Where the biggest radio industry in the world was created, up to broadway. Thats where the entertainment is. Thats where bing crosby is. Thats where jack benny is. His lifelong rival, and they were truly lifelong rivals, tsarnaev with bill paley. Paley is the son of very rich cigar making family. The family started in the ukraine. By the time they moved from chicago to philadelphia, they had made it. He went to wharton school. His dad basically bought him the station. He hated him for that. And he dated nonjewish girls. These two guys would battle for supremacy in radio, television, and then Color Television for the next half century. Its paley who links it permanently to advertising. The only business in the country supported entirely by advertising. Somebody wrote him a letter and said im getting this great entertainment, great music, who do i pay. Nobody. Paid for by advertising. And paley then hooks up with Duke Ellington. In 1928, he signs up washington, d. C. s Duke Ellington who had been pling for the midtown club right here, club kentucky. And what happened was, up at the cotton club, they had another act. And up in harlem. This is all black entertainment, all white audience. His agents, ellingtons agents found out there was an opening right around the christmas season. The band leader had suddenly died. So he got ellington an audition there. The club is owned by madden. And the agent is irving mills, one of the great music agents in the country here. And madden wanted ellington. Heres how he got him. Ellington had a contract to go out on the road for the christmas season. He found out, madden did, that ellington was in philly. So he sent word to a philly boss, booboo. And he sent out one of his boys and they talked to the guy who was running the show. And they told him, be big or be dead. His name was clarence robinson. Robinson was big. So he let ellington go, and the band left for philadelphia that night. Now, ellington had just created some songs. Those recordings are making him big nationally. But this radio exposure puts the dukes music out to the whole country. And changes everything. And people called it hot jazz, but ellington said, i dont write jazz. I write folk music. Thats how he sold it, the music of my people. Two years later, this is ellingtons band, he links up with lawrence zig feld. Zig feld was the only one who had the guts to hire a black entertainer to go on stage with white women. Okay . Show girls. In a movie called showgirl. And the big Theater Companies in new york city, shubert especially, write propaganda about this. Tried to shut down zig feld. Here at zig feld, from chicago, who started out as a carnival em presario. His dad did a lot of classical music. One act was called the dancing ducks of denmark. And the cops came in and closed it down, because the reasons the ducks were dancing is they were the stage had heated gas jets underneath it. So the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals wasnt happy with this. So he creates the follies. A new york sensation. Costumes, and glorify the american girl. Heres the thing, in 27, this master of light entertainment, stuns the country, stuns the critics by producing a showboat classic. Broadway theater is before, b. C. , before showboat and after showboat. Mississippi river boat, the play deals very sensitively with the issue, explosive issue of a mixed black and white cast, and the songs grow directly, like they do later with oklahoma, out of a plot in the dialogue. Its staged by jerome kearn, and revolutionizes the movies. It was called the best musical ever written. It might still be. Joe bledsoe played joe in the movie. He just brought audiences to their feet. They wanted paul robson, but he had other engagements and he would later play in the production. And that year, we conclude here, that year, zigfield mounts six blockbuster broadway shows. Thats a feat never been equaled. Hearst gives him the money to open his own theater on sixth avenue which is later torn down. I think it was zigfield, not f. Scott fitzgerald who fitzgerald spent more time out of new york than in new york. In the 20s. Its he who represents and embodies the jazz age of new york. A lot of dissipation. Serial adultery. Its daring. Its a fantastic run of success. Hes not altogether an appealing character. He hired more and better comedians in the world, a thous contradictions. No one ever saw him laugh. He never smiled. He has a perfect mag na tis em. He sent a hundred telegrams a day. Sometimes to staffers directly across the hall to him. 15 yards away. One of his friends said, if this man dies, Sell Western Union short. And they entertained, he and his wife did. Theya they entertained on berkeley crest, up on the hudson, like ancient romans. They had a pet elephant for their little kid, patty. Almost killed the maid one day. Twin bears, tony and dempsey. And he is a gambler. He is a gambler at the baccarat tables. Gambler at nearly everything in life. Broadway shows, same thing. And a soufrs success and his ruin. Like strongest trait is the weakness like a lot of guys. Spending thousands in casinos. And tremendously expensive broadway flops. When the market crashed in 29, he crashed with it. And he never, never recovered. Once master of his own world, and he really was, he died in 36. And he had a quarter of a Million Dollars of debt and he dies tragically alone. Now the forces that brought ziegfeld down is what fitzgerald said brought it down. And it is a near complete regard for disregard i should say, for inhibition. But i dont think the 20s were in manhattan. The blurry eyed that he chronicled in a book called, the story called the cram ck up. I dont think any other decade in the life of that cite was more alive or enduringly created. And it is really, these are shots from respectively the follies and show boat and in that year, 192728, there were more Broadway Productions than produced in my one year in any one time. This is the city as it looked at the beginning of the depression. Everything look seweded so prom. But then you see what will grind on to world war ii. But what they create said magnificent. Slender skies, skyscrapers. The epicenter of the country. And Carl Sandburg met up with the skyscraper men, by night the skyscraper looms in the smoke and stars and has a soul. Thank you. Appreciate it. Now we do q and a. Kill the interest here. Yeah, were going to pass a mic around. If anyone has any questions, ill be happy to stick around. Like a lost new yorkers, were at the mercy of mass transit. Yeah. Yes . Hi. Thank you very much. That was wonderful. A little louder. Oh, that was wonderful. Thank you. Speak directly into it. Because it is very hard to hear. Okay, sorry. I was wondering, how you chose your cast of characters. Im sorry . How you chose your cast of characters. I didnt choose them i didnt set out like i didnt write down the characters. I just started to tell the story and the characters just you know, it is a cliche where books kind of have a life of their own. But this really did. Aep the characters kept popping up. People i had never heard of. I never heard of hattie or fred french. I knew there was a french building. I didnt know of the tremendously successful stock seller. I didnt know much about lois long, about her personal life. To me, she was the quintessential jazz age woman with a long string of pearls. Drinking and carousing all night. Going on at 4 00 in the morning, taking off her dress, a cigarette in her mouth and pound out the copy that would beat all the boys. Great character. So yeah, they just popped up on me. Yeah. Thats why i said, getting to know them. Yeah. Yes, sir . Here is the mic. The biggest magazine publisher, what contributions did he make to new york city itself . He brought down the level of public taste in a big way. And you know, we have the term photo shop now. So he would take the body of another human being and stick the head of a guy who is accused of beating his wife and there he was, his picture is in the paper. He brought journalism to a new spectacular low with a series of a series of tabloid magazines and tabloid newspapers, i should say. That tried to outsell the daily news. But the daily news is the big player in the room. He was also a health nut. So i would have all this stuff on his sexual exploits, how much he could lift and how well he could perform. A sickening magazine. But the many restaurants that he opened, four in new york and two in chicago, what contribution would you say they made to the city and country. His restaurants . Tenny restaurants. I dont know much about that, that story. I really dont. I just know him as the tabloid. Bernard mcfadden is his name. Bernarr, with two rs. Mcfadden. [ inaudible ] thats a wonderful question. She asked me, who is financing this whole thing. Well new york is both rich and poor at the same time. There is, you know, very little income tax. Hardly any state tax. The big tax in new york city is property tax. And so here is how the real estate game works. And this is what subsidizing this construction. And thats the big business in the city and thats what the City Government banked on, too. That if i throw up a 15story building, the most economical thing i could do is to approve its demolition and throw up a 35story building because i can pull in more rent. As long as the rents are coming in, okay, have you more taxpayers there and the city gets the profits. Doubles its profits by building double the size of the buildin. Do the bank et profit . Of course. Because they are loaning money to the city. The banks feel the cite can pay off the debt because the Real Estate Market goes up and up and up. Now know, the song, blue skies, it is always going to be a blue sky. No one is predicting an end to this thing. When it hits, banks call in their loans. Banks go under and so does the city. By 1952, the city is bankrupt. Thats the thing that powers this. It is powered by an idea, confidence. This building boom is unstoppable. There will be articles occasionally in new york that would say, new york overbuilt and the next day, there are three articles saying, contesting that whole idea. This city can never be overbuilt. It a growthdriven place. It always has been. Thanks a lot. You talked about the fact that no one expected the depression to come. Some people, you know, their profits only when it comes. My question is, among your characters, were there any who were sort of like the sky is falling kind of character. Ironically, soronos sold all his stock in 1928. Including his rca stock. And he wouldnt even explain, even to his mother who asked him why he did it. He wasnt getting advice from any of the big bankers. Baruk or anybody like that. But he sees it. Khan, another dig financer, also another big broadway player, expected he was spending beyond his means as a publisher. And liveright had the same philosophy as walker did about the city. We are creating a lot of books and putting them on best seller list and it will balance in the end. He had a book collection called the Modern Library. There were no paper backs in libraries back then. The Modern Library produced these and little books sold for 59 or 99 cents. He went to lunch with a young editor called bennett surf. And surf says horris, i would like to buy liveright amazement and he said, you got it. He wanted to get out from under the thumb of his fatherinlaw, who his wire hired to keep an eye on him. Not only with women, but with money. He thought copay off debt and things like that. He sold the Modern Library. Now surf went out and created just with the Modern Library, random house. By the 30s, random house takes off and gets to the trade publication. But thats all it did in the beginning. Thats the same philosophy that is motivating a lot of these people. Exactly. Yeah. Using up life. Living life. Babe ruth is a classic example of that sort of thing. Yes . I would say that la guardia was one of those people who forsaw the down fall of the well, la guardia is a very interesting character. He plays a big role in my book. He is the antithesis, he was against prohibition. He was in congress at the time as an independent and socialist and republican. He bounced around from party to party. A lot of people thought he was untrust worthy for that reason. He would introduce and say, okay you want prohibition, he would introduce magnificently important bills to support prohibition. The cruel irony to the conservatives who pushed through prohibition is they are also fiscal conservatives. They didnt want to pay to enforce it. So la garcia puts these big appropriate lets enforce this. 16 million for prohibition. And they would be embarrassed in voting against their own bills. He would go into drugstores, make concoction and drink them. Here is how you make bootleg booze. Daily news with the pictures. But la guardia, yeah, he did battle corruption. But he didnt see it all. Even he, when he ran against walker, in 1930, he got beaten very, very badly. And one of the reasons is, tameny, as long as there was prosperity, and so many people depended upon tameny, and it did an awful lot of good for people in the neighborhoods. I still think one of the biggest mistakes new york has made is when we went away from the old system with local aldermen. Somebody throwes a rock through your window or raising hell on the corner, who do you call any more . In chicago, there is an alderman system. You go down to the local alderman and they take care of things like that. Your car is impounded. Your kid has a minor efenoffens. The alderman can help you. What about in new york, what do we have . Nothing. Tameny had people there helping alderman, any time somebody needs needed help, they were there to help them. And they provided jobs. All they asked for was your vote. They would say about walker, yeah. Maybe he is pocketing a little bit. And as i said, he got most of his money, not from the treasury. He got most of his money from private friends. And he didnt it wasnt tit for tat. It wasnt, give me a Million Dollars and ill help with you bridge construction. It was just them giving him money. And they could never prove the reciprocity side of it. This bribe for this project. Thats what they couldnt nail him on. He got nailed for taking too much money. And he should have. He should have been removed from office. For running the cite like that. For his own benefit. Yes . Im sorry. Theres a great book by a lady named mary henderson. All about the theater. Oh, a wonderful book. Isnt it . Yes. The best book on the second. Hopefully thats not too loud. Could you tell us about how this is incredibly expansive theater district that was so huge during the 20s, if people had no money to go to the theater any more, tonight clubs or what have you, how the heck did any of them stay open . Thats a terrific question. And what kept is alive was hollywood. People continued to go to movies for release during the depression. I mean, more people, far more people went to the movies. The 30s are better films of course than the 20s. So broadway was used as a testing ground for productions that could be turned into films. And an awful lot of money subsidizing broadway theater came from the west coast. Thats what underwrote this. There is also this, and i found with so many people, like liveright, there is this absolutely alluring fascination with theater. With owning a play. Going to the rehearsals. Meeting the actors. Sitting about the audience the first night. There is this tingle about that sort of thing. For people interested in live threeter. And it is a gamble. Fortune magazine did a terrific thing in the publication, founded i think in 1930, on the theater business. And i highly recommend it to you. It goes through the whole idea of how they places stay alive due the throws of the worst depression. That is their driving argument. That it was largely hollywood. And speculators who had enough money to waste if they would lose it. And felt this tremendous, almost magnetic draw to the theater world. And she talks about that a little bit in the book as well. Anyone else . Any questions . Yes, sir . Professor, one quick question. Your first look through the century, dealt with chicago post fire. Im wondering, the similarities seem very easy to draw. Which between new york and chicago of those respective areas. Are there any differences, things that made those cities different. Either in the political realm or anyway be the arc of the two stories arise and in a sense fall. Yeah. Yeah. Im doing a presentation in chicago about that. I better start thinking about it. A chicago historian. Jonathan and i are doing a thing on gang life and politics in 1920s, capone versus madden and things like that. You know, chicago, made a couple of mistakes. And it was the sky straper center of the world in the 1890. Best skryscrapers and handsomes ones. Then they set limit on skyscrapers. I believe there should be limits. This was a little too early in the game to do that. And it never quite shook its frontier position. The gang life in chicago is what it is portrayed as stereo typically. The new york gangsters, people like ral steen, really mistrusted people like can poen. Because he was too quick with the gun and too quick with the machine gun. s took care of people like that. Even costello. Im not trying to present him as, you know, a man on a purity. But he never carried a gun. And madden never really carried a gun either. They had their own enforcers. But it wasnt part of the persona. And they were knit more closely into the city. I think what gave them more stability was tameny. And the political part, political machines, they form and then they disappear. Never one consist yent political machine that can keep order in the city. This creates tuning for anarchists, socialists and introduce interesting reforms as well. But it is a stew. A boiling cauldron, i should say. And it is a very different citiespersonalities. Chicagos is more head long, more reckless than new yorks i think. I really do. And they are different types of cities. What happens is in 19th septemberry, they are both Industrial City. New york is the biggest Industrial City in the country. Chicago has Big Industries like mills, steel mills and stock yards. And gigantic clothing factory. New york is the minnows, small firms, that dominate. Not the big ones. But when america moves see, this is the beginning of, i do this in the book, this is the beginning of the decentralization of the city. But also beginning of the deindustrialization of the country. And the Electronics Revolution is coming on. Thats radio. Thats television, okay . Mass communications and things like that. And new york had always been in the forefront of that since 19 mg century. Senting packet books to england. Associated press going out there and picking up the news 60 miles offshore and in fast boats bring them into the city. And all that sort of stuff. Always a Communication Center with more newspapers than any other city in the country. And i think you have this wonderful simbiosis in the t 20s. Greatest port in the hemisphere. It had an Industrial Base but is quickly moving into a new age and a new type of lifestyle. And thats what i tried to do here in what i call the tale of two cities. One, the quintessential heavy Industrial City of large labor unions and large corporations and lots of labor strikes. And new york, in the t 20s at least, moving toward a different type of economy. Different type of lifestyle. Where consumption is almost more important tharn production. Maybe the tale of three cities, and maybe do l. A. In the 50s, which is a complete auto city. Still trying to figure that out. Anybody else . One there and then up here. Hi. Hafrpg you for your talk. Youre welcome. Im wondering with, you said that well i know that people continue to go to the movies and they want to be entertained even during the depression. During prohibition, they said more alcohol was consumed than prior years before they began the whole prohibition era. I thought that kind of connected it. But also, the gangsters didnt put their money into the banks. So did they have a hard time of it . I mean, what did they do . No, gangsters dont write letters. They dont put money in banks. Dont write their memoirs. Now, they invest in clubs, and they spend enormously. And thats not very wisely. But thats is actually up with of the hardest part of the book was to try to tell the story of gang life without writing a graphic novel. You know what i mean . And because so much of Crime Reporting is anecdotal. And people said, dont go into that, thats quicksand. And i find that if you do it right, youre a good record. I went down to the new york archives. Municipal archives. And i asked for, for example, you i asked the director for the luch anno papers. The only person that ever asked for them. They are in brock lin. But we will get them for you tomorrow. I came back the next day with he had a little desk for me and everything. I thought they delivered a washer and dryer. They are big boxes. First thing i pulled out was evidence stuff. You know. Revolver and i pulled out a lamp, you know, a lamp with a cord on it. You know, they strangled somebody. Then they pulled out the records. They wired their rooms, wiretapped them. They have all of the wiretap. They have all of the, when he was holed up in a motel with the mistress, everyday they have the menu. They collected all of the receipts from waiters and order slips and things like that. And despite the code of omerta, the blood thing, no one will squeal, once they heat on these guys, tom duey, line them up and you can get people talking for months. They put them in the Wool Worth Building for months at a time. They had consecutive injury where a injury would not be released until after the trial. And you could really go after these guys like that. So you have court testimony. You have confessions. And have you terrific crime reporters. Some of the best in the city were crime reporters. Theres a lot of evidence you can compile about the life of criminals and despite, you know, without reading these ghostwritten, you know, autobiographies and luch anno penned himself and things like that. And unless you do crime so interwoven in chicago history and detroit history, that it is imfokt do politics without crime and do it right. And i think it is a big mistake by not jump nothing that territory and looking for those kinds of connections. Gw bridge. We can talk about that side of it. Yeah. Anybody else . Yes, sir . When was the first skyscraper built in the United States . And where was it built and when . Generally generally what is a skyscraper is the debate. Most architectures say a building in chicago built by a guy, william jenning, the first Tall Building built partially with a steel frame. Pr br buildings were supported by lowbearing walls. Like you go to the beach and you built a sand castle and as you go tall you have to build the base out. So the walls get so thick you cant go any higher. But with a steel frame, you just hang the walls from like curtains, like cathedral, actually. You hang them there. And jenning is one of the pieners from that. So the building, no longer in business, is turned down. In my mind, the first two american sky scrapers. [ inaudible ] i think 1888. I think thats right. Everybody can check that. Wiki. Yeah. Thats the year it was built. Yeah. Well, thanks. I appreciate it. [ applause ] 2015 student cam video competition is under way. Taupe all middle and High School Students to create a five to sevenminute documentary on the theme seven branches and you. To show how action by the executive, legislative or Judicial Branch bit federal government affected you own your community. Theres 200 cash prizes for student and teachers totaling 100,000. For the list of rules and how to get started, go to student cam. Org. Up next on med can history tv, author elizabeth krobs hoffman describes consequences of United States role in world leadership. Asking, is america umpire or an empire. Miss hoffman argues that the u. S. Played the role of umpire since 1776 but also argues that umpires cant win. This program is sponsored by world den vir. Its about an hour. V vir. Its about an hour. E vir. Its about an hour. R vir. Its about an hour. Vir. Its about an hour. Its about an hour. Thank you so much, kay. Thank you all for being here. I cant tell you how pleased and honored i have be here addressing the World Affairs council. And especially because what i hope we will discuss tonight is i think one of the most critical conditions of our time. Which is, youre not going to know it, because i didnt turn on the microphone. Where is the button here . The green line. Right. The classic green line. So anyway, im here to discuss one of the critical questions i think of our times which is why the United States assumed the role of world defender. After world war ii. And the question of whether we must continue this role indefinite indefinitely. Now this conversation springs from my new book which i hope is available outside. But also from an op ed i wrote for the New York Times last year. With the title come home america. And this was subsequently the subject of a morning snow show on the same subject. And in the essay, i observed that everybody talks about getting out of the iraq and afghanistan. But what about germany and japan . And in essence what im trying to raise is a very fund theal question. Where do i go from here . Do i need to make more basic changes that turning point in our national history. Because i think in many ways, for me, and im a historian, that our nation suffered from a lack of historical self awareness. About a role and a lack of historical self awareness that makes us a target. And that confuses our future choices. This is where history is important. Im kind of a cheerleader for history. Because history shows us the big picture. If we see longrange trajectories that help make sense of the mess and turmoil of everyday crises. When i say everyday crises, im aware that that sounds like kind after put down like, everyday crises. What i mean by that is that World Affairs gets their crises everyday. So we need to understand the big picture which helps us make sense of our choices. To to give us an example of what i think of this. I like go right to the top here. And president obama said last year when he was addressing the nation about the question of intervening in the syrian civil war. And he said at that time that the u. S. Has been the chief enforcer of International Law for the past seven decades. And then the president asserted, america is not the worlds policeman. Well, what do policeman do but enforce law, right . He also said and this is just a couple weeks after that. He was addressing the United Nations. He said the u. S. Seeks the world in which state sovereignty is respected. But also, in which sovereignty cannot shield a regime from outside intervention. This is a plat contradigs. The whole point of sovereignty is absolute authority withinter toral boundaries. Now in france what the president is doing is speaking out both sides of his mouth. What he is really saying is we are seeking a world in which sovereignty is subject for checks and balances. To protect individual human. App rights. As much as the federal government operates in the United States. By the way, i want you to already be sort of listening. Collection and balances is such an american term. But in way this has do with the american view and also, i think, the american role in the war. Now i think that this kind of double speak isnt intentional. And i think we see it in president after president. So this is not a democratic or republican problem. It is an american one. We suffer from not knowing exactly what where weve come from and why. I think it reflects a lack of understanding about the structure of the world in general. And if we dont understand our history, no one else will. Because were the ones who write about it. Were the ones who tell people, this is who we are. If we dont understand it, they wont either. By the way, i hate to be a tease because i cant possibly answer all of the really Big Questions in 45 minutes and my idea here is to give you 300 years in 45 minutes. But i will do my best. Because the fact is that the u. S. Exercises a very unusual role. As the nation with the greatest and yet very limited power in the world. The power to determine outcomes in foreign affairs. When things go wonky, people ask, whats the United States going to do about it . They say, whats mexico going to do about it. Or france or iran. 95 of all soldiers serving op soil other than their own are americans. That includes u. N. Peacekeepers and troops. This sometimes creates new problems in the process. This raises very important questions and possibilities. For example, are we the worlds policemen . Or from another per spspectp are we a selftaught bully. Are we an empire . Seeks to dominate the world for its own geopolitical benefit and Economic Prosperity. Thats door number one. Door number two, as many realists believed, instead the only power that stand between the world and armageddon between a ref repetition of the Great Depression or world war ii or even Nuclear Devastation of the planet. If thats true, must we play that role forever . Regardless of what it costs. What it costs our schools, infrastructure, domestic security, treasury. Our soldiers, are psychic. Door number three. Or is it possible, and this is what my research suggests. The roll weve bp on for the past 70 years has been a detour. A necessary depure. On the main path to which World History has actually been heading since about 1648. And now is the time for course correction. If im right, then my book challenge uses to transition to the next phase of our national epic. Confidently and affirmatively, learning from both successes and failures, indeed to objective, scholars must be as rigorous with the identifying what went right as with what wept wrong. As i said, i cant get all of this material and get it all out here. I will come pretty close. For that, you have to read my book. Every author has to put that plug in here. Im hoping you will. What american umpire does is try to take eaccept shlly 300 years of history and make sense of it so we can understand where where we might go. So in todays talk i want to do three things. First of all, i want to tell you a little bit about why i wrote the book. As kay said, im also a novelist. I have lot of irons in the fire. And i also like to explain why i think the rainingly scholarly paradigm, this is my secretary objective, be only why the wrote the book but the way of looking at the world as i think most scholars adhere to is wrong. This refers to the u. S. As an empire. Lastly i want to produce an alternative. This is a very persuasive explanation. And in fact, people are all around america are starting to call it the empire. I was watching jon stewart the other day. And my hero said, this big imperial nation. No, john youre wrong, but he hasnt called me yesterday. So i would like to propose in alternative explanation. Which in a nutshell is that world as a whole has devised new norms over the past four centuries. And that these are not just played in america. They are worldwide. But that under the press of catastrophic events in the 1940s, the United States reluctantly refers the long standing policy of plit kalg nonengagement, nonentanglement and adopted a function thats a kin but not Eye Department cal to the one actually used to play. Among its own states. The role of an umpire to compel acquiescence, between squabbling governments, in moments of crisis. At the time we did this, we were the only nation with a relevant experience and capacity. So, why diwrite this book . That is a long story. I wont bother you with the whole thing. But it goes back to when i was first interviewing to be a graduate student and i was interviewing for a scholarship. I was very excited and nervous about the process and there is a panel of experts inning me. I was going into the field of what is called diplomatic history at the time. I was asked, eager young thin i was, why do you want to enter a dying field. Well, i didnt know it was dying until he told me that. I today bunt quickly and say, well because he cant let it die, right . This is too important, subject of americas relationship. But he is right. As i dus covered. As in the field of history dying, i think for a couple reasons. Bun is the cultural and social history became very attractive. I think the other reason, i think a lot of Young Scholars repelled by a field in which there was own only ever one answer to every question. If you look at what had happened in the world the answer was pretty much america messed up. Ape so whatever scholars left the field, what happens is that political scientist took it up. And are mostly concerned with modern policy issues. Their knowledge of history is not deep. Thats not their field. And historians generally subscribed and often do generally subscribe to the idea that american record is one long story of empire and imperialism. And that goes back to George Washington and ben franklin. But empire i think is a terribly misleading firm. That obscures challenges facing us today. And misdiagnosis, as we know, is often more dangerous than no diagnosis at all. With a ms. Diagnosis you can make the wrong prescription. There are groups like al qaeda which also claim the u. S. Is an empire to which there is only one answer which is death to the empire. Or death to america. What i would like do is tell you about who some of these people are. I myself think, am i exaggerating this. This is in the world among my pierce and the scholarship community. I would like to run through a couple of titles for you. This book is by neil ferguson, a brit. Though he is at Harvard University. Causing us to follow the american empire. Another book, richard emmerman, from Temple University in philadelphia, empire for liberty. And from Benjamin Franklin to paul wolfowitz. Harvard university professor, and its predecessor. Simply named, american empire. Reality and consequences of u. S. Diplomacy. Or this is more of the basics. Empires, we have life, grand daddy of them all. This is actually the 50th Anniversary Edition of this book. Very simply named empire by Michael Heart and antonio nege. Some people put a positive spin on this. Saying the u. S. And europe has not just had the monroe doctrine, it is the Marilyn Monroe doctrine. He she is not a blonde, but the same idea. Or how about the empire trap, at Harvard University again. Now talking about the empire or in praise of empires. This is a historian at ucla. Now by the way, i want to suggest that this is not all criticism from the left, and some run to people from the op side side of the political spectrum. And say, we need more empire. We just wish the u. S. Was a better one. Thats one way of interpreting it. This is probably the most famous interpretations of the empire by johnson who wrote with what is now called the empire trilogy. I sometimes feel like im arguing against lord of the rings. This really is sort of the raining paradigm. Out in interesting thing about this term empire is that almost nobody defines it with any precision. It is this absolutely sloppy catchall phrase that you could describe everything from tourism and religion to war. Now i know youre saying, what doesnt she like about that firm. I feel strongly about this. But the term to an important extent, it is used to describe most every catastrophe in the world. And any in which the United States is associated. As if this is the only possible explanation. For americas mistakes. Or successes. To give you a peek into these books, as you see are the titles. I want to you get a sense of what is the flavor of this criticism. Johnson for example described americas faces abroad. Hundreds of bases abroad. Quote as striking evidence. Quote, for those who care to look, an imperial project that cold war obscured. Andrew bassvich. Who is a conservative those some say he is so far right that he has come around to the left. That the intervention in iraq as he fut was quote a war for the imperial. The policy in total is to quote expand in american impeer yam. Again, this is not just a right wing left wing thing. On the left, clearly left side, the lord socialist web says quote iraq was a predatory imperialist war. Carried out as part of reorganizing the middle east to secure american interests. Another commentator, tarik ali, he wroets quote, when people write me that the american empire is weakening, i say, dont underestimate it. Europe and middle east fall into line when the United States says this has to be done and that had to be done. The only sovereign nation today is the imperial nation. Now, this is not just an ivory tower that these accusations are booted around. Very sadly after the great tragedy of the Boston Marathon last year, the person who engineers that bombing, his neighbored were interviews and they said he went around ranting about the american empire shortly before he set off the bomb that killed so many insent people in boston last year. President obama, this accusation of the empire has been out there so prevalently since 2003, that not only did george bush but also barack obama, both come out about this. And barack obama told the un last year, quote, the notion of an american empire isnt born out by americas current policy. We seek a world where a nation does not covet land or resources above nations. President said this. About an hour later, there was a commentary about this on democracy now. A Radio Station associated with the nation. And that time the commentator said, quote, obama basically came out and said the United States is an imperialist nation and we will do whatever we need conquer areas to take resources from the world. Unquote. I dont know what machine we put it in to get that translation out. But the point of that is, is that when you wear a certain kind of glasses, or maybe a certain kind of hearing aid, you only hear it in a certain way. And thats why i think this is a terribly important conversation for us to have. And so, jon stewart and others say, say imperial nation, i say dont take that line down. Or at left submit it to analysis. So thats why i would like to start now talking about the reigning paradigm and the historical profession. And on what basis the United States is called an empire by serious wellmeaning, you know, virtuous scholars made from personal friend. The notion that u. S. Was expansionist when you know, through out the west. One in colorado, you know that story. U. S. Expand offered native american nations, went to war with mexico, thats why we call it the empire. Other people say no, no, no. The main reason to call it the empire is because of the 20th century military dominance. The basis that we have all around the world and the kwens dental, not coincidental, spread of American Values. Trailing along with those basis. Some people say thats why were an empire. Others will say, other scholars that it is 21st century economic dominance. How else do you explain it, right . It must come out of the imperial quest. Well, the thing is, the interesting thing is i was writing this book which Harvard Press brought out just last year. I thought my goodness, will you take off the glasses and take off the hearing device that filters evidence, you actually find that theres a lot of evidence, obvious evidence, that argues against all of these forms of interpretation. Lets take the first one. It expanded across the west. That does sound fairly impeeristimpeeris imimperialistic. Until you say, what is the context of that. This is happening through out the americas. I like this particular picture because it shows what a krizy crazy quilt latin america was after it declared independence. There were 21 border wars, very similar to the u. S. Mexican border war a hundred years following latinamerica independence. This particular one shows latinamerica before the war of the pacific when chile invaded north and took big chunks out of pe view and bolivia. So if we were to call chile an empire or uruguay an empire, they are very different, just a different animal. By wait, the which i layians didnt just stop at butting up geps the neighbors. They also expanded against native american people. Vast campaigns taken to dispossess native americans of their land. And you know, horrible event. We all know how whoivic these kind of complains were. P very brute yl and yet this is what nation states were doing. 19th century is the era we know of as nationalism and nationalism is often not pretty. Standard have changed offer the years. We dont call it empire because it is a little bit of a different thing. The other reason why we compare the United States to empires of the past is because of military basis. Now again that seems logical on the face of it. Except when you consider that when the United States has military basis abroad, it has it on the basis of the contractual agreement with the kun think that the host country. And the host cannot kick us out. You no know what happens wh when the host kicks us out . We go. Empires dont act that way. They dont. I like to show this slide because this is the years that United States was in france before our oldest ally kicked us out. After world war ii. They said go home. Im not sure they said it in a nice polite french sort of way. Perhaps in a plas of wine. They asked us to leave and we did. Same is in the philippines and elsewhere the United States left after a period of time. Now the other reason why people sometimes say, the empire is because of its economic prowess. I always like to say to this, consider one fact. United states has the Worlds Largest economy in 1890. 1890. Before the first dough boy hit the shores of france. Before the United States joined United Nations. Any such thing. Americas economic stories are very different from that of empire. And yes, this is where we all get stuck. We say, yes, but the u. S. Is the primary garner to of world security. Why do we get involved . Why are we involved in all these other countries . By the way, the japanese call this more or less the yoshida doctrine. Why is that . This came out of world war ii. And in fact, one of the interesting parts of this story is that there wasnt one country, other than the United States, that was willing to sign a peace treaty with japan at end of world war ii. Because of its behavior in that war. You think nazi germany was bad and it was horrific. Nobody is willing to sign a peace treaty. It wasnt until 1951 that australia became the second country. Why . Because this all took place in the same week and a nothingy week in san francisco. This is where the novelestist comes out. I dont know if it was foggy. San francisco often is. In signing peace treaty at the end of the week, they promised australia and new zealand that we would be there if japan ever rose again. Immediately after that the United States signed the new york japanese bilateral treaty that to assure the japanese we will do this for them. Please, you wont have to pick up a gun. We will be there all the time. Everybody else was willing to sign a peace treaty to rehabilitate japan and bring it back into the modern world. Thats been at great expense to the United States. So weunder are took this role and part of the reason i think that it is so hard for us to understand exactly how the world unfolds, is because what we do see is the fact that United States has influenced us at the same time that theres been a spraetd of certain values, which we tend to call American Values. But i dont think that we need to explain this as being part of a plot. For the United States to rob others of their autonomy and their resources. The reason for that is because the very same 70 years, makes you think the United States has had its most creative influence. It is the same point of time in which sovereign countries are autonomous. Making their own decisions. Quadrupled. From it 00. And the great Economic Prosperity in history. So what is the alternative explore tags . All right. Phase 3 of this talk. This is why i wrote the book. This is why i think other ideas are wrong. What is my idea . I think that one way that is the best way we can explain the spread of American Value says buzz they are not american. What World History show says that spread of useful techniques of human governance and Economic Production have always spread outward from the point of ori n origin. But a lot of the values, spl did not originate in the United States. Even though that did, they spread out because other people wanted them. Not because they were coerced in any way. To give you an example, about 30 years ago, if anyone said to you, you will you a all have a computer in your pocket in 30 years. Oh, my god, how will i walk with a computer in my pocket. We now all have computers in our pockets. Not because apple to coerce anybody to buy the iphone. People line up to buy the iphone. We have these devices from Silicon Valley to siberia. In the many ways what we have to compare this to is the fact that there are other monumental changes, which we dont deny and similarly human governance has changed. I think this is he have similar to transition from the palo lijic to to the neolijic p. What defines the stone age is the fact that they didnt have farming. When farming was invented or disoccurred, plants were hieb are nating in places like messo america. No one today force down anybody throats. Whoa pardon me. Another epic change in human destiny was the Industrial Revolution and nobody has to go around saying you must drive a car now you chinese person. No. People want cars and they want machines because of the valuable things they bring to human life. We dont go around saying, when we order a sandwiching with saying i want a turkey sandwich on on eye bread. This is just absolutely true, in fact i know it is true. That a similar ethical transition has gone on in human government. And the United States has been a big part of that. So have others. This is transition that took place over many centuries from the empires that competed militarily toward capitalist republic that compete economically. Just the world we have. New york has been a big part of that. Not because it forced other people to do this. They elected to. It was also a big part of it because it embodied so many of these kinds of characteristi characteristicses. Like the iphone, it was cool. Now to give you a sense of this, after the United States was formed, 20, 30 years after the United States was formed with be latin american countries, colonies, began to break away from spain and gort gal. They all considered themselves republic. Did the United States make them do this . No we were just this little teeny tiny country. In fact they went one better than us. They took the ideas and ran further in some ways p. They abolished slavery, 40, 50 years before the United States did. Nevertheless, the United States is important because they show Different Things could be done. Generations upon generations, they thought was silly house training. The United States shows that could you have a chief executive who retired after a designated term. Also it was possible to create a durable peace among competing states and on same basis other than a volatile balance of military power. And thirdly, that you can have open commerce across borders. If you want know why the United States was wealthy by 1809 when global terms, a lot of it had to do with open commerce across state borders. We have the European Union a long time before they had the European Union. So in any case, what the United States did is they showed different kind of pipe dreams that you could actually realize. And as said by a french observer at the time, in 1830, he was such an interesting fellow. Somebody who knew washington. Knew jefferson. He was there on the ground when the revolutionary war was occurring. He is also the diplomat for france to arrange the louisiana purchase. Hen he came back to see america in 1830. He was so he said, i saw a former president walking along the sidewalk. He just thought that was the most amazing thing. He said the government of the United States has no model in anch ept or modern times. What the experience demonstrated is possibilities. Much asthma gellian demonstrated that the world wasnt flat. Magellan didnt make the world round, he simply circum navigated it. There were three in a way ne eric principles that were a prt of what happened. I called the access arbitration and transparency, i think it is better than life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Because those have too much of an american flavor. These are real world values. The transition by which nations replaced empires. This happened and this happened over a period of many years. Really it begins with the treaty of west in 1648 when the europeans basically kick out Papal Authority and say we are states unto ourselves and continues through the break up of the soviet union in 1991. A long process but it does happen. Now what do i mean by the values . I would like to explain it briefly because we are coming up on the time deadline here. I like to begin with adam smith. In 1776, he talked a lot about the fact that if nations were open, that if trade could proceed in an open way that not only would society become freer but more personally fulfilling and also more wealthy. A more modern example was this fellow. Ping. If you want to talk about the principle of axis, we have to talk about china. And we believe that United States is an em tire. They often talk about the open door empire. And trace is back to u. S. Policy toward the 1890s. Now it is o equal markets for all foreigners in china but also the maintenance of chinese sovereignty p. That time t was a possibility that china would become like africa. Divided up into parcels and parcelled out to europe. That is what got us to pearl harbor because no good deed comes unpunished. So closing itself off for 40, 50 years, and what they found however, is that by closing off all access they are becoming poorer and poorer. So ping did a 180. Not because they used to be communist after their own division, but because ping saw china falling out there cracks. He add policy called opening up. As a result of that, Something Like 300 million chinese have been pulled up out of poverty. So people ask, how can we trust china . I said you dont necessarily have to trust china but we can trust the process. The process that made it in the self interest of nations like china o to open up their market to appeal with others. The idea is that maybe, maybe, how about this, set of nations warring with each other to advance their interest. Not only a moral waive but a month of profitable way of getting along in the world. The first example of this is a the piece of west vallia. The combination of this that started predates the United States by at least 125 years. Something like that. I always like to point to the constitutional convention. Because america was weird. America still is weird. But part of its weirdness is that the idea that you could have states that were neighbors and normally the traditional idea is that your neighbor was will always be your worst enemy. Why . Who will steal your stuff first . Your neighbor. Look at ukraine and brush it today. So the United States formed an arbitrational process by creating a federal government design basically to coral states that otherwise mind come to blows. Last principal is the principal of transparency. Transparency serves arbitration. You cant have either without transparency. This is certainly not just a western vibe today. Gorbachev has the benefit of his own country, not because he lost the cold war. Truly a trance national value. Have you noticed the smith are in trouble because of the nontransparent to the banking. Who thought we would see glass windows in the swiss bank fault . The criticism you could make is you are insufficiently transparent. Thats not good. So this is truly an international value. So hours threat of these new tools for organization and Self Organization skplaps the spread of American Values without coercion. But it doesnt show why the United States got involved. Why it jumped with both feet into 1987 into the world we continue to have today. I think the answer is not just and that is strange aeb you say, wow, with world war ii and coldware and soviet union on the verge of western europe p everybody else devastated, wondering who will take it up, so to speak. The british war on war time until 1955. Until 1955 the british run rations for butter and cheese and meat and other basic foods. The cricket has gone off, thank you. In any case, reasons go beyond a historical moment. There is something in our dna. Something in our dna. And it goes back to this word umpire. It was a word that our founders used to explain what they were trying to create by creating a union of sovereign states that would prevent ultimately sovereign states from falling out amongst each other and so, in the federal papers they plant if you read the federal papers you see such quotes. The nullification crisis of 1833. The civil war of 1861. The little rock integration crisis of 1957 and so on. And so today, the United Nations enjoys a status which is very similar to the u. S. Before we add constitution. Which is to say, that there is a union among states. That u. N. Security council limited powers of enforcement. No powers of taxation. How can it exercise the imperial role . So part of what happened at the end of world war ii is falling upon hard times. So what has been the consequences of all of this for the United States and the world . Because being the umpire is a dangerous and difficult job and consequences when you get it wrong can be terrible. Whether it is south korea or south carolina. So the results have been mixed. I think that in many cases the United States got it right. And in some cases we got it really wrong