conservative approach. Now, it may not be the approach of the current republicans. Thats a different thing. How you doing . Of course. We met i no. I was going to remind you. Of course i remember. Congratulations. Thank you. Its lovely to see you. I really enjoyed our conversation. I did too. It was a very loud party thing, but we managed to have a real conversation. And you know what, actually, i was on my way to london trying to work on a politics piece, and i was trying to track you down, and i did not totally succeed. Right. Well, here we are. Im here now. Hey, how are you . Nice to see you. You can put us in touch, cant you . We met, we met last year, and then we kind of lost touch. We lost each other, but now weve found again. Julianas, like usual. Exactly. Yeah. [inaudible] [laughter] yeah. So just as [inaudible conversations] because of my job, the government [inaudible] rachel was doing her job from london, a hell of a lot of travel back and forth. And when our second son was born, it was just too much. So we decided to move. And just before i left the head of random house from the u. K. Came to see me and said why dont you do a book. And i dont want to do a book. And i didnt know what i was going to be doing. The only thing i had fixed up was teaching at stanford, and i had no sense of what my next move would be. So i wasnt even thinking about that. Anyway, i thought she meant one of those [inaudible] inside my days in downing street. [laughter] right. I hate that kind of stuff. I thought, no, im not going to do that. So i said,. No she kept badgering me, i knew what i was doing in terms of starting my business and so on. And then i kind of settled into thinking this might be an interesting idea. And ive got something to say which i feel very strongly about. And so thats when i got to what i also thought was it was basically, remember the original version of this book was an incredibly long list of everything i think about everything. [laughter] i think. I know. And i remember the title that we had for it was rethink everything. And it was so long. She said youve got to focus a bit. And then i started thinking about [inaudible] and the reason [inaudible] end up going on about . [inaudible conversations] it ended up being this notion that everything has become so big and bureaucratic and dehumanized. And thats true in government, thats true in the economy, so thats where it came from. Wow. I remember that yeah. Well, it was, i mean, the thing is well, you know yeah. It was David Cameron, right, at the party conference. Yes. And explain why i liked it. I dont remember why i liked it. I cant remember either. I was just amazed that youd read it. No [inaudible] i listened to it on cspan radio because it was sunday night and it was question time. It wasnt the gay marriage stuff, was it . No, no, no, i think it was really about, you know, kind [inaudible] yes. Trying to find common ground. [inaudible conversations] okay, sorry. See you later. Hi, how are you . Whos this . How did he get in . I came with my [laughter] hi, im [inaudible] hi, how you doing . [inaudible] yes, yes, be careful. Is this a live mic . Yes. Im very paranoid. You should be. [laughter] exactly, give me signals. [inaudible conversations] yeah, its all recorded. Thank you so much. Yeah, i dressed up. [inaudible] you mean tonight . Yes. Ive been seeing a lot of [inaudible] theres a lot going on. [inaudible conversations] not only an accomplished author, also [inaudible] yes. [inaudible] okay. Which is how i know right. And then i moved over to bp bp, you mean the oil yeah. Oh, well, yeah. Yeah. Hi, how you doing . Good to see you. Im doing an event with [inaudible] [inaudible] oh, hes gone. Yeah. But im doing an event with him in london. Oh, nice. In three weeks time. [inaudible conversations] no, no, im very much against it. I actually was a bit cross with him, because i thought they wanted to talk about something broader, so i said actually, i didnt want to talk about that. I wanted to talk about more structural things about the nature of capitalism and the lack of competition and the [inaudible] rather than the way individual companies behave. Yeah. Which is fine, sort of interesting, i think much more interesting is the fact weve got all these incredible giant corporations like bp that have accumulated so much power, they can exploit their customers and local communities. Yeah [inaudible] on camera. [laughter] yeah, youre right. [laughter] im joking. I know youre part of i wasnt there back ive only been no [inaudible conversations] ive only been there a couple years. He was really sincere about it, i know that. I know, you know, he genuinely was very sincere about believing that you could have a problem [inaudible] you know, i used to do all that stuff. Did you read his book . The one about being ga. No, no, the new one. No. The new one [inaudible conversations] no, hes written a really good book. Its kind of lean in for gay people. True, hes saying how hard it was to be gay as a ceo. So the new one [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] you may want to read up on that before you go. But i also think [inaudible] yeah. Also, by way, i worked with him in the government because we had him in, we had a yes, thats right. We created this new position of nonexecutive director for every department so that youd have some kind of business input into the way the department worked. And he was the chair of that group. So i met with him a lot. And i worked with him on trying to reform the Civil Service. And it was fun because we actually he thought he was going in there as a radical reformer x he didnt realize what i wanted. And so you were the radical reformer . No, he actually didnt believe me when i told him what i wanted to do. He actually very difficult to reform. And thats why every government gets in promising to deregulate, and they never, ever do. Whether theyre conservative or labour or republican, it just keeps growing, the scale of all of it. And thats because theres too many of them. There are more of them than there are of the person the only way through it is just to cut it down, fire all these policy making Civil Servants. And i said to him, ive i think we need it to be 10 . And he thought i meant a 10 cut. I said, no, no, there needs to be 10 of what there is today. The Civil Service [inaudible] when britain ran the empire. Exactly right. And he thought that was going to be a hard sell to the Civil Service union. Yes. I need to i need to look you up. Hang on. [inaudible conversations] be very embarrassing if looks like a very thorough index. I said that in a very american way. Youre becoming american, british boy. Twice, come on. [inaudible conversations] there you are. I mean, you know, how many times am i in your book . Well [laughter] my latest book was a steve moore, okay. [inaudible conversations] pleasure. [laughter] work you into that. Ive heard of him. Thats a pretty good excuse. [laughter] so are you there every day n brooklyn . Is that where you go . Because i went there [inaudible] yesterday. Or today. No [inaudible] thats right. He asked me [inaudible] yes. We had a really good conversation. Like we could have gone on for hours. Hes so great. Its amazing how much he knows about knows more about it than i do. And hes throwing all these name from the 70s and [inaudible] then he gives a much better answer. I know, completely amazing. He was just great. I really enjoyed that. I guess that sort of preoccupation about where [inaudible] you know, in terms of crossing the party lines and ideas that dont actually fit into a little box. I mean, i think it fits into an intellectual theory, conservative and power and all that kind of this. [inaudible] there you are. Is that [inaudible conversations] [laughter] there you are. [inaudible conversations] yes, exactly. [inaudible] yes. Cameron gave in 09 where he talked about a radical [inaudible] yes. In the u. K. [inaudible] i loved it. I was to excited. [inaudible] its embarrassing. When you join the government, its so amazing. You know, we had the usual kind of, you know actually, it really relates to what i talk about which is often destruction and things make people behave in a way they wouldnt normally. I was so excited, because [inaudible] of the party and the coalition, the liberal democrats. But particularly, you know, i think thats what [inaudible] we always saw eye to eye totally on family stuff [inaudible] i love that. I [inaudible] i think it was, yeah, im sure we could have done more with that. Structure really do get in the way. [inaudible] thats right. And the fact that youre in the i [inaudible] just about the way structure creates [inaudible] all things considered, man, nice job with. Oh, great. Okay. [inaudible conversations] i get everybody, please . I really did. Youre amazing. Im going to connect you guys through email. Youre really amazing. [inaudible conversations] so steve is going to be able in the next couple of years hell have his u. S. Citizenship, but now he is beginning the process of really diving in with both feet to the u. S. Political movement. And being a player at the evolution of the conservative movement as we see it now. And ill hand it over to steve now, but i couldnt be more delighted to have him talking about his issues and his interests tonight. Its particularly appropriate. Thank you very much. [applause] im not sure, im not sure you want to hear about my issues. [laughter] keep that for another occasion. Thank you so much, juliana. I just wanted to thank you very much for hosting tonight and the other hosts that are so numerous, i had to write them down. Some of them may even be here, who knows . Thank you, juliana, thank you, tammy, thank you, susan, thank you nicki, steve, josh. I dont know how they got them all on the invitation. Its pretty amazing. I think we actually are heading for a record where there may be more people hosting the book party than actually buy the book. [laughter] so that was but its great to be here, and its great to see such an illustrious crew. It reminds me of something i wrote in the book, and im just going to read you a little snippet. I wrote it down. Here we go, its from the first chapter on politics. When the corporate lobbyists, the politicians, the journalists and authors of books like this all go to the same parties, all live in the same neighborhoods of washington, new york and san francisco, an insular ruling elite precipitates regardless of whos in office. The same people are in power. And its great to see you all here tonight. [laughter] the thing is i do have one complaint though. When i did my book party in london, the Prime Minister showed up to the party. So im very let down, juliana [laughter] that its not quite, its not quite the same stature. After all, whats he got to do thats better than this . Hes probably round just the back of the white house having a fag with john boehner. [laughter] what . What did i say . You know, a cigarette. What is the point of being a brit if you cant make that joke . [laughter] but it did make me think being here and suddenly diving into the political debate of being a brit in america and coming at this very exciting time. Many years ago i similarly moved to another country for a while, and there was an acronym for what i did. There was, it was actually hong hong kong. And theres an acronym for people who leave london and work in hong kong. Its called filth, failed in london, try hong kong. [laughter] american politics at very interesting time. Can you guess . Donald. [laughter] darn britain, america looks desperate. [laughter] so here i am to help. I hope i can do my bit. I dont know whether theres much chance of making an impact in the immediate days ahead, but i do really hope to get involved in the political argument here. Ive been here, as juliana said, for four years now working on my startup out in california. And this book, more human, has just come out. Now, i dont want to spend too much time talking about it because id love to have some opportunity to hear your questions and respond to those. But ill just give you a quick scene setter for what this book is all about. And, actually, im going to start with not the whole story, but the stories that the book opens with because it really does get to the heart of why i wrote the book. Theres a story right at the beginning about a mothers experience traveling on jetblue. And its a horrible experience, and its detailed in the book. But the conclusion that i draw from it is based on something that the mother said when she was interviewed about this experience. And she said why cant we just treat people with kindness like human beings . And i just thought that was actually a very profound thing to say about not just her experience on jetblue that day, but all of our experience in so many areas of life. Whether that relates to our experience of government or businesses, our daily lives. So much of it, i think, has become too big and too bureaucratic and distant from the human scale. And its the systems and structures that are at fault. Thats the argument i make in the book. And it reminded me also of something the political theorist said when she was thinking about the holocaust and how it was that normal people could behave to other people in such an inhuman and such a disgusting way. And her argument was that it was this its not them, its nothing wrong with them, its the structures, its the bureaucracy, its the system that make people behave in terrible ways. Now, im not comparing just in case the lawyers amongst you are getting ready to act. Jetblue [inaudible] [laughter] but i am arguing that be thats how we think about government, about how we run schools, about how we do health care, about how we try to help families in poverty but also looking at the economy the way businesses have become these giant corporations that have captured power in such a concentrated way that they can make decisions that are so doesnt from the people that are distant from the people that are affected by them. In all these areas, we have designed and built a world that has become inhuman. And the central argument, i think, for political reform needs to be how we do something about that and how we make the world more human. Thats it for the moment. Id love to hear what you think and any questions you may have. [applause] steve. Look at that. [laughter] most great ideas i love the title, more human most great ideas have to struggle and compete against others. So im interested in who the enemies of your idea if somebody could go out and buy everything copy of your book and bury it somewhere, who would that be . I think the central theme in many ways of the book is the nature of power and the concentration of power. Political power and economic power. And, therefore, really its those who have the power. What i want to do is take the power out of their hands and put it in the hands of people. In government that means decentralization, and decentralization of a kind that i think weve never seen. Not just from the federal government to the states which is discussed a lot, but right down to the neighborhood level. And that, of course, affects those who currently hold the power. Similarly in the economy and with the structure of capitalism, i think what we need to do is attack this concentration of economic power in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of big corporations. So i do genuinely believe that means literally breaking them up. Not just the banks that we hear all the time discussed in terms of a breakup, but the other sectors where you have these incredible, powerful corporations that abuse the system to their ends. The telecom sector, the Health Insurance sector, look at food and the giant agriculture companies. All these areas you have these giant businesses that i think need to be broken up. The ceos of those companies wouldnt like that. So i think that the enemy thats a great question are those who currently hold power. Great. Richard reid. You have to speak in an american accent. I cant do that. [laughter] so talk about how this happens politically. Somebody famous, british 19th century philosopher, said everybodys in favor of the decentralization of power down to approximately the level at which they currently sit in the ire around key hierarchy. Yeah. [laughter] steve and i worked together in government, and i think our experience bore that out as well. Yeah. Governments tend to be hugely in favor of states getting power and county councils in favor the trouble the people who you want to give power to arent in the structure at the moment. Yes. Dont have a kind of locus with which to bring about this change. So all the people who are currently in the positions of power wont want it to go as far down as you want it to. Yeah. So talk about the politics of bringing about this change. Yeah. Its such a great question. I dont want to give a flippant answer, but the truth is that what you describe i want to repeat what you said. I completely agree with your characterization of the problem and, therefore, i think and i really reflected on this when i was writing it. You know, im a practical person. Ive been in government. Ive tried to implement change like you have. This is not a theoretical book. If you get the chance to read it, youll see theres an idea underneath it, but its very practical. Its about how we actually change chippings. So is that made me think, i literally reflected on your question, how are we going to change things . And, actually, the answer that i got to was that we need to change the people in the system. And we need people who believe in these ideas literally to take over reins of power. And, therefore, the conclusion of the book, literally the very last book says if you read this book, if you believe in this, if you agree with me, then this is the first step. This is what you have to do. You have to run for office. You have to run for office. Be thats what you think if thats what you think. And that is the only way were really going to bring about this fundamental change. And that connects into, actually, what ive been doing at crowd pack. Because what ive built at crowd pack is a company that makes it easier for people to run for office. Its a crowdfunding site for politics where if you want to run for office or nominate someone for office, you can quickly start raising money and get into Office Without depending on the big Party Machinery that tends to trap people within the existing power structures. Because they have to oaring for the cause of their argue for the cause of their funders whether thats business on the right or labor on the left. Its the same old power structures. And thats why getting a fresh generation of people to run for office at every level who truly believe in this kind of decentralization i think, in the end, is the only hope. That now, that may you know people will take power in order to give et away. Exactly. Yeah, thats right. Leave it there. [laughter] just following up on that, there was a wonderful quote9 you had you were an agitator in government. And when you finally left thats one way of putting it. [laughter] downing street, and you aid it was good to work with the bureaucrats, essentially, you know . You didnt like them very much, they didnt like dealing with you, and it was a mutual divorce in the end when you left. Theyre still there. Yeah. Theyre still there doing the same thing. And then i, you know, the book i just finished i wrote a lot about mike yeah, great. Very similar to what you were trying to do. He ended up leaving because they werent willing to go far enough. It just feels like when people like you and mike and others come in and you make to try to push for change, and eventually the push is really strong against it, and people move on, the reformers. And the people who are trying to protect the status quo, theyre still there. Yeah. Ill give you a couple of responses. I think, again, very accurate characterization. First of all, as i am at pains to say in the book and i want to say it publicly here, almost every single Civil Servant ive met and worked with in government on an individual level was a good, wellintentioned, incredibly impressive, smart, serious person on an individual level. Going back to the point about hannah and the kohl lost, its holocaust, its the system and the structures that are the problem, not the individual people. This wasnt a personal battle with individuals in that sense. It also reminds me of something that tony blair told me when i was before we got into government as part of my kind of trying to learn about what it was going to be like and to think about how we would prepare. I went to see people whod been in government including tony blair and his chief of staff. And we had lots of conversation. One of the things tony blair said was you wont believe how strong is this sense on the part of the Civil Servants that they really are the ones who are entrusted with running the country and that the politicians and their advisers are just here today, gone tomorrow, and their job is to wait them out. And you will not believe how strong that stance is, and you have to do something about it. He said to me we didnt take that seriously enough until i really learned that lesson towards the end of his time in government. This is why i ended up in a position where i took the view i know this is a pretty controversial one that in the end to do something about this, the only serious answer was to drastically cut the number of Civil Servants. Not because they were bad people or underperforming or anything like that, but simply because the scale of the operation means that they inevitably grow the structures and the systems and the bureaucracy that they thrive on. And their incentives are to make that grow. And so theres only one thing to do, which is to cut it. And so my analogy which was it started off as a bit of a joke, actually, but then took on, i thought, a level of seriousness because i really meant it. Theres a building in london called Somerset House which was the Administrative Center of the British Empire. When that was, as the saying goes, half the world with. That was run from this one building in london. Its a very big building. Its now a civic space. There are galleries and restaurants and so on. But it did run the British Empire. And now youre not talking about the British Empire, youre not even talking about britain because its really england. So i said, well, how many people could fit in that building that once ran the empire, how many bits of office space would you get, and the answer is about 10,000. The central policy bits of Civil Service in london was 200,000. What if we actually reduced the number to 10,000 . What would we do . How could we run the modern states much, much more in scope than the British Empire with that number of people . And it started off as a sort of intellectual sort of thought experiment really. But the more time i spent in government, i thought, you know what . That really the answer. I really did propose it. We were talking about this earlier with someone who works at bp, and lord brown who was once chief executive of bp was a nonexecutive adviser to the government departments. I did tell him this is what i thought we needed to do. The number one reform is to massively cut it back. Its the only way you will ever get serious change, and i still believe that. I think thats right here in america too. One more, daniel. You were talking about how [inaudible] applied to governments and you mentioned, like, health care, big food. Does that also apply to tech companies, like facebook, apple, google where theres, you know, theres an advantage and a lot of people maybe in this room, at least i theres an advantage to being big because you can have a huge scale . Its a great question. And it doesnt seem like just you shouldnt break up Big Companies just for the sake of them being big. Correct. Unless theres an actual Public Policy purpose for making them smaller. Because so what yes. I agree with what you just said. I want to explain this really carefully, because its a really important point, and i make it in the book. First of all, i need to declare an interest which is my wife rachel was formerly the head of pr and Government Relations at google and is now doing that role at another company you listed which is uber. [laughter] so, you know, you all need to be aware of that. The argument i try and make im at pains in the book to say this book is not another way of saying small is beautiful, big is bad. That is not what i think. I think that often scale leads to dehumanization, but not necessarily. Similarly, i think that technology often leads to dehumanization but not necessarily. And where those arguments come together, i think in one interesting way, is actually a company i cannot cite any of the companies my wifes been involved with, but theres a company air bnb which we all know, which is a brilliant example that is a tech company that has made the world more human. Its facilitated and enabled incredible human connections. And just because its big doesnt mean we should be concerned about it. For me, the central argument here is that of competition and the ability of a company to challenge another one or the ability of a big company to distort policy or regulation or whatever else it may be to serve their ends in an unhealthy way through the use of lawyers and lobbyists and all the rest of it rather than competing fairly in an open marketplace. So to me, the central concept is not even market share or scale, its barriers to entry. Can a company, however big, be challenged . And the truth is in the tech sector, actually, companies can be challenged and defeated almost overnight. And thats whats really amazing about it. Its a very dynamic sector. Now, you dont see that happening in other sectors. So i think the key argument here is does scale enable a company to exploit policy for its own ends to the detriment of wider society. Thank you. [applause] plenty to drink and eat, stay as long as you would like, and buy the book. Yes, indeed. I hope that gives you a snapshot into why so many of us are so excited to welcome steve into the political system here in the u. S. [inaudible conversations] all right, lets do a picture. All right. [inaudible conversations] heres a look at some books that are being published this week look for these titles in booksts this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv. [inaudible conversations] before we start, let me just take care of a few housekeeping details. First of all, as you can see, cspan is here today. So if you want to tell your friends about Richard Zacks talk, itll be posted itll be up on the booktv web site in about five days. You can watch it when it comes up when they schedule it on cspan, or you can also watch it on booktv web site. And today because cspan is over here, i think we just have one microphone for questions. Yeah, okay. Yeah. The one microphone for questions is over here. So if audience, if audience would, please, go to the microphone for, to ask your questions, then we can, we can get you on the camera, and we can get you on audiotape as well. So, okay. Im barbara meade, im one of the founders of politics prose, and this is a real treat for me to come in and introduce Richard Zacks whose written his new book hold on a second called chasing the last laugh. It has a wonderful subtitle, mark twains raucous and redemptive realm, world comedy tour. And i tell you, it was a great deal of fun to read. I was having so much fun reading it, i thought, well, i bet the author had even more fun writing it because you can just tell that he, that Richard Zacks had, was having a good time. Richard zacks was born in that center of savannah, so maybe that says a little bit about his attraction to life and writing of mark twain. By his own description, he grew up having pun fun growing, dabbling in lifes darker pleasures; alcohol, cursing, gambling, betting on horses and playing blackjack in manhattans illegal card parlors. So it comes as no surprise that richard felt an identification with mark twain who also loved darker pleasures. But mark twain also craved highbrow respect. Richard sought his highbrow respect by majoring in classical greek at the university of michigan and receiving his graduate degree in journalism at columbias school of journalism. And then after a spell of writing for newspapers, he went on to do something that what can you do more respectable than writing books . And he has written a number of them since then. He, by this time he sold over 500,000 copies of his books. Theyve been translated into spanish, korean, chinese, japanese and finnish. Theres critical praise, and thats exactly what richard has piled up. The twain journal describes his new book at impossible to put down with Fresh Information about episodes in twains life on every page. The Kirkus Review says it offers a frolicking history. And publishers weekly, who gave it a starred review, called it deeply entertaining account, well researched with rich detail. And then, richard, i want to say one last thing before you talk, and that is that i hope your identification with mark train extends to the rest of your life as well because mark twain, at the end of his life after spending a good deal of time badly in debt, fending off creditors, he died with a net worth in todays dollars of 15 million. So heres to Richard Zacks [laughter] [applause] thank you very much, i appreciate it. Thank you, that was great. [laughter] okay, that was most of my speech, but i have a little bit left. [laughter] thank you. So, yeah, ready for the first okay. Everybody can see the slide . Its pretty clear . Thank you so much for coming. There are so many different people from different parts of my life, feels a little like a wake [laughter] but a little premature, hopefully. So here we go. Ing jump right into it. Here is mark twain at breakfast in olympia, washington, august, 1895. Dont you love that hair . I am so jealous. [laughter] so i want to tell you about the mark twain that not Everybody Knows about. Most people think of this witty author of Huckleberry Finn who fought racism and imperialism. Thats all true. But he was also an eternal bad boy. He liked to drink, smoke and curse. He married an heiress who paid the bills, but he loved to gamble on pool and poker and, unfortunately for him, on startup companies. And all these traits eventually caught up with him. I mean, can you imagine being the comedy kingpin of the United States and at age 60 losing it all . I mean, he was dead broke in 1895. And he had lost all his money and all his wifes money. And and i just cant imagine losing all my wifes money. [laughter] i mean, the thought it so terrifies. Shes sitting there are torture implements that havent been invented that she would use on me. [laughter] after a while the family of samuel l. Clemons could no longer afford to live in their own beautiful home, how sad is that . And its a quirky, wonderful house. He designed imhimself in a large extent. He had a fireplace built with a window on either of it so the smoke would go on either side, and he could see snow falling. They had a family, loopy happy, loopy family life. They had three dogs, one was i know, the second was you know, and the third was dont know. [laughter] he also enjoyed acting with his daughter susie. They were rich. They had a tiffany drawing room. The family had censer havents including a butler servants, but it was never enough for twain. The poor missouri boy wanted everything. He wanted to be a funny writer but also to be a literary author. He wanted to be a family man, but he also walletted to be a pokerplaying rogue. He was so full of conflicting desires, he liked down home folk, and he also wanted to be rich as a rockefeller or a vanderbilt. He wrote few of us can stand prosperity, another mans, i mean. [laughter] and he was a magnet for con men. What a talker he is, he wrote of the inventer, james w. Page. He could persuade a fish to to come out and take a walk with him. [laughter] so twain was losing his shirt. [laughter] he had a lethal combination for an investor; moonshot enthusiasm and no patience for details. He once asked an accountant to send him a profit loss statement that even his daughter could understand. Jean was 2 years old at the time. [laughter] so twain thought the following invention would change the world. You dont recognize it . [laughter] this is the page typesetter. Weighed almost four on the tons, and it was supposed to revolutionize printing. If it worked. Twain had the immense misfortune of seeing it work once. At first, twain called james page the, quote, shakespeare of mechanical invention. By the end, after it kept breaking down, twain began fantasizing about capturing a certain part of pages anatomy in a steel trap and watching him slowly bleed to death. [laughter] so the page typesetter cleaned out twains bank account. This next investment, starting his own publishing company, put him 80,000 or the equivalent of 2. 4 million in