Latest Breaking News On - Jack devine - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
>> new video of bowe bergdahl's handover. >> the two enemy force he meet face to face, exchange handshakes. >> the exchange took less than a minute. >> and he is whisked away. >> new fallout from obama administration's rules for climate change. cut carbon emissions from coal fired power plants by 30%. >> here is your meth, don't forget your meth face. >> crystal meth is made with things that will destroy you. >> how devastating is chris contaminatcrystalplet? >> the face meth? >> ufers blackhawk helicopter swept down to pick him up as part of a prisoner exchange. the sole american pow in the afghanistan war, questions mount regarding his conduct in the war and the high price paid for his release. five taliban leaders including the group's one time chief of staff and deputy minister of intelligence. one told bowe bergdahl, don't come back to afghanistan, if you do, you won't come back alive. >> they are going back to the insurgents side and they are starting fight again. against the afghan people and against the afghan national force. for sure when the five important commanders are coming out from the prison it's a kind of a victory for the taliban. >> for more on the prisoner swap and the taliban video i'm joined by jack devine. he is the co-founder and president of the arcin group an international risk and consulting firm. and author of good hunting. spy masters. how do you arrange a swap like this? we know the qatari government was the mediator but could switch? >> this is a top down decision so clearly, this has been in process for a long time, according to everything i've been able to acertain and failed to come the to fruition. it's complicated, vofs senior involves senior level of the taliban and qatar government also. >> would there be any sort of confidence building measures, points where if either side failed to do something, that the whole thing would be called off? >> that may be. are but i think it's more likely that both sides at the spoin pof exchange were prepared if it was a setup. in other words i think without a question of a doubt, the americans had considerable backup that if this was a reduce of any sort i think they would have made short order of it. i suspect the taliban on its side had an exit plan, whether it was executable or not. so i'm not sure about the confidence-building measures. i think at a certain point you know, you just have to bite the bullet. and trust that they show up. you know, so i don't think -- what are the trust -- the test, it's very hard to bring about. it's easier sometimes to just get the deed done than to go through trust-building measures. >> so was it all done at long distance or at the end, did the americans who were getting bergdahl have to communicate with the taliban who were turning him over? because there are reports there was an exchange over whether the taliban would use a green light or white flag to identify themselves. >> i have no doubt there was a good deal of communication back and forth setting it up. what that looks like it will be some time before we are able to acertain. but both sides probably spend a fair amount of time on the logistics. >> does it get turned over to people on the ground. >> i think on both sides, you go to in the case of the americans special forces that was an elite group that showed up and i'm sure at the end of the day the taliban leadership had to turn to its rank and file to deliver bergdahl. >> but would you think the rank and file and the special forces were talking to each other at some point when it actually got executed? >> no, i don't think so. i think it was done, if i had to speculate, i would say that that was set in place and then a predetermined occasion and both parties showed up. and that's what it looked like on the video as well. >> what do you make about these bizarre comments about the narrator of the taliban video criticizing being impolite, shake hands with their left hands which apparently is insulting, did anything surprise you how this went down? >> it would have been a surprise if they didn't try to turn it into a propaganda advantage. and using what i would consider rather petty arguments. when you look the it, it looks pretty straightforward. and i'm sure there was no deliberate attempt. we were anxious and nervous to get the job done. >> the taliban video showed u.s. war planes that were circling overtimcirclingoverhead as the g -- taking place. do you think there were drones or were we hands off completely? >> i think at the scene we had ample coverage, if anything went awry our special forces would have made short order of it. to not have backup we would have been remiss. >> you were at the cia for decades. did the taliban exceed in exchanging max effect for the sergeant? >> well, you know this is going to be the key question. when we look in the rearview mirror about the price. it does look like a steep price but at the end of the day there was a principle involved in terms of getting back a exuferred soldier. but -- captured soldier. but i think the key for me and inform others, is will they return to combat, either physically going back to are afghanistan or engage in nefarious affairs in qatar? i think at any point there will be repercussions. but this is a costly exchange and you have to be in the negotiations to fully understand it. but from long distance it looks like a steep price. >> of course mullah omar called it a victory for the taliban. president obama has said the u.s. will be keeping eyes on these leaders but reports are that the five taliban have residency permits in qatar, they will live with their families. they will not be treated like prisoners or monitored by u.s. officials, they are allowed to move freelt freely within a year an in qatar and then return to afghanistan. are these terms giving these leaders that kind of freedom the right thing? >> well, i'd have to see the addendum on just how much freedom they will have. i don't doubt that their families will be living and they'll be moving around the country. and so on. i think it would be very imprudent for qatar government to just turn away and not keep an eye on them for their own sake. i mean you really don't want terrorist groups planning in your country. the second is, if anything goes awry here, if they go back and it's negligence on the part of qatar government then i think we would expect there would be political friction over that issue and i'm putting it rather diplomatically. they'll do i think what has to be done when you have -- there's no one here that doesn't understand what these five terrorists are like. and including the government and qatar. >> jack devine, thank you for your insights. >> thank you. >> judging from the political fallout over the bergdahl swap, talking to the taliban may be easier for the white house than talking to congress. recent lindsay graham said that politics may are to blame. >> was this release designed to enhance the nowvment withdrawal from afghanistan getting the one -- flowmen nowment announcement of wrawl withdrawal from afghanistan? >> dianne feinstein didn't seem very impressed when the white house finally called her. >> i did have a call last night from the white house and they apologized -- he apologized. >> are they acknowledging that the law was broken in that apology? >> i didn't ask for that. it's obvious. >> we are joined by bill schneider, an al jazeera english contributor, at the centrist think tank third way. professor at george washington university. and rick wilson who served in the pentagon under then secretary of defense dick cheney. the white house is in major damage control. administration officials went to capitol hill to brief senators reportedly showing videos of bergdahl where he seemed ill and needed to move quickly. but anything justified the fact that the white house didn't give timely notice of the release of the taliban leaders. you heard dianne feinstein said it's obviously, they broke the law. couldn't white house call capitol hill leaders and give them a couple of hours notice? >> apparently they did call leaders on capitol hill friday and saturday. but they didn't give them 30 days notice. the prisoner's health was very much at issue and also the taliban weren't going to wait 30 days to make this deal. the president claims that under his authority as commander in chief the constitution authorizes him to do this. and he was justified, legally, in ignoring that congressional law. >> rick, the president does claim that the white house had been telling congress for a while that a swap like this could happen at some point quickly. democratic senator carl levin said, he did say that congress was bipartisan then thinking it was a bad idea. the reality though, the white house only had to provide notice. they didn't need authorization. so it shouldn't as bill mentioned shouldn't the commander in chief have the ability to take quick action in a situation where it's believed that there's some urgency? >> you know there's a lot of questions about the time line here. and this has long been an administration that is very -- they preach transparency and practice on security. and this has -- o obscurity. probation that the executive is pursuing, that's one thing on the legal side. was it the 30-day notice that he session he had to wav waive it l had to happen so quickly, there is a formal and informal process that the national security briefs the gang of eight, it is not just a courtesy, but it is one of these things that makes washington work. where there's a trust between the executive ant the legislative side. in this case they could have made these calls and they could have given a time line. even today it is my understanding they are still refusing to provide exact time lines and exact tick-tock how these dealings took place. >> harry reid actually just got notice, doesn't dick have if points, these people knew on capitol hill about the osama bin laden raid and now you're hearing feinstein and chambliss, top people on the senate intelligence committee, both said the white house called them to apologize but then it didn't really apologize. what's going on. it seems to be ultimater confusion. >> yes, it does, it's very murky. the white house claims it was an oversight. oversight is not quite an apology, set it was done inadvertently. they forgot to notify congress. president obama says he was justified in doing this. the political ramifications and the facts. we don't know all the facts. was this person a deserter? do we impose a character test after we extract a prisoner of war? those haven't been examined yet. >> some reports say that the white house was blind sided by the negative response that occurred within 24 hours of the announcement. they thought it was going to be a positive story of a returning hero and then they sent national security advisor susan rice to some of the sunday morning shows and she said this: >> he served the united states with honor and distinction. >> and by monday when jay carney the outgoing white house spokesman was asked to comment, he wouldn't go there. backlash, questions what happened to bergdahl have been fairly well-known for some time. >> i frankly knew about the case only he was held captive. i had never heard any of the prior things on the rolling stone article, the former allegation. i'm a fairly well informed guy. it's shocking that the guys who were with him at the forward operating base to give their perspective, and to talk about his character to talk about what they saw firsthand about this guy, and it really is an example of the official story collides with the eyewitness testimony that is now like i said empowered by the fact that that guy cody went on twitter and basically told his story. which 90% of americans never heard. and it shocks the white house because they're accustomed to having a press narrative that they deliver through the traditional yeem medium, and susan rice gets them in more trouble than possible i think. >> we had one on our show last night coming out and being very strong, very negative about bergdahl. and it does seem some democrats now think the best defense is a good offense. nbc's chuck todd is reporting that veterans are accusing bergdahl of swift boating. do you think that's a good idea? >> by democrats who say they're swift boating him without knowing all the facts, we don't know whether the testimony is correct or not. all that has to be investigated. but i will say this: i think most of the negative reaction wasn't due to questions about bergdahl's character. it was clearly a malcontent. it has to do with whether the prisoner exchange was worthwhile. whether we should have released these five obviously dangerous detainees from guantanamo. whether that was a reasonable exchange. that's what bothers people. >> orient, senate majority leader harry reid says, they are publicizing bergdahl's return, when this is the time we should be coming together. some of the biggest republican critics are the ones who pushed the president in the past to get bergdahl home. >> as in most things, harry reid is flat wrong. i don't think there's one single american who would say, we should have left bergdahl there. that's absolutely ridiculous. but barack obama doesn't get ohave a press conference and say yay! i done good. was it appropriate to trade to get bergdahl back as an american soldier? i don't care what his background is, what his past is, we want him back. did you have to trade the five taliban all stars who were held? maybe not. these are things the congress needs answers to. it is incumbent upon the white house to be very straightforward candid and direct in a way they are not used to doing. it is imperative that we get this before congress sooner than later. to talk about the mechanics of the swap, the time line and the tick-tock of this entire thing rather than playing the political game of oh, you hate the pow. it's typical harry reid partisanship. >> bill schneider, rick wilson, >> sure. >> thank you. >> now some other stories from around the world. we begin in hong kong where a vigil for 25th anniversary of beijing's tienanmen square drew 25,000 people. the chinese also tried to block commemorations through broad censorship of the internet and international media. in the united kingdom a different kind of protest over a newly proposed law that would allow fracking by oil and gas companies under private land without permission. greenpeace u.k. responded to the proposal by turning david cameron's home into a fracking site. >> what a perfect day for fracking. >> i'm so glad david cameron is not a nimby, letting us frack outside his front door. that's real leadership. 3,000 year old pants, the oldest pair of pants ever discovered. they were found in tombs along with a whip and other riding equipment leading researchers to theoriestheorize that pants hadn first developed for riding. need to open their eyes, she joins us next, christine todd whitman. did the nia >> misbehaving children locked up doing time while they should be in school. >> they have to prepare for jail >> throwing away our future >> we're using the same failed policies in districts throughout the country >> are we failing our kids? fault lines al jazeera america's hard hitting... >> they're locking the doors... >> ground breaking... >> we have to get out of here... >> truth seeking... award winning investigative documentary series fault lines the school to prison pipeline only on al jazeera america >> these protestors have decided that today they will be arrested >> these people have chased a president from power, they've torn down a state... >> what's clear is that people don't just need protection, they need assistance. the performance review. that corporate trial by fire when every slacker gets his due. and yet, there's someone around the office who hasn't had a performance review in a while. someone whose poor performance is slowing down the entire organization. i'm looking at you phone company dsl. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business built for business. >> the so-called war on coal hah president obama's mandate to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants by thrir 30% by 2030. mitch mcconnell says it's a disaster. >> nothing even comes close to what this regulation will do to our state and its ability to compete. >> but as mid term elections and the 2016 presidential race loom large for candidates a former republican administering administrator, of environmental protection agency, difficult politics between the gop 2016 nomination. joining me in the studio is christine todd whitman. currently she is the co-chair of the republican leadership council which supports fiscally conservative socially tolerant candidates. she is the author of the best seller, "it's my party too, the battle of the gop and the heart of maicialg." she is president of the whitman strategy group. you have a lot going on. >> i like to keep busy. >> great to see you. >> nice to be here. >> president obama putting out these new rules to cut powerpoint emissions 30% by 2030, mostly affecting coal fired plants. there is a big uproar bipartisan that this is going to hurt jobs. what is your reaction to the proposal. >> is climate change a real issue? i happen to believe it is. what is that costing us in premature deaths and children with asthma and premature deaths. is this really going ocrater our economy? is it going to have an impact on these massive coal producing states? yes. do we have an opportunity to create even more jobs? think about it, nuclear power, no base power that releases no greenhouse gases, found had this country to be enormously powerful and safe, more jobs and more investment in the other forms of green energy. so we've got to look more at the total picture. even texas for instance which is a heavily coal-dependent state has -- they are saying that they object to the rule but then they are saying but we have a big investment coming in wind. we see a potential for this to grow our economy too, wind and solar. so you have got to look at the whole thing and the tradeoff. >> let's talk nuclear since you brought i up. i think there's only five nuclear reactors under construction in the united states. >> right. >> is there really a likelihood at this point, given fukushima, three mile island, all the scare about nuclear that there will be the political will to move nuclear forward at a speed where nuclear will make a difference in the environment? >> right now nuclear is about 19% of our energy. but there are five new construction and one a tva restart of a facility. the jobs they bring with them are enormous and there are about 19 left in the -- over at the nuclear regulatory commission. what's really affected it wasn't fukushima daiichi orfully of of that. it's been the boom in shale oil. >> and made that investment cheaper? >> well cheaper for moment although interestingly enough during the winter with the polar vortex we saw prices start to spike again. that is an up and down thing. it will take all of the above strategy and you shouldn't rule out nuclear because it takes so much yur uranium to knock in nuclear. >> environment taking too hard a position if you look at the numbers though most americans aren't paying that much attention to climate change. it's the 19th most important out of 20 taken on by the epa. how do you change that? because if that's the case, you're going to have republican candidates who are going to want to play to the base and not pay much attention to this. >> i can understand where they're coming from. but the problem you have pleem don't relate -- people don't relate to climate change. they do relate to weather because that has a direct effect on their life. starting to make the connection, something is going on here. we're having ever more strong storms, it's coming at us pretty quickly. people are saying gee maybe we can slow this down. if you look back to the path of the environmental safety, our gdp grew very nicerly thank you very much. we increased our energy use, we riesd our amount of pollutants we were putting into the air, in the clean air act. it is not a zero sum game. >> anonymity a zero sum game. >> no. >> it does seem silly at this point with all the science, to completely dismiss the fact that human activity does have effect on the environment. but you reduce the hyperbole from the other side, there are outlandish predictions that haven't come true. >> that's the thing. everything is looked at through a partisan prism. it's not how do i solve a problem, how do i get another vote, how do i get another percentage on reelect. you can't talk about immigration, you can't talk about really solving our budget deficit. nobody's coming up with real solutions. there are plenty of solutions out there, and individuals and some members of congress and the senate and the house both have come up with programs but they can't seem to get any traction because you immediately run into that partisan political robot. >> since you are talking about partisan politics let's talk about politics. you have been referred to as a rhino, a republican in name only. you started saying the gop was going too far to the right as far back as the first few years of the century, way before the tea party was even in place. and we've seen now more rhinos or establishment republicans, except on tuesday we may be seeing a very ugly race in mississippi where the tea party candidate may be beating the establishment republican. >> i'm afraid it is going to continue. i say that because i've seen so many times in races where organization he like the tea party, let me step back for a minute. the tea party when it was originally formed to the extent that tea party was formed at all, was all focused on the economy. it was on the deficit. it was on spending. and i was 100% in tune with them on those issues. then it's kind of morphed to not just the social issues, but oh by the way in order to sof the social issues -- solve the social issues, we'll sign these contracts saying we'll never ever do anything. which totally hamstrings you. i've seen you, we've seen the tea party sort of captured by the more extreme elements within it and i've seen them time and again when they lose an election it's because we weren't conservative enough. and when they win an election it's we need to be more conservative the next time around. >> joanie ernst, winning that primary -- >> castrating pigs. >> she referred to that in her ads. you are seeing somebody supporting an eclectic group. sarah palin, as tea party as you could get, and mitt romney, can the republicans all get together here? >> well, if we can understand there are different horses for different courses. the kind of issues you run and the positions you take in new jersey or new hampshire are going to be different than you take in arizona and new mexico. that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that as long as you have a core set of principles around which you adhere. for republicans it used to be all about the economy and spending, balancing budgets, strong national defense, security at home and the concern for the shared environment. but we didn't try to define what means to be republican on every single issue you can think about all the social issues. that's where we have gotten ourselves in trouble. we either say you're with us 100% or not at all, totally contrary to what ronald reagan's approach was, or i don't know about you my husband and i have been married 40 years but not on the same page on every issue. but we get along just fine. >> paying more attention to women candidates, you seem to have success on that front. before we go, i want to talk to you more about that, but we're running out of time. you have supported chris christie, you have supported him as governor of new jersey, supported his campaign financially, you've been a christie supporter, at the same time you were head of the epa under president bush, long standing ties to the bush family. if you were told if jeb bush around chris christie ran together it would be very awkward. what are you going to do? >> one of them is going to run. we're going to wait and see. it's hopeless to speculate. we'll wait and see, will either one or neither run? i just don't know. it would be awkward for those who are really part of the administration stayed with it the whole time and in a very close long standing relations with the family it's tough to walk away from that. jeb was a very popular governor and chris christie is still a popular governor in new jersey. >> what will you do? >> wait and see. >> i can't pin you down? >> not going to get me on that one. >> christine todd whitman, thank you very much. straight ahead. did the nih put premature babies at risk without letting their parents know, one time zone, crazy facts about how the world keeps time. saturday on techknow. the earthquake business, it's similar to the weather business. understanding our earth. but everything happens faster. limiting disaster. these are the guts of the early warning system. saving lives. having 30 seconds of advanced warning is like a lifetime. techknow, every saturday go where science meets humanity. this is some of the best driving i've ever done, even thought i can't see. techknow. we're here in the vortex. saturday, 7:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> now inroducing, the new al jazeea america mobile news app. get our exclusive in depth, reporting when you want it. a global perspective wherever you are. the major headlines in context. mashable says... you'll never miss the latest news >> they will continue looking for suvivors... >> the potential for energy production is huge... >> no noise, no clutter, just real reporting. the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now >> weekday mornings on al jazeera america >> we do have breaking news this morning... >> start your day with in depth coverage from around the world. first hand reporting from across the country and real news keeping you up to date. the big stories of the day, from around the world... >> these people need help, this is were the worst of the attack took place... >> and throughout the morning, get a global perspective on the news... >> the life of doha... >> this is the international news hour... >> an informed look on the night's events, a smarter start to your day. mornings on al jazeera america >> the national institutes of health is facing accusations of conducting a dangerous potentially deadly study on premature babies without informing their parents. the test between 2005 and 2009, was designed to find the maximal oxygen level for preemies. , interfearin interfering into the investigations. cheryl atkinson published aan article, full disclosure, does government's experiment on premium preemies? >> word of medical personnel who convinced them sometimes under cases of great duress when these women were rushed in for emergency c sections, telling according to the parents on a misleading basis that this was simply to gather forecast and data and would help their babies and future babies. in fact it was an experiment on 1300 babies that did a lot of things that didn't necessarily happen on prehad a chur babies including the oxygen monitors on the babies were giving false readings and the parents were not informed of that either. >> that certainly was a big red flag as i read your article. if you think that doctors are doing that they are giving more importance to the study than the health of the babies. they wanted to make sure the gauges were not altered in any way to help the children. >> that is one of the ethical dilemmas here. researchers have a different obligation than clinicians when treating individual patients. your doctor is supposed to do what's best for you as a patient. researchers are looking more towards the greater good and what they do is not necessarily the best interest of the individual patient. that's not something study participants know. some ethicists say it should be. never let their babies take part in the study if they knew the true risks of the study. >> larissa cook who is the mother of a child who ended up having all sorts of issues afterwards, said quote there's nothing that i would say, that would allow you to give my baby what he wants as opposed to what he need. in some cases, you point out the mothers weren't even given the opportunity to read them, she was asked to sign it when she was on her way into an emergency c section. how does that fit into the idea of informed consent? >> that's a very serious ethical question. when women are in medical distress and directed by medical professionals they trust to take part in something represented in a certain way, regardless of what the consent form says, they trusted, something that is not under investigation but perhaps should be is, how are those medical professionals told to misrepresent in the words of these parents at least the study? the parents didn't know each other yet each one describes a similar misunderstanding or alleged misrepresentation eption how the study was shown to them. they were looking for greater good for something that would help future pre areemies for sure. extremely premature infants in this case, put them in a study that could introduce added risks is certainly an uphill battle. >> they were looking at too much oxygen could cause vision problems, too little oxygen could cause death. the amount of oxygen given to the babies were still within the appropriate range of what the standard of care calls for so that they really didn't need to be that specific about informing them, ever these risks. >> a couple of dozen of our top hose involved in this and it's shocking to me, that anyone would argue that it's ethical to not give parents alt that information. -- all that information. >> well, there is a great deal of pressure from the research community that survives onists ability to, a great deal of pressure to actually be looser on informed consent rules rather than stricter for obvious reasons. on the idea of the standard of care they did argue as you said that the levels of oxygen given to the babies was always within the range of what's used and accepted in normal circumstances. but the difference here according to ethicists and watch dogs, the level wasn't adjusted, the beaks were artificially maintained in a high level, depending on the group they were assigned, or low level, regardless of need. that is not the way it's normally maintained. those babies in the high oxygen level, had a higher incident of blindless, and those maintained on lower level of oxygen had a greater incidence of death. >> tried to hinder the investigation into those allegations? >> yes, it's problematic when the ethics body for the government which is assigned to watchdog and oversee these sorts of things faces pressure from the body that it's overseeing to not do its i don' job and that's the eatlallegation in this case. after the ethics body for the government said this federal study our study violated federal consent rules that pressure was brought to bear from senior officials within health and human services and the national institutes of health to back off. they made their fierchgd but then -- finding but then shortly thereafter said we're not going to do anything about it. we can see how these rules could be confusing, we're dpog have a reexamination of them. that's over nine months ago by the way, there's been no resolution in the interim. some researchers have argued that this is a cause for action to loosen the rules. if studies were done with so-called standard of care protocol that maybe you don't ask the patients at all whether they want to take part, you can just put them in the study. there is a lot of debate going on about this. >> how we move forward with studies on humans in the future. clarol axson, thank you. >> thank you prm. >> rethinking the meth epidemic. a provocative new book says the problem is not as bad as we have been led to believe. first, how much power does >> al jazeera america's presents the system with joe burlinger observing a crime >> a shocking number of these eyewitnesses get it wrong >> how much would you remember? >> dark complected... medium height... you described most of the majority of the men in america >> sometimes witnesses get it right >> when you have an eyewitness to say i saw him do it, that is the best evidence. >> and sometimes sometimes they don't >> no one is listening to us... george is innocent... >> the system with joe burlinger only on al jazeera america >> today's data dive springs forward on time. for many americans the summer travel season means dealing with jet lag because of traveling through time zones. but why do time zones exist? when clocks were first invented time was set locally based on the sun. but advances and railways and telecommunications complicated things. allowing communication with far flung locations, insane facts about time zones, samoa skipped december 2011 entirely. a whole day went move, they did it to get closer to countries it regularly trades with including china and singapore. virgin islands and guam and other insular countries don't use daylight savings times. neither do hawaii and most places in the tropics. india is the seventh biggest country in the world but only uses one time zone for the sake of its vast railway network. spain has been in the wrong time zone for decades. then francisco franco decided to align the time with that of his ally, adolph hitler. spaniards sleep 53 minutes less than the average european, work fewer hours and are more productive. russia has 11 time zones but only uses nine of them. vladimir putin decide to kill two of them. when moscow took over the crimean peninsula, because of a leader's whim. coming up. shows like breaking >> every saturday join us for exclusive, revealing, and surprising talks with the most interesting people of our time. grammy award winning singer, songwriter angelique kidjo >> music transforms lives of people >> inspiring strength >> read, be curious your brain is your ultimate weapon >> hope for the future >> the only thing that can transform my continent is girl's education >> talk to aljazeera only on al jazeera america >> this, is what we do. >> al jazeera america. real reporting that brings you the world. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america. >> we all know meth am feet fte mees are highly addicted, highly destructive. met methamphetamines. nicholas l. parsons is the book's author. an assistant sociology professor, good to have you with us. you start the book with just awful examples of meth use. a man who allegedly beheaded his son because he thought he was the defendant. a man who stabbed several times because he thought aliens had inhabited his dad's body. exaggerated to scare the public. so is the conventional wisdom about how we have a meth epidemic wrong? >> well first of all i think the word epidemic is a bit overused. the bubonic plague in europe killed over 1 third of its population, conversely, it is estimated that 14 million americans out of how many are alive, have tried meth once in their life. those anecdotes are at the extreme end of what has allegedly happened, when people use this drug. i think by focusing on them while they are interesting and fafnting on some level and certainly generate headlines does a disservice in understanding the complexities or nuances of the problem. >> when we look at the problem, u.n. estimates 27 million meth users worldwide, 1 million who use meth in the u.s. once a month, and you talk about those who might have tried it at one point or another, 530,000 people over age 12 are regular users, still a pretty big number whether it's an epidemic or not, still a major issue. >> sure, any amount of meth use is something to be concerned about. but i think if you are trying to understand the problem from these extreme instances of violence or sadism or cannibalism, it's, i don't know, glossing over the fact that some people have used this drug and not experienced major life altering problems. again, it's not to say it's not harmful and i'm not condoning meth use. it's just to say that -- i mean for example there are other social problems that exist that affect more than 500,000 people. i don't know, homelessness or domestic violence. cocaine use is about six times higher than meth amphetamine use here in the united states. >> how do we get to this point where we talk about these epidemics? because now the one that's being talked about now is how we have a heroin epidemic. >> uh-huh. sometimes in the case of the heroin epidemic, i think the untimely deaths of very famous people help draw the attention to the problem. obviously if phillip seymour hoffman's death didn't occur we might not be talking about that. when the autopsy was performed on him he had schooled heroin, he had five other drugs in his system, yet those wert citeat all as contributing to his death. so why is heroin the only thing that killed him and not some of these other substances? i can't give you stasks off the top of my hea --statistics off the top of my head rite now, but it tends to, when horrific things happen that really are extremely sensational. >> going back to meth, rehabs.com put together a famous campaign, about ten years ago, mug shots of meth users, the horrible impact kit have on people in short periods of time. and the pictures really shaped what a lot of us thought would happen if they got looked on meth. very frightening but you say these types of campaigns don't work? >> i don't know about research about the face he of meth campaign specifically. i have read some research about the montana meth project which has similar predictions, and some studies show that hasn't had much effect on reducing meth use. the faces of meth, the shock value of it, it's very powerful and draws people in to pay attention to that. but at the same time, again you are only seeing the extreme end of people who when have university this drug. >> some people use meth amphetamine medically every day. >> indeed. that's one thing that's not talked about much on the use, plet is death and all of this, they're not referring to the prescription version. they're referring to the illicit street drug. it's often used for adhd, narco-helpcy, buthat arelepsy, and partially to do with the stigma that has to do with meth. >> how do we get to the point where we call these drug problems epidemics, in the book it's called meth mania ahistory of meth amphetamine. nicholas parsons, thank you for being with us. >> i appreciate >> the show may be over but the conversation continues you can also find us on twitter @ajconsiderthis. we'll see you next time. >> saturday on the stream. the superstars. >> i love the underdog role, it's us against the world. we have this fight and this pride to play for the country. >> pushing for success. >> we've gone so far forward, the game's really really grown. >> gaining popularity. >> people are crazy for it. >> is now the time for u.s. soccer? >> anything is possible. i believe that this u.s. team, we can beat anybody. >> the stream, saturday 5:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> a trade balance with europe. we'll tell you why. and middle class families are being squeezed by the cost of child care. we'll show you how some moms and dads are trying to cope. and the hottest job opportunities in our country are some of the most dangerous to work. i'm david shuster in for ali velshi, and this is "real
MoscowMoskvaRussiaMontanaUnited-statesQatarDohaAd-daw-ahNew-hampshireTexasAfghanistanBeijing to "consider this." here's more on what's ahead. >> new video of bowe bergdahl's handover. >> the two enemy force he meet face to face, exchange handshakes. >> the exchange took less than a minute. >> and he is whisked away. >> new fallout from obama administration's rules for climate change. cut carbon emissions from coal fired power plants by 30%. >> here is your meth, don't forget your meth face. >> crystal meth is made with things that will destroy you. >> how devastating is chris contaminatcrystalplet? >> the facmeth? >> ufers blackhawk helicopter swept down to pick him up as part of a prisoner exchange. the sole american pow in the afghanistan war, questions mount regarding his conduct in the war and the high price paid for his release. five taliban leaders including the group's one time chief of staff and deputy minister of intelligence. one told bowe bergdahl, don't come back to afghanistan, if you do, you won't come back alive. >> they are going back to the insurgents side and they are starting fight again. against the afghan people and against the afghan national force. for sure when the five important commanders are coming out from the prison it's a kind of a victory for the taliban. >> for more on the prisoner swap and the taliban video i'm joined by jack devine. he is the co-founder and president of the arcin group an international risk and consulting firm. and author of good hunting. spy masters. how do you arrange a swap like this? we know the qatari government was the mediator but could anyone else have made the switch? >> this is a top down decision so clearly, this has been in process for a long time, according to everything i've been able to acertain and faild to come the to fruition. it's complicated, vofs senior is senior level of the taliban and qatar government also. >> would there be any sort of confidence building measures, points where if either side failed to do something, that the whole thing would be called off? >> that may be. are but i think it's more likely that both sides at the spoin pof exchange were prepared if it was a setup. in other words i think without a question of a doubt, the americans had considerable backup that if this was a reduce of any sort i think they would have made short order of it. i suspect the taliban on its side had an exit plan, whether it was executable or not. so i'm not sure about the confidence-building measures. i think at a certain point you know, you just have to bite the bullet. and trust that they show up. you know, so i don't think -- what are the trust -- the test, it's very hard to bring about. it's easier sometimes to just get the deed done than to go through trust-building measures. >> so was it all done at long distance or at the end, did the americans who were getting bergdahl have to communicate with the taliban who were turning him over? because there are reports there was an exchange over whether the taliban would use a green light or white flag to identify themselves. >> i have no doubt there was a good deal of communication back and forth setting it up. what that looks like it will be some time before we are able to acertain. but both sides probably spend a fair amount of time on the logistics. >> does it get turned over to people on the ground. >> i think on both sides, you go to in the case of the americans special forces that was an elite group that showed up and i'm sure at the end of the day the taliban leadership had to turn to its rank and file to deliver bergdahl. >> but would you think the rank and file and the special forces were talking to each other at some point when it actually got executed? >> no, i don't think so. i think it was done, if i had to speculate, i would say that that was set in place and then a predetermined occasion and both parties showed up. and that's what it looked like on the video as well. >> what do you make about these bizarre comments about the narrator of the taliban video criticizing being impolite, shake hands with their left hands which apparently is insulting, did anything surprise you how this went down? >> it would have been a surprise if they didn't try to turn it into a propaganda advantage. and using what i would consider rather petty arguments. when you look the it, it looks pretty straightforward. and i'm sure there was no deliberate attempt. we were anxious and nervous to get the job done. >> the taliban video showed u.s. war planes that were circling overtimcirclingoverhead as the - taking place. do you think there were drones or were we hands off completely? >> i think at the scene we had ample coverage, if anything went awry our special forces would have made short order of it. to not have backup we would have been remiss. >> you were at the cia for decades. did the taliban exceed in exchanging max effect for the sergeant? >> well, you know this is going to be the key question. when we look in the rearview mirror about the price. it does look like a steep price but at the end of the day there was a principle involved in terms of getting back a exuferred soldier. but -- captured soldier. but i think the key for me and inform others, is will they return to combat, either physically going back to are afghanistan or engage in nefarious affairs in qatar? i think at any point there will be repercussions. but this is a costly exchange and you have to be in the negotiations to fully understand it. but from long distance it looks like a steep price. >> of course mullah omar called it a victory for the taliban. president obama has said the u.s. will be keeping eyes on these leaders but reports are that the five taliban have residency permits in qatar, they will live with their families. they will not be treated like prisoners or monitored by u.s. officials, they are allowed to move freel freely within a yearn qatar and then return to afghanistan. are these terms giving these leaders that kind of freedom the right thing? >> well, i'd have to see the addendum on just how much freedom they will have. i don't doubt that their families will be living and they'll be moving around the country. and so on. i think it would be very imprudent for qatar government to just turn away and not keep an eye on them for their own sake. i mean you really don't want terrorist groups planning in your country. the second is, if anything goes awry here, if they go back and it's negligence on the part of qatar government then i think we would expect there would be political friction over that issue and i'm putting it rather diplomatically. they'll do i think what has to be done when you have -- there's no one here that doesn't understand what these five terrorists are like. and including the government and qatar. >> jack devine, thank you for your insights. >> thank you. >> judging from the political fallout over the bergdahl swap, talking to the taliban may be easier for the white house than talking to congress. recent lindsay graham said that politics may are to blame. >> was this release designed to enhance the nowvment withdrawal from afghanistan getting the one -- flowmen nowmentd announcl withdrawal from afghanistan? >> dianne feinstein didn't seem very impressed when the white house finally called her. >> i did have a call last night from the white house and they apologized -- he apologized. >> are they acknowledging that the law was broken in that apology? >> i didn't ask for that. it's obvious. >> we are joined by bill schneider, an al jazeera english contributor, at the centrist think tank third way. professor at george washington university. and rick wilson who served in the pentagon under then secretary of defense dick cheney. the white house is in major damage control. administration officials went to capitol hill to brief senators reportedly showing videos of bergdahl where he seemed ill and needed to move quickly. but anything justified the fact that the white house didn't give timely notice of the release of the taliban leaders. you heard dianne feinstein said it's obviously, they broke the law. couldn't white house call capitol hill leaders and give them a couple of hours notice? >> apparently they did call leaders on capitol hill friday and saturday. but they didn't give them 30 days notice. the prisoner's health was very much at issue and also the taliban weren't going to wait 30 days to make this deal. the president claims that under his authority as commander in chief the constitution authorizes him to do this. and he was justified, legally, in ignoring that congressional law. >> rick, the president does claim that the white house had been telling congress for a while that a swap like this could happen at some point quickly. democratic senator carl levin said, he did say that congress was bipartisan then thinking it was a bad idea. the reality though, the white house only had to provide notice. they didn't need authorization. so it shouldn't as bill mentioned shouldn't the commander in chief have the ability to take quick action in a situation where it's believed that there's some urgency? >> you know there's a lot of questions about the time line here. and this has long been an administration that is very -- they preach transparency and practice on security. and this has -- o obscurity. probation that the executive is pursuing, that's one thing on the legal side. was it the 30-day notice that he session he had to wav waive it l had to happen so quickly, there is a formal and informal process that the national security briefs the gang of eight, it is not just a courtesy, but it is one of these things that makes washington work. where there's a trust between the executive ant the legislative side. in this case they could have made these calls and they could have given a time line. even today it is my understanding they are still refusing to provide exact time lines and exact tick-tock how these dealings took place. >> harry reid actually just got notice, doesn't dick have if points, these people knew on capitol hill about the osama bin laden raid and now you're hearing feinstein and chambliss, top people on the senate intelligence committee, both said the white house called them to apologize but then it didn't really apologize. what's going on. it seems to be ultimater confusion. >> yes, it does, it's very murky. the white house claims it was an oversight. oversight is not quite an apology, set it was done inadvertently. they forgot to notify congress. president obama says he was justified in doing this. the political ramifications and the facts. we don't know all the facts. was this person a deserter? do we impose a character test after we extract a prisoner of war? those haven't been examined yet. >> some reports say that the white house was blind sided by the negative response that occurred within 24 hours of the announcement. they thought it was going to be a positive story of a returning hero and then they sent national security advisor susan rice to some of the sunday morning shows and she said this: >> he served the united states with honor and distinction. >> and by monday when jay carney the outgoing white house spokesman was asked to comment, he wouldn't go there. backlash, questions what happened to bergdahl have been fairly well-known for some time. >> i frankly knew about the case only he was held captive. i had never heard any of the prior things on the rolling stone article, the former allegation. i'm a fairly well informed guy. it's shocking that the guys who were with him at the forward operating base to give their perspective, and to talk about his character to talk about what they saw firsthand about this guy, and it really is an example of the official story collides with the eyewitness testimony that is now like i said empowered by the fact that that guy cody went on twitter and basically told his story. which 90% of americans never heard. and it shocks the white house because they're accustomed to having a press narrative that they deliver through the traditional yee medium, and susn rice gets them in more trouble than possible i think. >> we had one on our show last night coming out and being very strong, very negative about bergdahl. and it does seem some democrats now think the best defense is a good offense. nbc's chuck todd is reporting that veterans are accusing bergdahl of swift boating. do you think that's a good idea? >> by democrats who say they're swift boating him without knowing all the facts, we don't know whether the testimony is correct or not. all that has to be investigated. but i will say this: i think most of the negative reaction wasn't due to questions about bergdahl's character. it was clearly a malcontent. it has to do with whether the prisoner exchange was worthwhile. whether we should have released these five obviously dangerous detainees from guantanamo. whether that was a reasonable exchange. that's what bothers people. >> orient, senate majority leader harry reid says, they are publicizing bergdahl's return, when this is the time we should be coming together. some of the biggest republican critics are the ones who pushed the president in the past to get bergdahl home. >> as in most things, harry reid is flat wrong. i don't think there's one single american who would say, we should have left bergdahl there. that's absolutely ridiculous. but barack obama doesn't get ohave a press conference and say yay! i done good. was it appropriate to trade to get bergdahl back as an american soldier? i don't care what his background is, what his past is, we want him back. did you have to trade the five taliban all stars who were held? maybe not. these are things the congress needs answers to. it is incumbent upon the white house to be very straightforward candid and direct in a way they are not used to doing. it is imperative that we get this before congress sooner than later. to talk about the mechanics of the swap, the time line and the tick-tock of this entire thing rather than playing the political game of oh, you hate the pow. it's typical harry reid partisanship. >> bill schneider, rick wilson, good to see you both. >> sure. >> thank you. >> now some other stories from around the world. we begin in hong kong where a vigil for 25th anniversary of beijing's tienanmen square drew 25,000 people. the chinese also tried to block commemorations through broad censorship of the internet and international media. in the united kingdom a different kind of protest over a newly proposed law that would allow fracking by oil and gas companies under private land without permission. greenpeace u.k. responded to the proposal by turning david cameron's home into a fracking site. >> what a perfect day for fracking. >> i'm so glad david cameron is not a nimby, letting us frack outside his front door. that's real leadership. 3,000 year old pants, the oldest pair of pants ever discovered. they were found in tombs along with a whip and other riding equipment leading researchers to theoriestheorize that pants hadn first developed for riding. need to open their eyes, she joins us next, christine todd whitman. did the nia put premature babies at risk? risk? >> i'm joe berlinger this is the system people want to believe that the justice system works. people wanna believe that prosecutors and police do the right thing. i think every american needs to be concerned about that. we do have the best justice system in the world, in theory... the problem is, it's run by human beings... human beings make mistakes... i'd like to think of this show as a watch dog about the system... to make sure justice is being served. wrongful convictions happen, we need to be vigilant. with our personal liberties taken away from us, it better be done the right way. is justice really for all? you are >> the so-called war on coal hah president obama's mandate to cut carbon dioxide emissions at power plants by thrir 30% by 20. mitch mcconnell says it's a disaster. >> nothing even comes close to what this regulation will do to our state and its ability to compete. >> but as mid term elections and the 2016 presidential race loom large for candidates a former republican administerin adminisf environmental protection agency, difficult politics between the gop 2016 nomination. joining me in the studio is christine todd whitman. currently she is the co-chair of the republican leadership council which supports fiscally conservative socially tolerant candidates. she is the author of the best seller, "it's my party too, the battle of the gop and the heart of maicialg." she is president of the whitman strategy group. you have a lot going on. >> i like to keep busy. >> great to see you. >> nice to be here. >> president obama putting out these new rules to cut powerpoint emissions 30% by 2030, mostly affecting coal fired plants. there is a big uproar bipartisan that this is going to hurt jobs. what is your reaction to the proposal. >> is climate change a real issue? i happen to believe it is. what is that costing us in premature deaths and children with asthma and premature deaths. is this really going ocrater our economy? is it going to have an impact on these massive coal producing states? yes. do we have an opportunity to create even more jobs? think about it, nuclear power, no base power that releases no greenhouse gases, found had this country to be enormously powerful and safe, more jobs and more investment in the other forms of green energy. so we've got to look more at the total picture. even texas for instance which is a heavily coal-dependent state has -- they are saying that they object to the rule but then they are saying but we have a big investment coming in wind. we see a potential for this to grow our economy too, wind and solar. so you have got to look at the whole thing and the tradeoff. >> let's talk nuclear since you brought i up. i think there's only five nuclear reactors under construction in the united states. >> right. >> is there really a likelihood at this point, given fukushima, three mile island, all the scare about nuclear that there will be the political will to move nuclear forward at a speed where nuclear will make a difference in the environment? >> right now nuclear is about 19% of our energy. but there are five new construction and one a tva restart of a facility. the jobs they bring with them are enormous and there are about 19 left in the -- over at the nuclear regulatory commission. what's really affected it wasn't fukushima daiichi orfully of of that. it's been the boom in shale oil. >> and made that investment cheaper? >> well cheaper for moment although interestingly enough during the winter with the polar vortex we saw prices start to spike again. that is an up and down thing. it will take all of the above strategy and you shouldn't rule out nuclear because it takes so much yur uranium to knock in nuclear. >> environment taking too hard a position if you look at the numbers though most americans aren't paying that much attention to climate change. it's the 19th most important out of 20 taken on by the epa. how do you change that? because if that's the case, you're going to have republican candidates who are going to want to play to the base and not pay much attention to this. >> i can understand where they're coming from. but the problem you have pleem don't relate -- people don't relate to climate change. they do relate to weather because that has a direct effect on their life. starting to make the connection, something is going on here. we're having ever more strong storms, it's coming at us pretty quickly. people are saying gee maybe we can slow this down. if you look back to the path of the environmental safety, our gdp grew very nicerly thank you very much. we increased our energy use, we riesd our amount of pollutants we were putting into the air, in the clean air act. it is not a zero sum game. >> anonymity a zero sum game. >> no. >> it does seem silly at this point with all the science, to completely dismiss the fact that human activity does have effect on the environment. but you reduce the hyperbole from the other side, there are outlandish predictions that haven't come true. >> that's the thing. everything is looked at through a partisan prism. it's not how do i solve a problem, how do i get another vote, how do i get another percentage on reelect. you can't talk about immigration, you can't talk about really solving our budget deficit. nobody's coming up with real solutions. there are plenty of solutions out there, and individuals and some members of congress and the senate and the house both have come up with programs but they can't seem to get any traction because you immediately run into that partisan political robot. >> since you are talking about partisan politics let's talk about politics. you have been referred to as a rhino, a republican in name only. you started saying the gop was going too far to the right as far back as the first few years of the century, way before the tea party was even in place. and we've seen now more rhinos or establishment republicans, except on tuesday we may be seeing a very ugly race in mississippi where the tea party candidate may be beating the establishment republican. >> i'm afraid it is going to continue. i say that because i've seen so many times in races where organization he like the tea party, let me step back for a minute. the tea party when it was originally formed to the extent that tea party was formed at all, was all focused on the economy. it was on the deficit. it was on spending. and i was 100% in tune with them on those issues. then it's kind of morphed to not just the social issues, but oh by the way in order to sof the social issues -- solve the social issues, we'll sign these contracts saying we'll never ever do anything. which totally hamstrings you. i've seen you, we've seen the tea party sort of captured by the more extreme elements within it and i've seen them time and again when they lose an election it's because we weren't conservative enough. and when they win an election it's we need to be more conservative the next time around. >> joanie ernst, winning that primary -- >> castrating pigs. >> she referred to that in her ads. you are seeing somebody supporting an eclectic group. sarah palin, as tea party as you could get, and mitt romney, can the republicans all get together here? >> well, if we can understand there are different horses for different courses. the kind of issues you run and the positions you take in new jersey or new hampshire are going to be different than you take in arizona and new mexico. that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that as long as you have a core set of principles around which you adhere. for republicans it used to be all about the economy and spending, balancing budgets, strong national defense, security at home and the concern for the shared environment. but we didn't try to define what means to be republican on every single issue you can think about all the social issues. that's where we have gotten ourselves in trouble. we either say you're with us 100% or not at all, totally contrary to what ronald reagan's approach was, or i don't know about you my husband and i have been married 40 years but not on the same page on every issue. but we get along just fine. >> paying more attention to women candidates, you seem to have success on that front. before we go, i want to talk to you more about that, but we're running out of time. you have supported chris christie, you have supported him as governor of new jersey, supported his campaign financially, you've been a christie supporter, at the same time you were head of the epa under president bush, long standing ties to the bush family. if you were told if jeb bush around chris christie ran together it would be very awkward. what are you going to do? >> one of them is going to run. we're going to wait and see. it's hopeless to speculate. we'll wait and see, will either one or neither run? i just don't know. it would be awkward for those who are really part of the administration stayed with it the whole time and in a very close long standing relations with the family it's tough to walk away from that. jeb was a very popular governor and chris christie is still a popular governor in new jersey. >> what will you do? >> wait and see. >> i can't pin you down? >> not going to get me on that one. >> christine todd whitman, thank you very much. straight ahead. did the nih put premature babies at risk without letting their parents know, one time zone, crazy facts about how the world keeps time. and later, has america's meth scare been exaggerated? a provocative look. tive look. it's us against the world. we have this fight and this pride to play for the country. >> pushing for success. >> we've gone so far forward, the game's really really grown. >> gaining popularity. >> people are crazy for it. >> is now the time for u.s. soccer? >> anything is possible. i believe that this u.s. team, we can beat anybody. >> the stream, saturday 5:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> the national institutes of health is facing accusations of conducting a dangerous potentially deadly study on premature babies without informing their parents. the test between 2005 and 2009, was designed to find the maximal oxygen level for preemies. , interfearin interfering into e investigations. cheryl atkinson published aan article, full disclosure, does government's experiment on premiupreemies? >> word of medical personnel who convinced them sometimes under cases of great duress when these women were rushed in for emergency c sections, telling according to the parents on a misleading basis that this was simply to gather forecast and data and would help their babies and future babies. in fact it was an experiment on 1300 babies that did a lot of things that didn't necessarily happen on prehad a chur babies including the oxygen monitors on the babies were giving false readings and the parents were not informed of that either. >> that certainly was a big red flag as i read your article. if you think that doctors are doing that they are giving more importance to the study than the health of the babies. they wanted to make sure the gauges were not altered in any way to help the children. >> that is one of the ethical dilemmas here. researchers have a different obligation than clinicians when treating individual patients. your doctor is supposed to do what's best for you as a patient. researchers are looking more towards the greater good and what they do is not necessarily the best interest of the individual patient. that's not something study participants know. some ethicists say it should be. never let their babies take part in the study if they knew the true risks of the study. >> larissa cook who is the mother of a child who ended up having all sorts of issues afterwards, said quote there's nothing that i would say, that would allow you to give my baby what he wants as opposed to what he need. in some cases, you point out the mothers weren't even given the opportunity to read them, she was asked to sign it when she was on her way into an emergency c section. how does that fit into the idea of informed consent? >> that's a very serious ethical question. when women are in medical distress and directed by medical professionals they trust to take part in something represented in a certain way, regardless of what the consent form says, they trusted, something that is not under investigation but perhaps should be is, how are those medical professionals told to misrepresent in the words of these parents at least the study? the parents didn't know each other yet each one describes a similar misunderstanding or alleged misrepresentation eption how the study was shown to them. they were looking for greater good for something that would help future pre areemies for sure. extremely premature infants in this case, put them in a study that could introduce added risks is certainly an uphill battle. >> they were looking at too much oxygen could cause vision problems, too little oxygen could cause death. the amount of oxygen given to the babies were still within the appropriate range of what the standard of care calls for so that they really didn't need to be that specific about informing them, ever these risks. >> a couple of dozen of our top hose involved in this and it's shocking to me, that anyone would argue that it's ethical to not give parents alt that information. -- all that information. >> well, there is a great deal of pressure from the research community that survives onists ability to, a great deal of pressure to actually be looser on informed consent rules rather than stricter for obvious reasons. on the idea of the standard of care they did argue as you said that the levels of oxygen given to the babies was always within the range of what's used and accepted in normal circumstances. but the difference here according to ethicists and watch dogs, the level wasn't adjusted, the beaks were artificially maintained in a high level, depending on the group they were assigned, or low level, regardless of need. that is not the way it's normally maintained. those babies in the high oxygen level, had a higher incident of blindless, and those maintained on lower level of oxygen had a greater incidence of death. >> tried to hinder the investigation into those allegations? >> yes, it's problematic when the ethics body for the government which is assigned to watchdog and oversee these sorts of things faces pressure from the body that it's overseeing to not do its i don' job and that'e eatlallegation in this case. after the ethics body for the government said this federal study our study violated federal consent rules that pressure was brought to bear from senior officials within health and human services and the national institutes of health to back off. they made their fierchgd but then -- finding but then shortly thereafter said we're not going to do anything about it. we can see how these rules could be confusing, we're dpog have a reexamination of them. that's over nine months ago by the way, there's been no resolution in the interim. some researchers have argued that this is a cause for action to loosen the rules. if studies were done with so-called standard of care protocol that maybe you don't ask the patients at all whether they want to take part, you can just put them in the study. there is a lot of debate going on about this. >> how we move forward with studies on humans in the future. clarol axson, thank you. >> thank you prm. >> rethinking the meth epidemic. a provocative new book says the problem is not as bad as we have been led to believe. first, how much power does vladimir putin lolled in russia? he even controls the time. in our data dive. >> we're using the same failed policies in districts throughout the country >> are we failing our kids? fault lines al jazeera america's hard hitting... >> they're locking the doors... >> ground breaking... >> we have to get out of here... >> truth seeking... award winning investigative documentary series fault lines the school to prison pipeline only on al jazeera america saturday on techknow. the earthquake business, it's similar to the weather business. understanding our earth. but everything happens faster. limiting disaster. these are the guts of the early warning system. saving lives. having 30 seconds of advanced warning is like a lifetime. techknow, every saturday go where science meets humanity. this is some of the best driving i've ever done, even thought i can't see. techknow. we're here in the vortex. saturday, 7:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> today's data dive springs forward on time. for many americans the summer travel season means dealing with jet lag because of traveling through time zones. but why do time zones exist? when clocks were first invented time was set locally based on the sun. but advances and railways and telecommunications complicated things. allowing communication with far flung locations, insane facts about time zones, samoa skipped december 2011 entirely. a whole day went move, they did it to get closer to countries it regularly trades with including china and singapore. virgin islands and guam and other insular countries don't use daylight savings times. neither do hawaii and most places in the tropics. india is the seventh biggest country in the world but only uses one time zone for the sake of its vast railway network. spain has been in the wrong time zone for decades. then francisco franco decided to align the time with that of his ally, adolph hitler. spaniards sleep 53 minutes less than the average european, work fewer hours and are more productive. russia has 11 time zones but only uses nine of them. vladimir putin decide to kill two of them. when moscow took over the crimean peninsula, because of a leader's whim. coming up. shows like breaking bad have chronicled the meth issue. issue. >> this, is what we do. >> al jazeera america. >> we all know meth am feet fte mees are highly addicted, highly destructive. met methamphetamines. nicholas l. parsons is the book's author. an assistant sociology professor, good to have you with us. you start the book with just awful examples of meth use. a man who allegedly beheaded his son because he thought he was the defendant. a man who stabbed several times because he thought aliens had inhabited his dad's body. exaggerated to scare the public. so is the conventional wisdom about how we have a meth epidemic wrong? >> well first of all i think the word epidemic is a bit overused. the bubonic plague in europe killed over 1 third of its population, conversely, it is estimated that 14 million americans out of how many are alive, have tried meth once in their life. those anecdotes are at the extreme end of what has allegedly happened, when people use this drug. i think by focusing on them while they are interesting and fafnting on some level and certainly generate headlines does a disservice in understanding the complexities or nuances of the problem. >> when we look at the problem, u.n. estimates 27 million meth users worldwide, 1 million who use meth in the u.s. once a month, and you talk about those who might have tried it at one point or another, 530,000 people over age 12 are regular users, still a pretty big number whether it's an epidemic or not, still a major issue. >> sure, any amount of meth use is something to be concerned about. but i think if you are trying to understand the problem from these extreme instances of violence or sadism or cannibalism, it's, i don't know, glossing over the fact that some people have used this drug and not experienced major life altering problems. again, it's not to say it's not harmful and i'm not condoning meth use. it's just to say that -- i mean for example there are other social problems that exist that affect more than 500,000 people. i don't know, homelessness or domestic violence. cocaine use is about six times higher than meth amphetamine use here in the united states. >> how do we get to this point where we talk about these epidemics? because now the one that's being talked about now is how we have a heroin epidemic. >> uh-huh. sometimes in the case of the heroin epidemic, i think the untimely deaths of very famous people help draw the attention to the problem. obviously if phillip seymour hoffman's death didn't occur we might not be talking about that. when the autopsy was performed on him he had schooled heroin, he had five other drugs in his system, yet those wert citeat all as contributing to his death. so why is heroin the only thing that killed him and not some of these other substances? i can't give you stasks off the top of my hea --statistics off y head rite now, but it tends to, when horrific things happen that really are extremely sensational. >> going back to meth, rehabs.com put together a famous campaign, about ten years ago, mug shots of meth users, the horrible impact kit have on people in short periods of time. and the pictures really shaped what a lot of us thought would happen if they got looked on meth. very frightening but you say these types of campaigns don't work? >> i don't know about research about the face he of meth campaign specifically. i have read some research about the montana meth project which has similar predictions, and some studies show that hasn't had much effect on reducing meth use. the faces of meth, the shock value of it, it's very powerful and draws people in to pay attention to that. but at the same time, again you are only seeing the extreme end of people who when have university this drug. >> some people use meth amphetamine medically every day. >> indeed. that's one thing that's not talked about much on the use, plet is death and all of this, they're not referring to the prescription version. they're referring to the illicit street drug. it's often used for adhd, narco-helpcy, buthatarelepsy, ao with the stigma that has to do with meth. >> how do we get to the point where we call these drug problems epidemics, in the book it's called meth mania ahistory of meth amphetamine. nicholas parsons, thank you for being with us. >> i appreciate it. >> the show may be over but the conversation continues you can also find us on twitter @ajconsiderthis. we'll see you next time. >> good evening. this is al jazeera america. i'm john seigenthaler in new york. it's 11 on the east coast. 8 in the west and you are watching the only live nationality news cast at this hour. a soldier's story. a tape the moment bowe bergdahl was released by the taliban, and the home town celebration is cancelled. the hero - we are live to the air force pilot who rushed from his passenger seat in a 747 when the captain suffered a heart attack.
New-yorkUnited-statesMoscowMoskvaRussiaMontanaQatarNew-hampshireTexasAfghanistanBeijingChina graphic edition in 2014. >> host: amity shlaes, who is the forgotten man? >> guest: president roosevelt spoke of the forgotten man as the man at the bottom of the pyramid so that would be the homeless man. but they were aware of another forgotten man in school and that was the man who pays for the government projects. the third party. there is even algebra about the other forgotten man saying a wants to help x but b wants to help x, too, but the problem is when they coherce c into it. it is the taxpayer. that is the question also today. >> host: in your book, "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression," you write the big question about the american depression is not whether war with germany and japan ended it. it is why it lasted from 1929-1940 from hoover to roosevelt government intervention helped to make the depression great. >> guest: thank you for quotes that introduction. this is a book i wrote about the 1930's because we all learned something about it in school and that was the new deal tried hard but it wasn't perfect, roosevelt's government plan and hoover before him, but at least it was good and it was in the right spirit therefore, let's love it. but the new deal wasn't lovable economically speaking, nor were hoover's interventions because they hurt people. how can i say that? what is the measure? the most clearest measure is employment and unemployment didn't come down. what is the second measure? we are sitting here with the stock market at a record but the stock market in the 1930's didn't come back. so the new deal and hoover failed and that is evidence of the "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression." >> host: you list the unemployment rate in each chapter. 3.3% in 1938, 1941, 18%. 1937 it was down to 13.5. but then 1938, 17.4%. what happened then in >> guest: this was the depression within the depression. we had other depressions before that were not great but this was the dureration and severity. just when it seemed everything was getting better the was a crash again. what is interesting you raise that because that is a controversial set of numbers. people will wonder why was the unemployment so terrible in the later '30s. many economist have come to me saying they think they know why. the government policy made hiring people too expensive. or the fair labor standards act or the national recovery administration and davis bacon all pushed labor prices up and to level employers could not afford and therefore they failed to hire and the unemployment of the '30's was epic. >> host: what was the national recovery association? >> guest: the government's deal that would stimulate the economy was given this giant plan to make the industrial sector booming again. roosevelt signed it early on it in '33. when you look at law it is a bunch of political impulses expressed on a piece of paper, instatued and then enforced. so the impulses were economy of scale is good. big is always better because at that time we are all hostage to fashion. the economy of scale, the bigger is better, was hot. bigger is always better and you want to question that. i am not sure that is necessary for recover. and another premise was consumer choice is bad. and it is like what do you mean by that? if the consumer picks he slows up the assembly line. every car should be black because it is uniform and uniform is faster and better. and they leave that is united states was failing because we were too diverse and chosey. you tell that to the starbucks' shareholder because it is a product premised on chaoice. we can take that extra 18 seconds to pick what milk we want in our coffee. in a famous case we talked about in "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression," you could not pick your chicken from the coop anymore. that was just some of beginning principles. >> host: how dig did the government get during this period? what was the change in revenue? >> guest: the government got a lot bigger. until the 1930's, the constituents -- states -- had a bigger government than washington. you could get sick there. there were swamps there. that is what coolidge's family thought. there wasn't air conditioning. the state capital is what mattered. and president coolidge always said united states in plural. the states were what matters. and then under hoover and then franklin roosevelt and by 1936 if you look at the charts from the government you will see all of a sudden wow, the federal government is bigger than the states. that had happened before but only in war. now in peace time. and we didn't go back. that was the changing. was the spending as great as it is now? nowhere near as great. might be 5-10% of the economy not 30-40% or whatever it is when you add it up. but it was bigger than before and more important was the expectation it was the redeemer or the savior. >> host: amity shlaes, who are the sheckters? >> guest: they are a good story. when you think about hobby lobby. we have great government law, some like, some others, hobby lobby has a religious concern about the health care law. maybe it relates in their case to something that is important to the owners which is contraception or abortion. in the 1930's there was this nra and it was challenged by a case that had an element of religion. the sheckters were kosher butchers in brooklyn, new york. i like them very much. one of the great bits of fun was researching them because they didn't expect the government to come along and make them heroes but the government challenged them and indicted their chicken business for breaking rules including letting people pick their chicken. the government contended they had sold a sick chicken, they were paying the wrong amount of minimum wage or people were work different hours than the nra put in place. they had endless rules. they were indoicndicted and sel politically to be the case to test the nra because it did have to be tested. they felt quite ambivalent about it because they were for roosevelt. >> host: you write they were frustrated the government didn't understand the consequences of its own sick chicken allegations. to sell a sick chicken broke the nra code and that was all the government lawyers understood. but to suggest the chickens were unfit were to suggest something they viewed as far worse. that they were not good jews and to suggest their kosher slaughter house wasn't kosher and unworthy of customers so they did something worse than anger them they had offended their dignity. >> guest: you have two bodies of law. you have washington law and you have the higher power. in the census, we looked up the sectors and it said their father, rabbi and what does that mean? what it meant was he was a serious father when it came to religion. they would be shamed in their market if they sold a sick chicken. and today health is a big story. one baby is sick it is number one on the news. but they had no anti-biotics so if meat was bad, it was common to be mad. milk had tb all of the time. so this is a life or death allegation for them. you see one body of law up against another. they took their kosher law se seriously. there was a tension. there is an element to jewish law, this food law, that makes sense. it has its own health code. so they had one old law and one new law fighting with each other. >> host: who won? >> guest: the sheckters won. the supreme court found were them. and this is the overturning of the great centerpiece of the new deal. the nra by the high court. >> host: continuing to read from the "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression," clearing out the corruption seemed to be the new dealers best way to recovery. 1933 was a year of experiment and 1934 would be a year of prosecution. >> guest: thank you for reading that. it is so true. what happens when the recovery isn't of the quality you expect? well the economy was definitely recovery year over year. you have amazing growth numbers but you are not getting back to where you started. the government got angry and began to assign blame and go after companies and prosecute in a new way. one was the poultry business. in the "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression," i talk about insul who made the opera house, and the l-train, and he wired to city from the period after the columbia revolution. he was wiped out and people in chicago never heard his name. there was an erasing of people, of business leaders, of prosecution by the new deal. president roosevelt called businessmen princess of property. >> host: but, amity shlaes, was there conflict during this time? was there people speaking out against this? or was it pretty uniform that people were supporting fdr and his efforts? >> guest: people knew business had some responsibility in the crash. there were corrupt people. mr. whitney here in new york as an example. the economy isn't getting better so maybe we should blame them more. roosevelt thought the public was on his side. he won 46-50 states so a lot of people were on his side and didn't think it was so bad going after rich people. but there was decent, particularly in the newspaper, it was fun to read the papers, i read them every night through pro-quest, you could see a lot were leery of if prosecuting would help. they went after the treasury secretary and predecessors from the other area. they went after the treasure secretary from the '20s. they ordered the lawyers to go after mr. melon because it felt good. very brazen and political. one secretary's acts brings down another. the newspapers noticed this and they were less progressive and less leaning than they are today. the newspapers fought back quite a bit against the new deal. >> host: when you look at the 1930's how did the federal tax code change? >> guest: the great achievement was to bring down the war tax levels. during world war i they were pretty high. coolidge brought them down to a top marginal rate of 25%. when you poll people that is what they think rich people should be paying now. when you poll people their answer is 25% on how much rich people should pay. roosevelt pushed it even higher so that -- i don't know when our parents were younger it was in the 90% in the 1950's even. roosevelt said no 25% the rich have to pay a lot more and let's push it 60%. he liked wealth taxes. the most preverse tax for tax fans of the new deal was an undistributed property tax. let's eat at your essence. that was watered down but it was a big new deal. to get the rich people that are holding on to their money. >> host: here is a letter from fdr you include in your book "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" dear commissioner, i am inclosing my income tax return for the calendar year 1937 with a check for $15,000. i am unable to figure out the amount of tax for the following reas reasons and he goes on to list them because the president of the united states can't figure out the tax code. >> guest: i like this letter because roosevelt sounds so human. this book is now a cartoon book and he drew roosevelt and the artist tried to make the face of a president kind of mischievous and kind of lovable and that is an example of him playing lovable and a little bit humble -- i cannot figure out my taxes. but the dark side of that he could ask and not get in trouble but other people had to make a choice and a lot of us have dealt with the irs they don't also tell you what is right. there is a lot of uncertainty and that causes fear. they were going after people. so it was ironic that roosevelt himself couldn't figure out his taxes. >> host: welcome to our monthy in-depth program with one authorer his or her body of work. this month we are in our new york studio with amity shlaes. she is the author of many books beginning with one based on her education in germany the empire within. "the greedy hand" is another book followed by "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" and then "coolidge" is her most recent book. and why a graphic novel? >> guest: this is a cartoon histhis history of the great depression. this is like movies. not like art. they are not stupid. it isn't dumbing down. we took "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" man and made the whole story in pictures. and some of those are little. you can see little andrew melon in there being disparing because his tax rate has been overruled. a lot is about people not getting what they wanted. we tried to capture the human of them figure out their policies are not working. in the back of the book there is a cast of characters and they are all drawn beautifully. people have used it as a learning tool or a gift for clients who they want to poke out because it is a fun take on it. >> host: there is a super hero, though. >> guest: it is windle murky. i said there is a hero in the story who gives voice to everything i was hoping i might say myself if it were accurate. windle was the electricity man who thought he would light up the south and they were working hard and he was confidant and a good company. and the government came along and he was a reasonable man and a good diplomat and he said i will work with south and divide it up and instead and the government trashed his company. and he got angry and what is is wonderful is he wrote so much you can use his language. he became angrier, and he says by putting our stock in the tank you are hurting the whole country because we can't hire people. he did it well because he wasn't bitter. so i love drawing him or seeing paul draw him and he comes out in the end with a girlfriend, a lois lane, who really existed. that was fun to draw her, too. and thank you to the family who helped me learn about him. there is a brother of his who is a great attorney. if this book is a dean and it isn't roosevelt and i guess it is henry morganfall and he was like rom emanual. he had the boldest things the government was too afraid to say. he is the demon in the cartoon version. a demon who is lovable, though, because he was thrown out of government. >> host: he was head of the secretary of agriculture? >> guest: he didn't make it to agriculture even but he was very smart. he was thrown out when roosevelt ran for reelection because he was too far left and he went off looking for a job. we are all human and i admire people that serve even if i don't agree. >> host: 202 is the area code. 258-3880 eastern and central 258-3881 for the mountain and pacific time zone. also send a tweet to us or make a comment on our facebook page and finally also e-mail is an option. amity shlaes, you seem to be working your way backwards through history. started with the '30's and your last book is coolidge. >> guest: if they can make a prequal in a movie they can do it in a book. i like positive stories. the "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" could be called how they blew it. how they wrecked our economy. they being democrats and republicans. paoliticia politicians through policy. i wanted to write a book on how you fix it. in eastern europe they say it is easy to make fish soup from an aquarium but it is hard to make a living aquarium from fish soup. but in the 20's they fixed the economy. it is an inspiring story and i looked at harding and he had a terrible reputation and coolidge who doesn't have much better reputation and you look at who is misviewed by economy. coolidge made the economy better. and that became a life work for me: restoring this hero. c-span gives coolidge time but most people don't. let's see if "a week on the concord and merrimack rivers" give him the rating he deufsh -- deserves. his tax rate was lower than reagan, he balanced the budget, he cut the budget and today you have so many guest on c-span and they talk about cutting the budget and they mean reducing the rate of increase. coolidge cut the budget. you can see to the same government tables in the national accounts that he cut had budget. why didn't we know about this silent, quite guy. i became intrigued and wrote his bio. >> host: in your book "coolidge," you write coolidge quote wasn't proud of being president in the sense of being vein about it. he walked around quitely and still wore suspenders and that made him a quaint site in the great corridors. starring saw col coolidge wasn't afraid. >> guest: that is right. there are different notions of how you use an office. bully pulpit, right? that means fun. it is my pulpit and i will enjoy it. we know people who do their job like they are driving a race car. coolidge was more respectful and said i am serving. i am here as a servant. of course i am vein but i am going to try to suppress it in the name of service. i was attracted to this. a lot of others are attracted. at coolidge's birthplace i took a snapshot in plymouth notch, vermont where he is from. when you look at his grave the head stone isn't bigger than the others. the harding monument is huge. ms. harding is probably to blame for that. he wasn't comfortable with mount rush more. maybe their heads are too big. he didn't believe in the great man of history. he was all about service. i very much like -- you think of cal ripkin junior always showing up. cal's are about service so i don't think it was an accident. when coolidge fixed the bad environment because there was scandal from harded is he was meticilous about cleaning up. i think he did make a living aquarium from fish soup. we rarely meet people like this. he waited hated scandal and expectation of the president. we would cut his name after his suit because someone would sell them as a the president and make profit. he was hard on his family on what they accepted from gifts. he made his son dress up for children. he children didn't play around the whitehouse like it was a playroom. but it was like we are serving the public. we are not here because of ourselves. >> host: how did he become warning harding's vice president and what was the relationship between the harding's and the coolidge's? >> guest: i think he wanted to be presidential candidate and he had a good argument he could be. he was governor of massachusetts and as now there was a big issue of how far should public sector unions go and maybe very far and take over cities. that happened in seattle where there was a strike. there was turmoil after world war i with inflation and the government wasn't paying them enough and the workers were angry and went on strike. the policeman of boston went on stage and coolidge was governor of massachusetts and he was at the top of the command for the police officers. the nice police man who were his voters, mostly irish, he was famous for having the irish votes. they had rats in their station and such so they had a reason were this. coolidge backed them up saying there is no reason to fight against the public safety anywhere, anytime. that range across the nation because the public sector was going too far. and he was a governor drawing the line the way a governor can and everyone looks. wilson, the president, lined up behind the governor. he had showed up a sitting president. wilson said that is probably right, you know? i don't think the police -- because there was rioting and deaths. and coolidge had to call out the guard in this state. everyone riding in on the train with bayonets. it was terrible. people were hurting children with his police strike. he had an election coming up and thought i might not win this. you could see that in his correspondence with his father. maybe i am not going to win this time. i hurt my own people but it was the right thing to do. it was like reagan and patco. but he was reelected by government and that give him standing and he went to washington with harding on a ticket of calm things down. no normalcy was the phrase. ms. harding was a toughy and hard on ms. coolidge. ms. coolidge was younger and every color looked good on her and ms. harding had one color that looked good on her. ms. harding was grand. but there is no evidence of dislike between coolidge and harding. harding did something -- he invited the vice president into the cabinet meetings and coolidge was grateful. it is purgtory being vice president sometimes. senator lodge was from his own state came coolidge a hard time. he was sad when harding died in the summer of 1923. >> host: before we go to calls, very quickly, where did calvin coolidge become president and how long had it been since he had seen warren harding? >> guest: it was months. and he hope viewers will come to plymouth march where he was sworn in. he was a notary, justice of the peace, some of our loyalist members at the coolidge foundation are notaries. one of our board member is long-time head of the national notaries. that is something like that that is very american. they said how do you know you have that authority? and he said no body told me i couldn't. that is the way the country was at the time. >> host: that was in june 1922? >> guest: it was august '23 at plymouth notch, vermont. please visit us. we will read allow the bio and reenact with the family. >> host: you keep saying us. what is your association with the family? >> guest: i am chairman of the foundation. we have a house. we are partners with the state of vermont that does an outstanding job of managing this historic side. please bring your grand children. you can sign up to read aloud from the book. >> host: how did you come to that position? >> guest: it is a great honor. it has been there a long time. it was founded by the son of president coolidge. it supports the state. we built a building where we have classrooms for kids coming all year to work with our educator dianne campbell and y two directors there who make a coolidge blast if you want to blast about a president who saved money and said no. and we have rashad thomas and he's radioing and blowing bloging for us and he is doing an audio version of the autobiography. and if you don't come, we have a web cam like at a ski resort so you can see plymouth notch and what the weather is doing by going to the site. >> host: martha in maine emails i have listened to you for years on c-span, why did you switch from the economy to bioography? perhaps it isn't a big jump given the slant to your perspective. >> guest: thank you, martha. i like the economy, but most people think through people and not merely ideas, so hopefully one could do both. coolidge was a living economic avatar for markets. he really was president economist. i made the trip and thought it was worth it because i learned a lot about economics through a person. i am someone who learns better through a person. many people learn about economics and a lot of other things -- patience, the law, lead lead leadership through coolidge. >> host: prior to working on book and the coolidge foundation what else have you done? >> guest: i am a journalist so i worked at the dow jones for mean years. and the editor there and the reincarnation or was of president coolidge. president coolidge was the prein carnation of the editor reworked for. robert leroy bartly. he is gone now. if you look at coolidge smile's and his smile yowl see them as the same. and bartly had a cackle and i understand that coolidge had a cackle. the cackle of the thoughtful man. so a lot of people on your show were trained by bartly. david brooks who writes for the new york times. one writer after another was shaped by him and his great leadership and character. >> host: he was the editorial page editor? >> guest: the trusties of dow jones called him editor. sometimes there was tension about this because the new side said are we not the editor over here? but they gave that title to bob bartly. imagine a shop where you are trained. that is where i trained. >> host: 202-258-3880 or 20 202-258-3881. peter go ahead. >> caller: i live in washington, d.c. right outside of washington. and in the downtown area there is a large brick building built in the 1920's called the district of columbia jewish community center. and in it, there is different pictures from different time periods. it was built during coolidge's presidency in the '20's. and the thing that struck me was that president coolidge went to this building when it was opened in the 1920's. it was an unusual thing for a president to do. at least i thought. he went there and gave this wonderful, wonderful speech about how jewish people and christian people and all people of the united states could be friends and neighbors and this is a tribute to the jewish people and his administration that this great building would be opened up and i got the impression, i have never read this, but i wanted to ask you he was a good friend of the jewish sit zins of the united states >> host: is that your question? thank you. amity shlaes? >> guest: i have been critic criticisized about not talking about this more in the book. you can see him with catholic and prodesstan. he had a respect for faith. he would go to several dedicati dedications. coolidge did a conference call for a jewish group in the '20's that was famous because he said i like about your people, to the jews, that you try to take care of your own. that is a very old fashion idea. to all groups when you take care of your own i respect that. you build hospitals and what not. and i respect you because of the charity you have done. he understood how important faith-based charity was. that is gone from the community. in the same conference call that he did with the jewish leaders, he talked about budgeting and he said it is kind of an obsession. it makes be seem like a scrouge but you understand if i budget well. i don't budget because i am mean or a scrouge, i budget to help us all. he confessed this into conference call with jewish leaders. but you can see him take negative about the kkk. >> host: you referenced someone named rashad and now we have a call coming in from a rashad in lebanon. this is him! >> caller: this is rashad. >> guest: can you tell us why you came to coolidge? >> host: what do you do were the coolidge foundation? >> caller: i am the program associate for the foundation. i organize all of the events. so like our 4th of july reading. that is his birthday. and we will have a high school debate program in july and we need judges. so i organize lectures. i research about coolidge, i blog about him, i run social media for the foundation and any other things that matt and mitt amity want me to do. >> host: and how did you come to the foundation? >> caller: amity came to my college i was attending. i was a behind the scenes help for the speaker and we started talking about coolidge because i read the book a year previously. and he hit it off. and i was about the graduate with my masters in political science and she said you would be great for this job and applied and interviewed. >> guest: what do you like about coolidge? i think his great thing about him is coolidge found him. >> caller: i love him because he left the government smaller when left office than found it. i think it is important to have limited government. and i also like his stability. the fact he didn't have hard edges. he was kind of a new england original in my opinion in that way. he didn't elbow the people around him or his opponents. i think in politics today people running for office need to immolate coolidge in that regard. we don't have to see our enemy as the devil. >> host: anything you want to add? >> guest: no, we are lucky too the young leaders at the ass associati association. >> host: >> host: one e-mail i get is we may never see the likes of him again. we seem on track to value personality more than platform. >> guest: i don't agree. i think the caller is rate only when interest rates are low. when we have economic trouble in a country like the united states we suddenly look for character and someone that can execute certainly policiepolicies. when the "coolidge" book came out it was the same time ms. thatcher died. and i had to write a column on what she was like. the tory party would never have picked her when times were good. they wanted to be compassionate and forgive student debt or whatever it was. put nasty edges on the conservative party. but england had real economic trouble and someone had to say we have to cut back. and then the more substance candidates. even the tough ones become attractive in that situation. so it is hard for any party to have a dramatic policy oriented candidate. interest rates will not always stay low in the united states. hopefully we are preparing to have people of substance ready to lead when that moment comes. >> host: you refer to or calvin coolidge refers to himself as an administrator. >> guest: i like that. he read george washington a lot and coolidge referred to washington and the bible -- he was steeped in the bible. he said i don't want to be king or monarch but he thought of his job as presider. the united states, plural, is led by a president. >> host: devon, harbor springs, michigan, you are on the air with mitt. >> caller: thank you for answering my call. i was wondering about the depression. wasn't one of major problems deflation that they had the taxes and wages to get people to spend money because the prices kept going down? my mother and father are children of the depression and they admired franklin roosevelt and i think the major thing he did was keep the country was tipping into extremism left or right. thank you. have a good day. >> guest: thank you. and devon hit on the two things we have heard. one is deflation can be d devastating and the other is that roosevelt kept us from going somewhere horrible. he was better than hitler. and we are lucky we have that. that is what we group and many of us feel that. the interesting thing about deflation. when you look at the 1920's there was deflation and the economy didn't die. what is deflation? you listen to the ads that run on television and they are all about a lower cost. deflation is lower prices. it can be good. in the early '30's the was a lot of deflation due to international events and a bunch of factors with it being had perfect storm. but it is hard to make the case and few economist do that the inflation caused the depression. it caused a bad year or two. the strong deflation of the deal. that is the answer to that. what i found in reviewing for the forgotten man book and this book had a lot of research was america wasn't ready to go c communist. i love a quote i found when researching the '30's by a european journalist named odet coin. she came over to see john lewis and how we are having or revolution and she wrote the flaber gasting thing i have found about american labor it is conservative. that is a way to say to the caller i don't think we need to say roosevelt saved us because as a people we were not ready to be extremist. >> host: where did you grow up? >> guest: in chicago. >> host: what did your parents do? >> guest: my mother was involved in politics and was working with david miller and my father was a real estate appraiser and developer. >> host: where did you go to school? >> guest: college? i went to yale college. >> host: what about graduate school? >> guest: i didn't get a graduate degree. but i went to berlin and wrote articles for the news week or new york times and helped correspondants with their letters from berlin and at the time the wall was still there. >> host: the empire within came from that. >> guest: when i went over to germany it was the '80s, the wall was there and it didn't seem like it was going to change. i was there. and why should it change? it was our side and their side. i didn't think it was going to change. we had two kind of stories we wrote. there was a correspondant named ted sangar who i worked with at news week and we wrote about how people did currency arb triage and take the money from the east because it was make money compared to the west german money. or we would write is hitler coming back? i interviewed a man who was a guard of hitler in the bunker. >> host: this emails is from harry ram. given germany's history its need for a reliable source of energy and its experience since 1914, will germany play west or east or play a greater role? >> guest: i think she will play a bigger role. when i started my career, the english people were suspicious that germany shouldn't be unified because they could be nazi again. you could see that in thatcher when the call came down. they did a good job of unifying and being a wonderful country. it is close to russia. you don't understand the constraints upon germany until i saw the thickness of the wall. you cannot understand germany until you see russia. same with scandnavian. like who they are up against. i think they are optimal sich situated to be a broker. they have a lot of wisdom and historical memory and just a very important, interesting country in which we should place or faith. >> host: >> host: how many generations before they lose that title of being the former nazi? >> guest: we are about there. maybe another half generation. in germany there was a hyper inflation more than 90 years ago. they were that. and that is one reason germany wasn't the country to have the euro crisis, greece was. some things people remember more than one generation. i think that is one of them. and you go. so it is important, you know, you see many germans -- it wasn't the way it was 15 years ago when they would dare say maybe hitler was right. >> host: amity shlaes, did calvin coolidge deal with the fath that germany was going through what it was in the '20's? >> guest: this was a weak for coolidge. he said you see stones coming down the road, 9-10 that are coming will go in the ditch before they get to you. he wasn't a neocon and didn't like to intervene very much. sometimes he ought to have intervened. he understand that europe needed lower interest rates to pay back debt. europe was like a person under water with their house. they could not pay the debt it said on paper they owed. they didn't earn that much. so the secretary treasure said let's see if we can get them lower interest rates. and that is why they lowered him and they are faulted for that. but they were nowhere near as low as they were today. and when you study melon you see they would rather have the country party refinance and default and not honor. where they didn't understand, they were being nice with interest rates but nasty with tariffs. they make it hard to earn money so you cannot may back your debt. if you were hit with a tariff it was a failure. coolidge never acknowledged that. we had a friend who worked at jp morgan and figured out tariff's were not good for europe and shipped him book to try to educate him in tariffs and coolidge said i read this books. you don't have to send them, dwight. but i discovered you want to ask what do you mean? they brought havoc from overseas. here is what i discoved in research. i was trying to figure out how could coolidge be for tariffs? this is what the kids debate over the summer. the answer is from the point of view of a little company a tariff can look good because it protech your prices this year. if you have a lot of pressure from employers saying we want higher pay you cannot pay the higher pay unless your wages protected. he was for tariffs because of that and because they reduced labor unrest in the short term. imagine you have a factory, right? you don't want competition from overseas. maybe that makes it able to pay better wages. people forget what it was like being a factory owner with wool coming from europe and australia and you have to lower the wage and then the women are on strike. >> host: edward, port washington, new york. good afternoon. you are on with amity shlaes. >> caller: good to talk to you. i would like to know how you feel about the current mayor of new york city and the president if they employed the raising taxes on the rich, commerce and middle class if they would succeed? >> guest: thank you for that question. and good to talk to you. the coolidge foundation has no opinion on that. coolidge himself when you look at that doesn't tend to like that. i am a journalist who doesn't like big government. i don't think government is the answer for new york city. new york is the trade capital and it is blessed and everyone wants to live here and how much taxes can it bear? when you raise the tax rates what happens is those millionaires go to florida and they only which here some days. depriving new york of its key capital gains revenue stream. you can see the governor acknowledged that and maybe the mayor may want to study it. capital gains revenue is the umbilical cord for new york city. that is what keeps is going, pays for the buses, the schools, the pensions. and when people chose to realize their capital gains are somewhere else because new york taxes so heavily new york loses the revenue it needs to live. so that is usually an education process and mayors discover that. we have a new mayor and he is a redistributionist kind of and a class warrior. he doesn't understand that in new york when the healthy thrive there is trickle down because that is how the pensions are paid. >> host: from your book "the greedy hand" which we have not talked about much you write about the progressive tax system. and you write government likes we shall tax and tax and spend and spend and elect and elect. federal tax revenue jumped by the korean war and they made $50 billion more than 25 times what it was in 1940. there were those that questioned this. most economic thinkers and politici politicians prom left and right embraced it. even the most famist republicans endorsed the rate structure allow some progression of the direct taxes might be perm permissible. >> guest: i don't remember writing that. this was a long time i wrote it. the greedy hand -- that quote is from tom pain. the greedy hand of government making our prosperity its prey. and i think you want to ask the listeners if they know what this is? you have a base rate, and then the rates go up as you earn more money. so your last dollar is taxed at a different rate than the first dollar. there are all of these interesting surveys and people don't know what this progressive is. they know the rich should pay more. they pay more at the same rate but more dollars. it is used as a class to -- to attack a class. it is a way of revenue or spend money in new york or anywhere. but it is also a class attack. let's take it harded to earn the last dollar. -- harder -- one thing we worked on at the journal and this was the history of "the wall street journal" and that is to explain when you tax the last dollar well, people might work less. they might go to europe or another state or put their money in bermuda. it is a deterant. reagan made the code less progressive. president bush allowed taxes to go up. clinton. president 43 bush down a bit. and of course we have brought them up again. as bad as the progresses rate, if you know the top will work less but also people just give up. we need a structure that people can understand and we don't have that. >> host: next call is from jeff in forest grove, oregon. >> caller: i was pleased when i turned on the television and found out you were going to be on there. i enjoyed the "coolidge" book immensely. most underrated president. he was a humble man and understated man. you spoke about dan walker. i think he was the only illinois governor in my 60 year lifetime who wasn't indicted? >> guest: he was. but only afterwards. in illinois it seems a lot of them go to jail. he did for a savings alone issue. >> caller: anyway -- >> guest: were you teasing me? >> caller: no! i grew up in iowa the next state over. franklin roosevelt, i have been frustrated by the fact he was so poplar but his programs, as you say, did very little, if anything, to help the nation recover. i guess the question i have is it because roosevelt became more of a celbrity thank anything else and i would liken that to obama. even though he had good opponents, even landon and wilky, roosevelt crushed them in the elections. so i just wonder how did he become almost god-like to is so many people in this country? >> guest: thank you, jeff. temperame temperament. he was a cheerful man during a dark time. and he had that, you know, it was his own disability and people knew about that. to this day, you cannot help but admire. when we drew roosevelt, i didn't want him in a wheelchair, but i i wanted to capture his energy. we show him swimming for example. by 1940, the election you are asking about, the war was coming and people were not voting on the economic policy, they were voting on who was the better war leader. and roosevelt served in the department of navy. he anyhow every crack and crony of the east coast and could sail it personally. that made him a good leader for a war on the atlantic. so in '40 they were elected on war. >> host: and in the "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" you write that the republicans in 1940 were bitter for they concluded accurately enough that the outcome would sideline their party and their record of accuracy. they were right so often in the 1930's and they would not get credit for it. the great era of isolation is what stood out and their bitterness made them look small. >> guest: that is the way it is. that is the way it is now. one reason we all like coolidge at the foundation is he was so positivement he would criticize substance but not people. when you criticize people you fail. you see the gop making this error over and over again. let's attack these people instead of their policy. war trumpsic -- war trumps economics every time in news and opinion because it is that much more important. >> host: how close did wilky come to winning? ... he was sort of like, i don't know,a lot of people we know in that way. he didn't get a lot of states. you know, we have this electoral college preface, so i take him very seriously. he did go squishy in 1940, and i think that contributed to his loss. he said he was for a lot of things he'd opposed just six months before in his big campaign to win. >> host: jack rea tweets in to you, amity shlaes, was coolidge's decision not to run in '28 related to his sense of humility or something else? did he sense the boom would end? >> guest: both. both. coolidge did not want to be responsible when the boom ended, because he knew how hard it was for government to say no when the boom ends, right? he knew the government should say no. he didn't know if he had the stamina. remember, he'd been president quite a while by '28, a term and a half. his health was failing. the two preceding people in that office had been more or less killed by it, harding and woodrow wilson. it was a difficult, difficult thing to be president, and he didn't want to be there so -- to say no anymore. he was exhausted. coolidge vetoed 50 times while he was president. low character because of that? i don't think so. the greater reason he chose not to run was that, like washington, he writes about this quite eloquently in his autobiography, cool im. he says -- coolidge. he says, well, you better change prime presidents from time to time. i'm paraphrasing, but everyone paneledders to presidents, and they become awfully vain. president bush, 43. he, too, understands that and works very hard to make whatever he does about the library not about him. it's awfully hard to leave the president where you're the center of the world and become no one, but you have to do it for the republic, and coolidge absolutely explicitly made this point. and i want to add, was his party grateful that he was so noble? and fell on his sword? not at all. they wanted to kill him, because he would have won. who's going to win? they want to win, right? so he was all alone in his sanctimony, as we often are when we do the right thing, right? the world did not say, yea, coolidge, you did the right thing. they said you trashed the party by not running again, and that was kind of hard to take. i try to capture that in a chapter. >> host: and he announced that in south dakota, right? >> guest: he announced it, and i don't think that was an accident. i hope to go to south dakota. i've had a nice correspondence with the mayor of rapid city, i'm friends with heather wilson, the president of the university there. i want to go because here's what happened. he went to south dakota for vacation for a number of reasons, one is that was an ag state and the one area that he didn't do too well in the 1920s was agriculture. he was trying to get votes for the party. another was he wanted to promote american tourism, auto tourism was just taking off. and as it happened while he was there very nearby, excuse me, very nearby the sculptor was sculpting away on the rock to make mount rushmore. and coolidge noticed that. the artist may have noticed. he came calling, right? give me appropriations for this great bust of theodore roosevelt and, i think, lincoln, washington and jefferson, right? are there. did coolidge approve of this? not particularly. did he give an appropriation? yes. he had already, through andrew mellon. but he didn't really like big presidency, as we mentioned before, and there's footage of coolidge at rushmore honoring in some way the beginning of the sculpture, you know, i don't know, inaugurating. and you can see his incredible discomfort with this adulation of presidents. and the artist gets carried away and says coolidge should be on the wall, and coolidge dud not like that. and even though, you know, you could go on. there's more to that story if you want to talk about it, but he really didn't like the grandiose executive. >> host: this e-mail from pat, can you comment on the political relationship between warren harding and calvin coolidge? >> guest: interesting people are asking about this. there's some correspondence among the hardings that said can we have someone else instead of coolidge as vice president next time in '24? but unfortunately, harding passed, he died in the summer of '23 when that swearing in of coolidge happened. and coolidge was absolutely meticulous in his demonstration of respect for the hardings. mrs. harding stayed in the white house with her doggy, i believe he was an airedale, and he had a special black mourning ribbon on his neck, and the coolidges had to cool their heels until mrs. harding felt like moving out. rather line lynn don johnson -- lyndon johnson, peter, to fulfill harding policy to perfection. he was the caretaker when he came in the way lyndon johnson was caretaker after the sudden death of president kennedy. and coolidge didn't say and now we'll have new policies since his unfortunate accident gave me this job. he said i will fulfill what we promised in '20 to perfection, and he executed the same things harding had promised, but i would argue more efficiently. he took it farther. >> host: ron, stillwater, oklahoma, good afternoon. this is booktv on c-span2. amity shlaes is our guest. >> caller: yeah. i have a show comment and then my question. you might be -- >> host: go ahead, sir. >> caller: -- sure and let people know that there is a broadcast delay between what they hear on the phone and what they hear and see on tv. and then my question is, have you done a comparison between coolidge's time and the more modern government, seems like the government keeps getting bigger and bigger and more invasive on our personal rights. i just wondered if -- >> host: thank you, sir. god it. >> guest: great question. yes. i've written a lot of articles. my book about coolidge is a history book. there isn't much today in it because history speaks for itself. but i've written a lot comparing coolidge to modern leaders and so have other authors. i'll name some for you. one is charles johnson who wrote a book called "why coolidge matters" which addresses directly what analogies we can see today. there's another book that was published before mr. johnson's. in fact, by the coolidge foundation and the notaries with all kinds of politicians, democrat and republican -- i believe michael dukakis is in there -- writing about why coolidge might be a model today. one of the groups we often hear from, whatever party, both parties are state controllers. they want to know about coolidge because coolidge was the maestro of budgets. he was the isaac stern of budgets. so whatever their party at the state level are, officials have to control bums, and they turn to -- budgets, and they turn to him over and over again. >> host: and i'll just mention to ron from oklahoma, that's the reason when you call into c-span and meg tells you turn down the volume on your tv, that way you don't get confused by the little bit of delay. just listen through your phone, and you'll, it'll be on tack. john in grapevine, texas, you are on c-span's booktv. john? >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call. my question for you is on the book which i just finished and enjoyed very much. what was it when you decided to write the book, were you surprised that there hadn't been that much written about calvin coolidge? and what really drove you to write the book? >> guest: thank you for that question. when i was writing "forgotten man," i realized the '20s were really pretty good, and i didn't see a lot of books about them. so i went and looked, and i thought i'd write a book about the '20s, and then i thought, oh, my gosh, this man, the president personifies the '20s. let's try and do him. there are some excellent earlier biographies of coolidge. all of us stand on the shoulders of other people, and hopefully we don't trample on them, we honor them. one of them was so bell. unfortunately, he's gone, but he wrote an economic biography of coolidge. phillips andover the big fat bio of coolidge a few years ago. there's why coolidge matters, the two volumes, and there's always more to come. i noticed bill bryson wrote about him in 1927. i mean, one way to ask this question again is why look at texas? because it's what the united states could be if it were growing faster. it's kind of a model. you're from texas, right? why look at coolidge? he's what we could be, very inspiring. he's better than ronald reagan in many ways. oh, my gosh. that's blasphemy, right? but it's true. so i like the dare of that. here is someone whose tax rate is lower than reagan's. let's figure out how much better he is than his reputation. >> host: dan cecil, athens, alabama. ms. shlaes, you describe coolidge as a prequel to "forgotten man." would you suggest a new reader read "forgotten man" before coolidge? >> guest: no, i would suggest you read coolidge first, but i don't know if i pulled it out. we're all connoisseurs of "star wars", right? and we have our opinion about which show to see first. i would say read "coolidge" first, and i would also say please read the graphic novel. it is a new genre for standard history as far as i can tell. although there is a book "march" about the lawmaker john lewis and civil rights that's beautiful. please have a look at this. we're hoping to translate into it spanish. and, because we have so many hispanic readers who are interested in the material, sophisticated about it but might be learning english and aren't up for a 500-page book as, indeed, most americans aren't. >> host: bill from jacksonville, florida. hi, bill with. >> caller: hello, good afternoon. i have a very pithy question. but first, i'd like to get an opinion from amity. amity, please name the conservative presidents serving since 1900. what is the import -- >> guest: oh. name the -- >> host: bill, go ahead and finish -- >> guest: oh, sorry. >> host: finish your thoughts, bill. >> caller: well, i would like to get the import of the answer that she provides. >> host: you'd like to get the import of the answer. what do you mean by that? >> caller: i mean, what is the significance, what does it mean? >> guest: well, i like a lot of presidents. one of my conservative presidents is john f. kennedy, because john f. kennedy understood that free enterprise is very important. and you can see that in ira stoll's new book which i'm sure has been on this show. another is "coolidge," is -- coolidge, another is reagan. i like a lot about eisenhower myself, too, and his humility towards job recalls coolidge. and you see the debates now about what kind of memorial eisenhower should have and should it be grandiose. truman i like too when he went home. he didn't make a show of himself. so, well, what are you getting at? >> host: bill is gone. i apologize for that. what about ronald reagan? george w. bush? >> guest: oh, i like the bush bes very much. you know, i was a germany scholar when germany happened, and i was astounded how well president bush handled that, 41. and i -- >> host: the fall of the wall. >> guest: fall of the wall. because we could have trampled all over it. we could have gotten away. maybe we didn't like the way they did their currency union. their currency union was kind of suicidal because it made labor too expensive in east germany, forcing unemployment there. but we could have gone over there and said you can't reunify germany without doing it our way economically. but the u.s. pretty much sat back. you want to give credit to the statesmen who were involved. zelico, i think zoellick, maybe condoleezza rice. i haven't been thinking about this today who, secretary of state, right? who all went and said, oh, it's okay for germany to reunify. i respect that. and president bush behind them -- on germany's schedule, more or less, germany reunified. wow, there was much more spin in england over it. oh, my gosh. they had stronger feelings, right? about germany. so that, i will never forget that president bush 41 did that and the skill with which he did it. he just saw the moment ofly, he was able to work with helmut kohl. about president reagan, it's been said -- i think the viewers have heard this before. i'll say about bush 43 with whom i have worked at the bush presidential foundation that he understood the economy, and he fought to reduce government when he could, in the tax area particularly. those tax cuts right, you know, as he came in early, you know, were very good for the economy and made a recovery of quality. >> host: you're watching booktv on c-span2. every month we have one author on and his or her body of work. this month author amity shlaes. we've heard a lot about her history, some of the places she's worked. she's also the author of these books: "germany: the empire within," 1991. "the greedy hand: how taxes drive americans crazy and what to do about it" was 1999. "the forgotten man," a new york times bestseller, 2007. "calvin coolidge" last year came out, another bestseller. and just this year, "the forgotten man: a new history the great depression, the graphic edition." came out. and i want to let regular viewers of booktv know that every month we have a new book for our book club, and this month we have chosen "the forgotten man," either the original edition or the graphic edition. so if you would like to read along, it's about economics, it's about the depression, you can tie a lot of things in to today as well, amity shlaes' "forgotten man" is our book club section for the month of june. pick up a copy, digitally get a copy and join us in reading. if you go to booktv.org, you'll see right up there at the to be -- top there's a tab that says "book club." and beginning this afternoon we will start posting your comments. we want to hear what you have to say about "the forgotten man," our book club selection for the month of june. well, tonya davis is the producer of this program. she's down in washington, and she works with the author prior to the show, and we try to find out a little bit more about the author, some of her influences and some of the books she's reading right now. here's a look at what amity shlaes said. >> booktv of covers hundreds of author programs throughout the country all year long, and here's a look at some of the events we'll be attending this week. look for these programs to air in the near future on booktv on c-span2. on wednesday we'll be covering michael waldman, president of the brennan center for justice at new york university law school. he'll be talking about his book, "the second amendment: a biography," and he'll be speaking at the national constitution center in philadelphia. on thursday night, booktv will be in columbia, missouri, at the daniel boone regional library hosting a talk by travel writer william pete moon, he'll be discussing his best-selling book, "blue highways." on that same night, we'll be covering james oakes on his book "the scorpion sting: anti-slavery and the coming of the civil war" at the new york historical society. and then on sunday, june 8th, we'll be at the center for african-american history art and culture in aiken, south carolina, to record south carolina congressman james clyburn talking about his memoir, "blessed experiences." and that's a look at some of the author programs booktv will be covering this upcoming week. for more, go to booktv.org and visit "upcoming programs." >> here's a look at some books that are being published this week. jack devine, former deputy of director of operations at the cia recounts his 32 years of service in "good hunting." in "sally ride: america's first woman in space," journalist lynn scherr details the life and career of the first female astronaut. journalist nell bernstein argues the juvenile prison system does nothing to rehabilitate young offenders and needs to be reformed in "burning down the house: the end of juvenile prison." in "america: imagine a world without her," dinesh d'souza analyzes the sociopolitical climate in the u.s. civil rights scholar charles cobb describes the role guns played as a form of self-protection in the 1960s in "this nonviolent stuff will get you killed: how guns made the civil rights movement possible." in "big money" ken vogel, a reporter for politico, reports on the impact the citizens united decision has had on politics and democracy. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week, and watch for the authors in the near tush on booktv -- future on booktv and on booktv.org. >> here's a look at some of the upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country. this weekend booktv is talking with authors and publishing executives at the publishing industry's annual trade show, bookexpo america, in new york city. watch booktv in the coming weeks to see these interviews and more. on june 7th and 8th, we're live from the printers row lit fest. that weekend also features the first sacramento black book fair. and on saturday, june 21st, the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library will hold their 11th annual roosevelt reading festival which features numerous author talks on the 32nd president. look for our coverage on a future weekend. and let us know about book fairs and festivals happening in your area, and we'll be happy to add them to our list. e-mail us at booktv@cspan.org. >> host: amity shlaes, you list willie brant is as one of your greatest influences. who was he? >> guest: well, the part that made me be influenced by him were his speeches as mayor of berlin during the period when the soviets and the east germans put up the berlin wall. and as i was answering this question about a month ago in preparation for the show, i was listening to billy rund speak out from berlin to communist that they were doing wrong by erecting this wall, and he said, in english he'd say the sow -- soviet union gave her lap dog, the east german regime, a little bit of string, a little bit of leash, that's all that's happened. they're just rooting up, they're wrecking all of international law. by building this terrible berlin wall in my city. and the way he did it was so dramatic, so tough. and here was the little mayor in a big, international game. it was geopolitics, and he stood out for his toughness like a tiny dog himself fighting against the monster of the soviet union, and i was just touched by the bravery of the speeches. why did i mention him? because the audio of that just became available. so you can hear old german radio and hear exactly what transpired as the german democracy was built. we have the same thing with mayor daley of chicago, what he said in the '60s. that's fun too. >> host: you also list a woman named sofie raven. >> guest: let's give her some credit. that was my fifth grade english teacher, mrs. raven. we all have a teacher or two like that. sofie raven was a wonderful teacher and had a lot of faith in her students. you know, you just have that one teacher that says you can do it. she was that teacher at the university of chicago laboratory school in 1970. i hope her daughters know how much we all adored her. sophie raven. >> host: laboratory school. >> guest: it was a school that belongs to the university. >> host: and what was -- was there anything different about it, its curriculumsome. >> guest: it was founded by john dewey, the great educational progressive. it was just basically, i mean, we still had things that were different like girls did shop in those days that was new. but it was supposed to be a laboratory for education and, of course, the education students at the university of chicago used it to run little experiments, but they weren't too intrusive. >> host: is that the school that the obama girls went to? >> guest: it is. it is. and, you know, one of the wonderful things about that school is that it was always integrated. so i remember having black friends and white friends, and i only learned much later that was not the average for the rest of the country. and you'll see great friendships came out of it across races where race did not matter. >> host: 202 is the area code if you want to dial in and talk with amity shlaes, our author for this month's "in depth." 585-3882 in the east ask central time zones, 585-3881 for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones. if you can't get through on the phone lines, you can also get through on social media. @booktv is our twitter handle, facebook.com/booktv, and finally you can send an e-mail to journal@c-span.org. the next call for amity shlaes comes from greg in ohio. hi, greg. >> caller: hello there, how are you? my question -- >> host: fine, sir. please go ahead. >> caller: my question is, has to do with the portrait of calvin coolidge that hung in the cabinet room during the reagan presidency. i find that significant. i find interesting. i'd want your, the author's thoughts and comments on that. >> guest: that's right. president reagan, thank you, ohio. president reagan gave the coolidge portrait rom innocence by putting -- prominence by butting it in a prominent -- by putting it in a prominent place. i believe it was moved after reagan with somewhere else in the white house. i happen to have a picture of myself with president bush taken under it, you know, some visit to the white house. i just don't know which room it was in. so it's not as though coolidge was cast out of the white house which some allege. he was, he was moved around. i think the significant part is the moving in of coolidge, many republicans don't really like him, and reagan understood. i heard stories about coolidge, reagan when someone tried to assassinate him, he was in the hospital, and he was reading a bio of coolidge. i don't know which one, probably the bio. oh, he cut taxes how many times? one, two, three, well, gee, i hope i can do that. reagan admired coolidge. >> host: some people who know your economic philosophy might be surprised to see paul volcker on your list of greaters influences. >> guest: well, paul volcker is a man of character, and he does what he thinks is right no matter what party it is, and i like that very much. and he's been a great friend to my work even though he doesn't agree with it because i'm not a monitarist, and he still has a lot of that in his philosophy. this is the former fed chairman. and, you know, he has been extremely respectful of my work as has, fortunately for me, chairman greenspan. so i, there's something about monetary authorities that i like, and they like me. what i see with volcker is why is he here though besides that we're friends is that when the interest rate needed to go up, he put it up even though he knew that would force the recession. and the fed chairman is going to have to do that again one of these days. hopefully it's a coolidge or a volcker who dares to do it. >> host: amity shlaes, you're working your way backwards as we talked about earlier. depression, fdr, willkie then coolidge. what's the next project? >> guest: well, the next project is actually forward, so we're making a trilogy of triptik, fending on your -- i would like to make it visual as well. so it goes forgotten president, that's calvin coolidge, forgotten man, that's the 1930s and then silent majority which is the book for which i'm under contract with hard per collins. this is -- harpercollins. i think you would just say it was bad america that was a little suspicious or skeptical of the progressive project and marched forward and did pretty well, and it sort of seemed as if right sector -- private sector would prevail. the emphasis in this book is a new emphasis for me but one dear to my heart and my passion which is urban planning. i don't -- i'm kind of -- i like the great philosopher jane jacobs who doesn't like big planners who came and build things -- built things for government purposes or for private sector purposes that had little to do with the community and who believe that neighborhoods grew organically. actually, jacobs and high yak are alike -- hayek are alike in that way, the economickist philosopher. a big group comes and says there needs to be a 30-story tower building here because we feel like it, and the tax lawsuits that. that doesn't mean it's good for the neighborhood. and what i hope if i can to add value, what i hope to add value with is my portrait of the abysmal work of urban renewal, of the terrible failure of urban renewal along with welfare, along with all the great society programs. but especially urban renewal. and, you know, how many cities have we wrecked? we asked earlier in the show why do people like new york? well, we like new york because it wasn't totally wrecked by robert caro. this will be a controversial book -- >> host: by robert -- >> guest: the great empire builder, the man who wanted to run a highway through greenwich village or all those places, the children you know want to buy condos from all over the world because they are pedestrian zones. so i want to write about the kind of stealing of the soul of cities by modern planners, and that will -- people don't expect that, but i'm going to give a lot to that. i think that planners are to blame for a lot, just as hayek said. >> host: next call for amity shlaes comes from gary in st. simon's island, georgia. hi, gary. >> caller: good afternoon. the reason i was calling, i've gotten at least two of your books and a number of your columns, but i particularly wanted to ask you in "the forgotten man" after the 1936 election roosevelt and the democratic overwhelmingly democratic congress passed a tax increase, and as you mentioned in the book, the unemployment rate which had slightly gone down after the depression or was starting to go down then jumped back up, and world war ii saved it. i want you to fast forward, and i don't know if you do any predictions, but i see the affordable care act that we're now implementing and rolling out and chief justice roberts has famously referred to it -- or infamously, i should say -- refers to it as a tax. do you see any parallels between the two? that's kind of the basis of my question. >> guest: well, i personally do, yes. i think too much law is unfortunate. coolidge said give administration a chance to catch up with legislation. you know, too many laws create a kind of social chaos. and when nobody thoughs the answer, then everyone starts to feel sneaky. of it's bad for civics as well. so i see a parallel, yes, between some new deal laws and the affordable care act. others may not. >> host: amity. >> lace, for whom do you -- shlaes, for whom do you write now? >> guest: right now i write for "forbes" print, david malpass, my good friend the economist, and i also write for national review. and i want to say just because i've been writing for them just a couple of weeks, national review is an awesome crowd. they make a lot of noise. they're a party that's fun to be with, and they are particularly interesting on the subject of faith. so wherever economics and faith come together, which sometimes they do, or i've never met such an interesting, receptive audience. >> host: do you maintain a web site as well so if people want to get the aggregate columns that you do? >> guest: oh, not right now. right now all is for service of coolic and the -- coolidge and the coolidge foundation. what we'll be doing all summer is bringing young people up to the coolidge foundation to debate economics. so i write for the coolidge blast which is edited by rashad and matt denhart. >> host: and do you still have an association with the manhattan institute? >> guest: well, i do chair the jury for an important prize recently won by casey mulligan of the university of chicago, the hayek rise. and be this is the prize for free market journalism. and it's very exciting. this prize will be awarded on the 25th of june. the two, you know, finalists behind casey were ger stand das of india for india grows at night and -- [inaudible] and the can co-author, i think is -- [inaudible] i'm sorry if i mispronounce it for another good book about india because india's key right now, is it going to go free market or not? and we hope they're all coming to the awards dinner on the 25th. what casey does, which is hard to do, gets at that issue of marginal tax rates we spoke of before. he establishes not what the law says, but what the effective marginal tax rate, what it really is even, you know, when the law, sometimes you'll have a law where it doesn't say in the statute, but was there's a surcharge, that's the functional, effective marginal rate. what he's doing is the work of showing what the rising tax burden means. >> host: and casey mulligan is an economics professor -- >> guest: he's a professor at the university of chicago. i don't believe i've ever met him, but i -- the jury found his book extremely solid, and that also gets at our theme of substance. it's not a polemic, it's extremely hayekian, but it doesn't say i don't like the other guy because of obamacare. it says here is the evidence that our recession was made worse by government redistribution. and he basically indicts those who would argue that income inequality needs to be fixed. he says by redistricting in our attempt to stop inequality we made the recession worse. so that's some statement. >> host: casey mulligan's book, "the redistribution recession." amity shlaes, you also say that you're reading elizabeth warren's book. >> guest: oh, i am, yeah. no, and my husband actually wrote a column about it. elizabeth warren is concerned about bankruptcy and how hard it is for people down at the bottom. and i share that concern that's "the forgotten man," right? her approach might be different from mine, but her concern -- and she writes about it beautifully -- is worth paying attention to. nickel and dime is a book that -- >> host: barbara aaron right. >> guest: how you're, i don't know, trashed when you live at the bottom. all of us agree that at the bottom and in the middle it could be better. we disagree how you so that problem. >> host: ralph nader recently wrote a book talking about how the left and the right are coming together on many of thesish shoes. >> guest: well, it is true. i once started writing a book about emma goldman -- the great left-wing anarchist -- and ayn rand, she's a great libertarian. who are they? they're two russian girls who came to america and made a lot of trouble, right? but very, very interesting and not that different because there's right anarchy and left anarchy. we're all closer than we believe. >> host: frank is calling from the center of ohio, wooster, ohio. hi, frank. >> caller: hi. thank you, i'm fortunate to get a call in. my question was back under the roosevelt era when you mentioned the working weren't really ready for communism that much at that time. and i read whitaker chambers' book, "witness," and those statements in there where he almost alluded to hopkins, the right-hand man of roosevelt, as a communist and how our policies were so affected in the war from a communist influence on our government more than just stealing secrets, etc. and then on to a marcia west book, russian archives and a lot of confirmation. so i'm kind of wondering has our society moved in the direction more towards communism than it was then or less, or is it it about the same? because i see a lot of pushback on the debates, and i just -- i don't know. i don't have a feel for that. and just a comment -- >> host: thank you, sir. >> host: very quickly. >> caller: time's up. >> guest: thank you, sir. >> host: just a second. go ahead, frank. very quickly. >> caller: well, there was -- i can't remember the name of it, korean war vet sponsored by south vietnam on trips back to south vietnam, and the young children even thanking them for their service and maintaining grave sites, etc., and be in effect saying thank you that we're not -- north korea, i'm sorry, and that's south korea. and thank you that we're not north korea. so i'm kind of wondering about that. >> host: thank you, sir. amity shlaes. >> guest: thank you, frank. i think there are two questions. the first is what happened in the '30s, and there's a lot of debate about that. it's a hot topic. what i discovered was many new dealers were influenced by communism. and others have rib about that -- written about that, including ben steele and diana west. whether they were traitors, that is, did they work for the communist government? i'm not an expert on that. certainly, harry dexter white is especially key and did work for the other government, for the other side. but you want to draw that distinction because if you get caught up in a fight about who actually works for communism, you ignore the important part which is which of our policies were influenced by communism or, for that matter, mussolini was a great hero over here in the '30s, and that's what's important. so to that, no, i don't think we're going communist now at all. however, i do think -- and i think you're getting at this too -- that we're giving, those of us who know that markets are good and that freedom is good are kind of giving away the future when it comes to education. and we, we're awfully cavalier about it. there's a big emphasis right now on politics, you know, and it's an election year, you can only talk about the candidates, and nobody talks about how little young people know or how we might communicate with them. it's my work for the rest of my life to know that younger people know stuff. they can make up their own minds, but they have to know stuff. and that's what the graphic novel is, we have the coolidge foundation. we must give the young people a chance to engage with these ideas wherever they come out. >> host: kevin e-mails in to you, amity shlaes, i always thought the modern day equivalent of calvin coolidge is mitch daniels, former governor of indiana, current president of purdue. >> guest: i try not to compare people to coolidge, and one of those is governor and president mitch daniels. what a mind and what a temperament. he's a lot of fun to be around, that's important too as vooz svelte showed. another is paul ryan, another is ted cruz. do i endorse these people? no. i'm just saying who has a coolidge-like bent, that is to say cares about budgets viscerally. some of this is temperament, isn't it? we were talking about coolidge and money, he liked to hang on to his money, even tired a white house house keep enwhen she -- when she spent too much, right? that was coolidge. and you want to look which candidate has the temperament that he likes to save? who were those guys? who likes books? who likes to keep books? who likes excel? coolidge would have loved excel had he lived. >> host: you write in your biography of calvin coolidge that his salary was $75,000 which was a lot of money back then, but he had to pay for food and housekeeping. >> guest: oh, and he didn't like it. why do we know this? because he offended a lot of the white house staff because he wasn't a very good tipper. scrooge, right? and they wrote books. it was just as now, it was just as bitter, and one of them, the housekeeper, told her story to cosmopolitan, owned by hearst and published. she really wanted to succeed. she went around in a horse and carriage to to shop for the white house, and she would say, look, mr. president, look at this spread. we talk about pork today, we mean it figuratively, especially on c-span, right? budgets, pork, you know? items in the budget. she said, look, look -- coolidge took it literally. look at my dinner for the foreign diplomats, coolidge said that looks like an awful lot of ham to me, mrs. jaffe ray. you're spending too much of my money, and soon she was gone, and he replaced her. we have the documents where her successor, who kept better records and didn't shop in specialty shops, went to, i don't know, the supermarket or something, the new supermarket. of all her savings and every time she overspent, the new house tokeeper, she would -- housekeeper, she would explain why. so this is not just he was nasty, though i'm sure he appeared nasty. it's that he was principled. if he wanted the nation to save and spend less government money and veto things people might even need or wadly want -- badly want, then he better live quietly himself. and he did. >> host: herbert hoover, that's the first federal presidential library, correct? >> guest: i believe so, yes, sir. >> host: and calvin cool you can was the president right before that. >> guest: right. coolidge wasn't too friendly to the idea of a federal presidential library, and i've spoken about this with president bush and other leaders. the presidential library law is a great gift because the government supplies the librarians. they have a wonderful librarian, alan lowe, at our library in dallas by smu, right? that's a government -- the presidents have to build the building. and president bush and, you know, his father before him and certainly president clinton and president carter labored mightily, and they raised the money for the building. you know, it's a partnership. the president raises a lot of money, and the goth supplies -- the government supplies the scholars and archivists. it's a wonderful marriage. that was too much for calvin coolidge though, he didn't like the idea of being partners with the federal government. though he gave some things to the library of congress and the archives. he thought a politician should be friendly with the state. that's where it was. i almost laughed. i shouldn't laugh. or even with the town. so he kind of cut off his archival nose to spite his face because he gave a lot of stuff to the library in northampton, massachusetts, where he spent much of his career as a young attorney, rose in politics, and he gave, you know, some to, some of it was in vermont. and in his spirit, we partner -- we, the coolidge foundation -- with the state of vermont. we don't partner too much, although we've taken grants before, with the federal government because the president would have liked it that way. and john coolidge himself, we did get a large federal grant, called it pork. the son of the president. the coolidges have a bit of a hesitation about taking federal money. long live the coolidges. it's very interesting. but as a result, there's no grand library to coolidge. he would have liked it that way. we're going to make the coolidge site in prelim moth notch a grand monument to restraint. very interesting. the anti-- how do you make a monument to someone who hated monuments, especially to himself? we have young people debate there and see his beautiful house. he didn't live over the store like margaret thatcher, he was born behind it. there's a difference. one donor gave the money, so the wires could be buried so it would look old-timey like williamsburg. another got easements, paid for easements so houses wouldn't be built all around so that prelim moth notch would look like it did in coolidge's time when it was a tiny electricity-free village. so it's a different kind of monument but very, very compelling, plymouth notch. >> host: michael phillips asks via e-mail, for an english major from yale, where did you get your profound knowledge of economics? >> guest: oh, thank you for calling it profound, i don't know if it's. one is i worked in eastern europe, and when you work in eastern europe or are position zed to it -- exposed to it as i was, you realize what doesn't work. and that is a collective government. i want to give credit to my father, jared shlaes, who is an economist though he is in real estate. he taught me a lot, and his business experience taught me a lot too. finally, wall street journal. got to say that, right? >> host: elaine is calling in from getted that da, colorado. thanks for holding, you're on with amity shlaes on booktv. >> caller: yes, i've enjoyed "the forgotten man," and that's the only booktive read from you, but i would like to ask you what the teapot theme, dome scandal had on the harding and coolidge, and i'll hang up and listen to your answer. thank you. >> guest: oh, thank you. so elaine wants to ask about teapot dome. teapot dome was the scandal of the harding administration. what they wanted to do sounded kind of good. the government had extra oil. well, they should privatize that. sounded like something the reason foundation might advocate, right? privatized excess reserves. but the way that the harding administration did it was too close to friends for comfort. friends got contracts, people who gave money, new people who got contracts, and so it became teapot dome which is the name of the place where the oil, where the energy was. a scandal that lived down the centuries in name. there was another scandal much relevant to today regarding veterans. they had a new veterans bureau. it was supposed to build hospitals. instead, people took kickbacks, and the veterans suffered in pain. and remember, many veterans in that period returned from world war i, one-third disabled, and there were no antibiotics. so you can imagine all this money was spent and often for corruption. the head of the veterans bureau, charles forbes, ended up in leavenworth prison. so that was harding, you know? where it was his -- whether it was his fault, it was his fault at least in his choice of friends, and coolidge was extremely horrified by the whole thing. you can see the physical tension. there was, i think it's fort myer, a cannon went off every morning at sunrise and he'd say how i hate that sunrise noise, because he knew that every day as vice president he'd be deeper embroiled in a scandal that was not of his own making by any means and about which he probably knew very little. so as president he endeavored to clean up, to shine up the presidency again. and i think he did a pretty good job. >> host: and just a quick clarification, marsha grace e-mails in that when you were talking about hur newest book -- your newest book, that you mention to be talking about robert moses, not robert caro. >> guest: oh, i'm sorry, you're right. i'm getting tired. i'm sorry. robert caro wrote about robert moses -- >> host: right. >> guest: getting tired. i love robert caro's book. >> host: and david holmes e-mails in: in the '20s, fascism rose to the commanding heights of the economy in italy and germany. our current president and big government supporters appear to want government again to command the economy here. is there anything coolidge had to say in opposition to fascism in the economy that we today can use as a guide to protect our constitutional freedoms? >> guest: oh, well, men do not make laws, they do but discover them. you didn't really like a lot of law which comes with big government, fascism or no. he always respected the individual. have a look at his vetoes. they're poetry. you know, i like veterans, but if i help one group, maybe i'll hurt another, that forgotten man. right on the senate web site you'll see beautiful statements by coolidge. >> host: amity shlaes, "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression," is your book, and david e-mails in this interesting fact, the german version of "the forgotten man," has a subtitle that translates to "a new view of roosevelt, the new deal and the state as savior." why the difference from the english version? >> guest: well, actually, i don't have it in front of me, so i can't confirm that, but it doesn't sound wrong. because the german version understood that so-called austrian economics would get the forgotten man. and austrian economics isn't about roosevelt, it's about the state being too big. hayek was a kind of austrian, right. >> in that pill soft call school -- philosophical school. and the germans and the austrians understand all this philosophy about how government being too big. and i am sure that germans like to poke at roosevelt, too, because he was their enemy in world war ii. but the book itself was not changed. it's the same book. and most of the german leaders i hear from -- readers i hear from want to talk about economics, not president roosevelt. >> host: brad is calling in from studio city, california. brad, good afternoon. you're on booktv. >> caller: good afternoon. good afternoon. thank you for taking my call. >> guest: good afternoon. >> caller: i'm a big fan of your books, mrs. shlaes. i got both "coolidge" and the other one, "the forgotten man." question for you, right next to calvin coolidge is my book called the forgotten conservative about grover cleveland. did coolidge have a thought about cleveland? >> guest: i don't know, i don't think so because i would have nosed. you know -- noticed. you know, someone who's very interesting to read about is the poet, robert frost. there's a lot in common robert frost and coolidge. and robert frost actually campaigned for grover cleveland as a child, he's that old. and he got it. it was another kind of democrat, right? grover cleveland was a democrat from today's democrat. all three of them respected property rights. >> host: john in berry, vermont. did i say that correctly? is it berry, vermont? >> caller: yes, sir. can you hear me? >> host: okay, please. yep, we're listening, please. >> caller: greetings from a moxie addict in the socialist paradise here in vermont. great show, amity. i met you last summer at the coolidge event. and you do such a wonderful job with the young folks. but the reason i was calling today is i recently finished a book called "the unique inauguration of calvin coolidge," and it leads -- >> guest: oh, yes. >> caller: and it leads into my two questions. that they drank a lot of moxie that night, and also what i alluded to with the socialist paradise remark. i'd like to put up a big banner in our statehouse that says "what would calvin have done" and beg our vermont legislature today to, please, listen to calvin. and i'd like the hear your thought on it. oh, also is there any chance of getting brian lamb back as a guest? i met him last summer. >> guest: oh, we'll consider it. mr. lamb from c-span came and judged our kids, and mrs. lamb, and then they -- mr. lamb interviewed the kids all dinner about their hopes and dreams, and there's a video of that on youtube. he did a wonderful job. so, question, let's see -- let me -- >> host: what would calvin do? >> guest: calvin left vermont and went to massachusetts, but his dad did serve in the legislature while he was a younger politician. in vermont, well, he'd be like governor jim douglas who himself has a book coming out. he would say, well, moderation in vermont, please, try and cut back the government where you can, where you can, right? that's what he would do. i have great respect for vermont. there are vermonters of all kinds despite the reputation that vermont is uniformly progressive. so we'll say that. and rust orton was one of them, i believe was he not the founder of the vermont country store? is that right, listener? oh, he's gone. anyway, we have plenty of friends of the old-fashioned coolidge in vermont and plenty of friends who might not glee with coolidge's tax policy but love other aspects of him; his respect for the constitution, for abraham lincoln and so on. so vermont is a great place for coolidge, and, of course, we should get a banner. i love the idea. >> host: amity shlaes, on our facebook page a lot of the comments are along this line, and this'll lead to a question. as if the 1% needed one more propaganda, revisionist history, etc., a lot of that. ask then jost -- and then joseph has this comment: amity, retrograde thinking is interesting, but nonsense for our future. globalization and the digital revolution has changed everything. forward, creative thinking is what is needed. >> guest: oh, thank you. well, i'll ignore the first part and do the retrograde part. don't worry about the first part. the retrograde part is what matters. what i noticed about coolidge is how intensely modern he was. his main theme was networks. he believed in networks. as a young man, he studied the trolley network which was really electricity, right, of western massachusetts and what it did to commerce. and in that time you could take the trolley to amherst there north ham on the and back again, and -- northampton and there were three or four different lines of train you could take from boston in to western mass. if you're interested in trains, a lot of us are interested in trains because as vain as we are about the success of our internet network and our linking, we've failed in trains and in some areas of electricity, right? so i see a ton modern in coolidge. the other thing he liked was aviation, aviation wasn't unmodern, right? he believed in aviation as a vehicle of diplomacy. he sent charles lindbergh down to mexico. and i'll say finally to those technicians who say history's old and retrograde, those are the same technicians whose stocks were really challenged in the market crisis, because they were unacquire that policy -- unaware that policy and the history behind policy could affect stock prices. history affects stock prices. it affects bond prices and interest rates. so those who operate in a purely technical area do so at their peril over the longer term. >> host: speaking of peril, you write about tax prepares in your book, "the greedy hand," and i just want to read -- >> guest: that's a long time ago. >> host: i think you'll be able to follow it. unlike other advocates, tax experts don't have a different opponent every time they go to trial. their opponent is almost always the same, the irs. and that irs is not just any opponent. it is the one in the enrolled agent's case at at least that certified them in the first place. i knows them and knows that they have co-signed the returns they prepared. rejection by the irs can be the end of a taxpayer -- prepare's career. >> guest: well, that's right. and it's even more true today. maybe that -- i don't know the technical format, but that's the creepy thing about the current era, is that it's all about who you though and how you get along. so if you go to see an attorney or a tax preparer or a school or a bank, who's on the other side? i'll give an example with the bank. when you go to talk to the bank, sometimes you have -- i have the feeling here in new york that i'm talking to senator schumer, not the bank with. because the bank is talking the regulation that senator schumer wrote, and it's afraid of its regulators and senator schumer. that means the bank isn't working just for me, even if it says outside home equity loan extension or whatever. everyone is we holden to someone -- beholden to someone else in a not transparent way, in an opaque way, and it makes us all creepy and nest. i mean, i read about this in chicagoland, actually, and a problem with chicago. for a city that's an options city where trading is important, chicago is a lot about deals and who you know, and it always was, right? .. >> guest: the government response, and that will be bush and obama, was too large and we will all live the with consequences of that forever. >> host: jeff, fargo, north dakota. >> caller: i have been doing a lot of reading and i think the number one bill that has sent our country in this hundreds years of progressives is the federal reserve act of 1913 and once this next collapse comes will be get back to the george washington and thomas jefferson and take of our own because this $120 trillion of unfunded liability will bury us. >> guest: the list is talking about the law that created the modern fed. it was created as a club for banks to help each other with liquidty in the crisis. their responsibilities have been expanded over the years and now the fed is supposed to run everything. i don't think at the time many people thought the fed would be running the economy in the way we should imagine it should now. a lot of us are concerned with this. thank you for pointing that out. >> host: next call is dean in stockton, california. you are on with amity shlaes. >> caller: thank you for that wonderful biography of coolidge. you changed my mind on him and i think he should rank high and that is based upon my reading in your book. my question for you is if coolidge was here today and he was looking at social security and the medicare entitlement program and how that is making it impossible to lower marginal tax rates and grow the economy, what would he do if he was president and what would amity do if you were president on the issue of entitlement? >> guest: social security isn't that hard. you freeze the benefits so they increase with inflation but not with real growth and that reduces much of the problems like scholars you know have shown. maybe you invite some immigrants in and they pay a social security tax and that takes care of the rest. medicare is much harder. medicaid is harded. those other things. but i would start with something you could do in social security. both parties are making the good, the enemy of the best there. it should be every high school's project to solve social security because a high schooler can learn statistics and do it isn't that hard. i would talk about the cutting the capital gains tax. that would make it easier to cut down other tax rates. the real question is when are challenged and we will be, then all of the steps will be more obvious. i think coolidge would be for a flat tax and best friends with steve forbes. he likes clarity and understand complexity was as bad as a high rate. he would have certainly cut back the veterans service even though he had great feelings about them. and he would have been careful about foreign engagement. >> host: from amity shlaes' book "the greedy hand" social security is a fantasy. a comforting pleasant fantasy. one that has sustained many millions of americans over the decades but a fantasy. washington promised from the start that social security would be a trust. in reality there was no trust. mainly cash flow from con tributers and went out the same day to senior citizens. this was the root of the deception. >> guest: it is. it was edited a few times but that doesn't mean it can't be converted we just have to do it yesterday or today over to something -- if you go back and look at the literature, i think in the "the greedy hand" i had pictures, roosevelt said you have an account as if your name is on it but the supreme court didn't think so. they have cases showing it is their money and we have no account. i think it would be to good save social security and made it a truth not a fantasy because that would restore trust. i have had debates because they would like to stop making payments to wealthy people and i think everyone who paid in should be getting something out of it and not because i think the rich deserve more money but because we should other than this. and in the articles, it is a very important story, right? $2 $2 $2000 from a president but only 6-10 were published. and go for a meeting with the president and the president says exactly what the editor feels, oh, my, gosh, you published ten articles. and then i was asked what did coolidge do because he took out of his pocket a check that was already ready for $8,000. he gave it to the editor. and my students say sucker. why did he do that. it says in the contract and it did say regardless he got to keep the money. what a fool! he did it was, and this is so important, because he wanted people to know he was reliable. that building of trust is what is missing in our trenches of this culture. we are just look, i fooled them, ha-ha. well everyone knows everyone in the world and we remember how we are treated. so it certainly isn't good civics, character, and not even good business to mistreat people you work with. what coolidge was saying is my articles were not what they wanted. how can i improve? you would be more willing to tell me if i give you back your $8,000. much of what is wrong today could be fixed if he head this. >> host: what drew you to coolidge? >> guest: just that's he was quite. not many know his tax rate was lower than regan. and we are betting he is worth restoring because he has a lot it offer. >> host: e-mail, scranton, pennsylvania, earlier in the program you accused of new york mayor of engaging in class warfare, a study done by the congressional budget in 2011 found the top 1% increased their income by about 280% after taxes over the period of 1979-2000. at the same time the bottom people grew by 8% and doesn't this prove there is class warfare going on in this country? the very wealthy against everyone else. >> guest: thank you for that question. i don't believe it matters if the rich are rich but i do believe it matters when the lower makers are not making more. use unemployment as a big program. entitlement taxes continue to want to hold on. i will always ask and i share with you what does it look like at the bottom and what i i do changing it. and the number one thing i would say is for people to invest money here and they will create better jobs. there is nothing more important. this is an inquality debate that is relative to the question of why do young people not earn more. i would ask that. why is the process for starting a business so dense? why are all of the rules there to block when they start a business? why do they have the student loans? one reason is not wealth. they have the student loans because the universities cost a lot because the education is so subsidized. it is all messed up. figure out a way to become great yourself rather than fall into a negative culture of envy. coolidge said you can't help the weak by pulling down the strong. >> host: next call comes from george in wichester, massachusetts. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i had the privilege of visiting the coolidge center in west plymouth and been to the western store and everything you want to know about him is there. i picked up a cassette last time i was there by jan cook -- >> guest: jim cook, yes! >> host: please finish your thought. >> caller: was coolidge's father wo working for dun straight? >> guest: his father was sheriff, he did a million things, but as far as i know he didn't work with bradstreet but he might have. the voice you were speaking of jim cook, cranky yankee, is a coolidge impersonator and he is going to be at the event on july 4th. he is a wonderful reader and actor. he has played coolidge at a lot of my parties for coolidge, too. >> host: michael is in chevy chase, maryland. >> caller: hi, it is michael pact. we are working on a film about calvin coolidge and it is an exciting project and i cannot wait to get started once we get the funds. my question is why did she approach me, and what do you hope to get out of it and accomplish. >> guest: i will tell all about this. coolidge is so great we cannot just be trapped in a book. he needs a graphic novel and a movie. on public television there are not many movies about a lot of our history and certainly not about coolidge who is an in between for roosevelt. michael has new film about admiral rick over and did work on hamilton that attracted me. michael and i and many others are hoping it make a movie about coolidge that doesn't treat him in the throwback way or you know he had great personal tragedy but always looks at the tremendous economic contribution. michael is gone? i will say it is michael pack. man fold production. i thank him for calling in. >> host: in your book, "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" you sent a bit of time on fdr's court packing plan. why? >> guest: it is a big piece of history. fdr found the cases were overturned and he got angry and the drawings of his anger of very good. he said i am going to change the supreme court. and he had the court packing plan after safely winning a big election. 46-48 states. he said if they are too old, some of them can go. we drew him questions the compitance because of their age and you see that today, too. maybe they are too old? the justices didn't like that and fought back and roosevelt's legislation didn't pass and some people said he went too far. that was the story. however many of the cases that the supreme court heard s subsuquent to the packing effort were favorable to roosevelt. so that was with they had the court saved its own self going in the liberal or progressive direction. >> host: ruby is calling from riverside, california. >> caller: i admire fdr because he took on the special interest and fought for the people and established many work programs. my dad was in the ccc and i remember he got the economy going. isn't a reality these elite big corporations and special interest are influencing everything as proved on the bill myer show alec: influencing public legislation. this doesn't sound like socialism but facism to me. and it means the cuts are going to hurt the people at the bottom especially with no jobs. i don't understand this or am i image all of this? >> guest: thank you for your solid and civil questions. it is true there were big interest in america that were conservatives. the trust and the big companies who got their way. roosevelt and his cousin didn't like them and we had an anti-trust law and action. right? and that is one special interest group. roosevelt on the other hand created his own special interest group. we are speaking of franklin. senior citizens. the veterans. the worker. and that helped him win the great election and rewarded them. no one should be in a group. we should be seen as an individual regardless of race, gender and so on. and that went away with franklin roosevelt and it was all about groups. he liked women's group and thought they should join with labor and fight for political advantages. you see one grouping with the trust who were for the tariff replaced by another political grouping. i agree we should be aware of them but i way we should be aware of both. >> host: what was the relationship between coolidge and hoover? >> guest: not pleasant. >> host: why? >> guest: a lot of this isn't about what your politics are like. it is about what you are like. hoover was the smartest guy in the room. i have a hard time liking him because he is arrogant. coolidge said rude things about him. not public but he wrote them down and we can read the books. he was secretary of commerce and vice secretary assistant of everything else because he butted his nose in everywhere. he was like the puppy that pushes himself in everywhere. it really bugs coolidge. no body is perfect but this really bugged him and it didn't show advantage because he would get sour with hoover sometimes. and hoover same saying i have of of these votes. and if you have them you better keep them. when hoover had to run again in a terrible time when they needed the gop would loose coolidge was sick. his heart was bothering him and he went out and campaign and gave speeches for someone he didn't like. there is interaction between coolidge and sterling, his secret service man, and they would say when the down turn comes they will want him to spend money but not enough and the democrats will come in and spend even more. he thought hoover wasn't like him. that temperament thing and would cause trouble and was more of a progressive and by that time coolidge was no longer a a progressive. >> host: what was his relationship with the tr family? >> guest: very interesting. the daughter of roosevelt was his good friend. they were in the same circles. mr. longworth mattered. he was an important republican and was speaker of the house or something like that. alice came to like president coolidge and president coolidge came to like her and when ally was going to have a baby she ran to the house and told ms. coolidge who was was a beautiful, nice lady. coolidge lived under his shadow of roosevelroosevelt. obon his on -- on his honeymoon he went to canada and on the papers cause roosevelt this. as he grew up, as a politician governor and in washington, he wasn't roosevelt's kind of progressive at all and you can feel the tension. coolidge didn't believe in sliming your peers so you will not find a lot of it. >> host: charles in connecticut, go ahead. >> caller: i wanted to ask you about the person who edited the book review session of the tribune and was featured in a book called "the making of middlebrow culture" which was about the attempt to treat the general reader of someone of intelligence and had an interest expanding their horizon and someone like virginia west, someone you like, could garner an audience. would you stab middlebrow culture of the '30's with whatever we have today. >> guest: i think it would be called highbrow culture, wouldn't it? because we are less bookish than we used to be. she was the girlfriend of wilky. and he was married. it is sad, but true, can't change the truth so we draw it. he was his mousse and helped him figure out he cared about the forgotten man who wasn't in a particular group. middlebrow is a little mean because it has a tone that is c cond scending. we can't even imagine how important the tribune was. and laura ingles rider daughter and dorthy thompson, the woman who challenged hitler and it made the discussion interesting. we are loosing that now. you can see in the cartoon book the artist loved her. see is the most beautiful in the book. and made a lot possible in the 1930's. >> host: from our facebook page, did coolidge transfer donte's divine comedy for fun? if so, has it been published? >> guest: i cannot find it, but i looked. he studied aaitalian and latin t amhust and there is information about him falling asleep in greek. he had a wonderful classical education. julie nelson, at the forbes library pointed out a letter that said i want my son to be educated as i was. i don't want philosophy to be changed at all. so his formation and knowledge very literary for a president was important to him. >> host: amity shlaes, coolidge has lost a lot of talk in the whitehouse -- lost his son -- >> guest: things were going well, they missed harding and they had two sons. and calvin junior defies expectations. he was the second son and worked in the tobacco fields outside north hampton. someone said if my dad were in washington i sure wouldn't work in any tobacco field and calvin, jr. said if your father were my father you would. he understood service. and someone wrote a letter now you are first boy. and he said i am not first boy because i didn't do anything to earn that title. he didn't like derived status. what a wonderful child. and he was taken in the cruelest way by infection. they had no anti-biotics. he was 16 years old. he was off for it summer and it was because of a tennis blister that who died that went septic. and you can read how the president agonized because you are the most powerful person in the world but you cannot save your child. >> host: >> host: when and where did grace and coolidge die? >> guest: coolidge died in january of 1923. it wasn't a good time. he was wrong about history he felt but he looked forward. and grace much, much later, i believe it was the 50's or 60's. she was the first aerobic first lady. she would march with the special team and president coolidge would get jealous and fired one of them even. that was his worst behavior. he fired his secret service man in the dakotas because she came back a from a walk late. ms. coolidge tried to help the man -- he wasn't fired truly but transferred. she visited the girlfriend's tea house to help the economy because she felt bad her husband fired jim, i think was his name. that is the hot coolidge. there was a hot coolidge. you just didn't see it a lot. >> host: joseph, pittsburgh. good afternoon. >> caller: i wanted to ask you about the rating system. the standard day rating system. you have murdoch getting a large portion of the s&p. there is a vested interest, isn't it? >> guest: there is a lot of vested interest. we are making the cost of this public and the details private. the ratings agencies need competition. they don't need reinforcement. if an agency is failing and the agencies didn't predict the trouble there should be an opportunity for new agencies. >> host: amity shlaes, this e-mail from jerry in ann harbor. what do you think about money in politics? for example citizens united? >> guest: i don't have much to say about that. but coolidge was very careful and went through after having a washington office because he didn't want to take a lot of money. one reason he was able to become the vice presidential candidate is many of the candidates in '20 were discovered to have taken money from this or that interest group. >> host: why don't you want to say about it? >> guest: i don't know a lot about it:. >> host: is there anything coolidge should have done different? >> guest: a lot of people say coolidge caused a great depression. there is not a lot of evidence about that. but he could have supported fair trade. he would have had to move the whole party. he could have reduced tariffs. as the executive, he had the authority to fool around with them. he let it lie, though. he didn't like change or discretion a lot because that does its own damage. but he was a creature of his period. you cannot ask people to go outside his period so we didn't. i think that is the main one. >> host: andrew, logan utah. about ten minutes left in the program. >> caller: thank you for your work and educating the upcoming generations on economics. my question is related to the lost science of money and any parallels you see with economic philosophy of coolidge and what do you think of the work of steven? >> guest: thank you for that. i know logan utah. i don't know zurlanga. is he a hard money author? >> caller: in 2003, he spoke before the u.s. treasury. the book he has written exhaustive work on the bases of economics and how money is defined and used in the philosophy. the book again is the loss silence of money. >> guest: thank you. i say coolidge was a hard money man. in fact one of his -- guest >> host: what does that mean? >> guest: he was for the gold standard. in 1896 he was just coming out of college and one of his first debate was about the gold standard. and he was scared but he did it and he said i improved and began to understand this area because i was able to debate it. >> host: e-mail from joseph. calvin and ike were not as much a daily news item as the modern presidency has become. please have your guest comment on this. >> guest: ike had that because he was general in a terrible war. i find i work with ike people often. bruce coal is a great friend at the foundation and it is that uh-huh -- humility -- of someone who worked hard. >> host: mike is on the line. >> caller: i am hooked on this and going to buy the book tomorrow. you know this was a civil rights disaster during this presidency. for someone who appeared moral and would return money. what did he do for civil rights? black people? women? what about the workforce? >> guest: thank you for the question. very important question. what did he do for civil rights. more than his predecessor or some of his successors. women got the vote and he supported that. they voted in the 1920 election and one reason harding was the candidate was because he was handsome and that was supposed to affect the women. for the blacks, coolidge as a grown man was pretty admirable. you can see, for example, someone wrote him do you think a black man has a write to run for congress and he wrote back a letter i cannot believe you would even ask that question. and coolidge in the '20s, kkk was the main group and he gave a speech saying no more kkk in his second term out west. that is pretty tough. i don't see much evidence coolidge was racist. he didn't desegregrate areas but neither did anything else. he believed the federal government can fix everything but if the economy is better things will get better. and that happened with lynchings and the kkk declined in the course of the coolidge presidency especially in terms of membership in the clans. he wasn't a civil rights president but he wasn't the shape of the cities as you suggest -- shame -- >> host: i want to remind you this month we have chosen the "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" as our book club selection of the month. it came out in 2007 and the graphic novel just came out this year. if you go to our website you will see book club, click on that, and go in and make comments via our website about the book and we will be holding a conversation throughout the month and you can comment when you feel like it. but this will begin this afternoon. our book selection were the month of june "the russian gas matrix: how markets are driving change." phillip in fort mitchell, kentucky. >> caller: a question to you. what was the extend of facist thoughts on fdr's recovery program on the new deal? much is written about the communist but recognizing this thought didn't carry then the baggage it does now. >> guest: very important question. one should ask "what works" -- what was the extent of this where everyone thought fascism was awesome. and the question of civil right and that was regard wasn't focused on. it wouldn't be just fdr. but it did influence him. i draw a picture in the cartoon book of the new dealer going to italy and checking out the fascist farms and it influences them and influenced republicans as well. germany versus russia depends on who you hate more. >> host: from the "the greedy hand" and this is a quote that seems to carry through in your work or how you -- public choice theory, any other industry wants to survive and wants to compete, like a business in the market it will work hard to damage challengers and other parts of the government. >> guest: that is right. public choice theory is an odd name but an important philosophy. and george mason university, where it lives, has become a power house since i wrote that. james bucannon, the philosopher i learned from, is gone but his students have said government is another operator and now higher than the private sector. that is taught now. tyler cohen or pete becky the dean of this area teaching this. and now many young people are learning this interest relevant school of economics. >> host: again your next book? >> guest: "the silent majority: a history of post-war america" is my next book. >> host: when is it coming out? >> guest: soon! >> host: and this summer at the calvin coolidge foundation what can they find? >> guest: please come and judge the debaters we will train you. and come to the anniversary of the swearing in. home schoolers of new england and partners with dartmouth and kids are there all summer talking about economics and presidency. >> host: this has been in-depth on booktv on c-span 2. >> c-span created by america's public service 35 years ago and brought to you by your local television or cable provider. >> we continue with glen greenwald who talks about his meetings with edward snowden in hong kong and the revelations we revealed. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good evening. i am bradley graham the co-owner of politics and pros. and my wife is here. on behalf of the staff we would like to welcome you. we are can lighted --
North-hamptonIllinoisUnited-statesAlabamaAustraliaBrooklynNew-yorkFort-mitchellKentuckyManhattanConnecticutMexico pushing those up at a level they could not afford. . .national recovery association? >> guest: the government's deal that would stimulate the economy was given this giant plan to make the industrial sector booming again. roosevelt signed it early on it in '33. when you look at law it is a bunch of political impulses expressed on a piece of paper, instatued and then enforced. so the impulses were economy of scale is good. big is always better because at that time we because at that time we are all hostage to fashion. the economy of scale bigger is better was hot. bigger is always better and you want to question that i am not sure if it is necessary. another premise was consumer choice is bad. if the consumer pics he slows down the assembly line. because if u-uniform and u-uniform is faster and better. you told that to the starbucks shareholder because it is a product premised on choice. we can take that extra 18 seconds to pick exactly what kind of milk to have in our law take. they believe choice slowed it down and you can't even in the case if you couldn't even pick your chicken from the chicken coop you have to take the chicken you've got in the name of efficiency those are the principles in that law. >> host: from 1929, octobe october 1929 to 1940 how big does the government get, what was the change in the tax revenue cracks. >> guest: the government got a lot bigger than before. imagine a country until the 1930s the state had in total a bigger government in washington. he went there may be a few felt like it but you couldn't get sick. that is what the family thought there was an air conditioning either. it didn't seem to me to go there. what mattered was the state capital. he always said that the united states and plural. they were at the power then in the 30s the government began to spend first under her birth h to her and then of course under franklin roosevelt and by about 1936 if you look at the charts and the tax foundation from the government you will see all of a sudden the federal government is bigger than the state. that didn't happen before but now in peacetime we didn't really go back. that was the change is that as great as we got now backs nowhere near as great as might be five, 617, eight, nine or ten. but it was a lot bigger than before and it was the expectation that it was the rescuer, the three d. manner, that was the new thing in the 1930s. 1930s. >> guest: when you think about hobby lobby. they have a religious concern about the health care law. maybe it relates to something that's important to the owner which is contraception or abortion. it was challenged and what was interesting and i've wrote about this in the national review, too, it was challenged by the case that had an element of real agenda in brooklyn new york, and i liked them very much. one of the pieces of fun was researching the sectors because they didn't expect the government to make them heroes that the government challenged them and invited their business from breaking the rules including letting people pick their chicken. maybe the government contended that they sold a sick chicken. they were going to go to jail. they were paying the wrong amount or maybe too little in him wage component. maybe people were working different hours and rules and a sony were addressed. they were selected politically. they were selected to beat the case because they did have to be tested. it was an emergency law and then they were for roosevelt. >> host: yo the right they were frustrated to government didn't understand the consequences of its own allegations. they broke the code and that was all the government lawyers understood. but to suggest they were not fit is also to suggest something that they view it as far worse. it was to suggest that the kosher slaughterhouse wasn't really kosher so unworthy of customers and other words the poultry code officers have done something worse than angered the sectors. they had affected their dignity. >> guest: this is something interesting. you have the washington law and the higher power. in the census we looked up the sector and it says about their father, the rabbi. maybe it means he's read a lot of books in the congregation and what it meant is that he was a serious father when it came to religion. they would be shamed in their market and community. and you want to remember today health is a big story. they had no antibiotics just. so it happened often that it was bad. must have tuberculosis all the time so this was a life or death obligations for the sectors. that's what makes the case kind of interesting you see one against another they took it very serious. there was attention and i tried to bring that out because there is an element that makes sense so they had one old o law and oe new fighting with each other. >> host: clearing out the forces that brought the crash in the first place seemed to be the new dealers. it had been a year of experiment. 1934 would be a year of prosecution. it wasn't for th of the qualityt you expect. in the new deal you have some spectacular growth numbers that you are not getting back to where you started. if you find success is back where i was in 1929, we were not there so the government got angry and they began to assign blame and go after companies prosecuting him a new way. one was the poultry business and in the forgotten man i talked about a much more significant company, the great electricity man in chicago they are like the tramways we have in chicago and he y one year to the city and it was wiped out by the prosecutions of people that grew up in chicago never heard his name. i never knew he built the opera house where i went with my father said there was a sort of the racing of business leaders through the prosecution. they were very aggressive business. he called it the princes of properties which he was more aggressive than either party would be. >> host: post their conflict with people speaking out against it was at u-uniform of people were supporting him in his efforts? >> guest: people knew the business had some responsibility in the crash. mr. whitney here in new york and so the economy wasn't getting better maybe we should blame them more and roosevelt felt the public was on his side and he prosecuted these people then he won 46 out of 48 states. there was also dissent particularly in the newspapers. to get our modern technology. you can see a lot of the papers were skeptical about whether it would bring recovery. they went after the treasurer to imagine one secretary now going after mr. paulson or mr. greenspan from the other arab they went after the treasury secretary in the 20s and mr. 30s mr. morgan paul did that and he ordered his staff newgistics ordered his lawyers to go after mr. melvin just because it kind of felt good. very grason and political. one secretary brings down another. i was going to say the newspapers noticed this. they were less progressive and less left-leaning than they are today and they fought back quite a bit since the new deal. >> host: how did the tax code change? >> guest: well, the great achievement was to bring down the wartime tax levels. the taxes have gone quite high. coolidge and harding and even wilson about the taxes down to the top marginal rate of 25%. 25% is often they think 25. then already under cooper because of the trouble and the downturn after 29 it went up into the 60s and roosevelt pushed it even higher so that i don't know, when our parents were younger it was in the '90s come even 1950s the top marginal rate many of us look at was in the '90s and roosevelt said no 25% of the have to pay more. he also liked whil both taxes. the most diverse for the attacks in the new deal was the so-called undistributed profit tax. what's with wax lets see, you save your money, don't distribute your money, that tax is controversial and it was a big new deal idea to get the rich people holding onto their money they must disparage it to the government. >> host: here's a letter that you include in your book the forgotten man from fdr to the irs commissioner. dear commissioner, i'm closing my income tax return for the calendar year 1937 with a check of $15,000. i am wholly unable to figure out the amount of tax for the following reason and then it goes on to list the reasons. the president of the united states cannot figure out the tax code. >> guest: i can't figure out what the authorities want. they tried. it's kind of mischievous and amusing and kind of lovable and that is an example of him playing the lovable and humble. i can't figure out my taxes to the dark side of that is that he could ask and not get in trouble. a lot of us have dealt with the irs they don't always tell you what's right. there is a lot of uncertainty and that caused sphere. it was pretty ironic that roosevelt himself couldn't figure out his taxes and we talk about that in both versions of the book. >> host: welcome to the in-depth program and this month we are in our new york studio with historian and a common us and the nich amity shlaes, the e within which came out in 1991 followed by the forgotten man and a vancouver which is her most recent book safe for the graphic novel the forgotten man which just came out as well and you reference to this. >> guest: this is a cartoon history of the great depression. it's very popular. the graphic novel of the cartoon books that are like movies. i think they are like art. it's not dumbing down, so we took the artists and made the whole story and pictures and some of them are little because the tax rate has been overruled. a lot of the new deal was about people not getting what they thought they would get. we often failed. there is a lot of sorrow in the new deal when the government figures realize the policies were not working so we try to capture the humor of that and in the back of the book there is a cast of characters. every character is drawn beautifully so we are offering this as a teaching tool and a lot of people use it as a gift for clients because it is a fun take on the new deal. >> host: but there is a superhero. who is the superhero? >> guest: wendell wilkie. he was the electricity man who had accompanied the thought he would light up the south. instead they trashed the compa company. the book is a self the story becoming angrier and angrier and the climax of it is when he speaks truth to power. by being so obnoxious with business and putting our documents think we are hurting the whole country because we cannot hire people. if you are bitter you don't get very far. you can be angry. i love drawing and more seeing paul draw him. he comes out in the end and has the lowest claim that existed in the news and the literary editor of the tribune so that was going to draw her and i want to say thank you to the familie familyt have all helped me with learning about wendell wilkie. there is a great attorney and his brothers, so that was a fun story. and if this book is a demon and we had trouble trying to decide thabut i didn't vilify him but i don't know i guess it is henry morgenthau and then there is also a great figure for saying what the government meant i think i could be fair to say it's like rahm emanuel today. he's a little bit of demon in the cartoon version. he was the head of the farm security administration and it didn't even make it but he was definitely the bright mind. the economist, the enthusiast, very lovable but wrong in my view and he was thrown out because he was too far left and he went off looking for a job and we traced back. but i admire people who served even if i don't agree with their ideas because service has cost. >> host: 202 is the area code if you want to participate. 585-3880 in the east and central time zones, 585-388 585-3881 ine mountain and pacific time zones. if you can't get through on the phone line and still want to communicate try social media. @booktv is a reporter handle you can send a tweet for our facebook page facebook.com/booktv or e-mail booktv@c-span.org. we will be taking calls in a few minutes. you seem to be working your way backwards through history. start with the 30s and now your last book, calvin coolidge. >> guest: i like positive stories. the forgotten man could be called how they blew it. they are democrats and republicans, politicians through prophecy -- policy. how do you make something that better? you think about eastern europe and they say that it's easy to make fish soup from an aquarium. they did fix the economy so it's kind of an inspiring story and i went back to it and i looked at president harding who did more than people say. he has a terrible reputation. if he were a stock he would be in the toilet. you read these as stocks. he was wrongly evaluated in history. how harding and coolidge and he does deserves a much higher rank so that became a lifework restoring this hero unknown. c-span gives him some time but most people don't. let's see if we can give him the everything that he deserves. he did have that tax rate that's lower than ronald reagan. he balanced the budget and he cut the budget and today if somebody gets on c-span and they talk about cutting the budget they mean reducing the rate of increase. coolidge actually cut the budget. you can go in the same tax foundation tables and in the government tables and the national accounts that he cut the budget. so why didn't we know about this quiet silent guy? i became very intrigued with him and wrote his biography. >> host: and in the book that came out last year, you write that coolidge wasn't particularly proud of being president. he walked around quietly touching things from time to time and smiling to himself. he still wore the suspenders of a vermonter and that made him a site in the great quarters. nonetheless starling also sold at coolidge wasn't afraid. he slid into the office naturally. after all the pediments over the doors in the office were not so different from those of the governor's office in montpelier. >> guest: that's right. there are different notions of how you use the office. so, theodore roosevelt, doris kearns goodwin, in my pool but i'm going to enjoy it. we all know people who do their job as if they are driving a racecar. this is my racecar, my paper, my office. he said i'm serving and i am here as a servant. a very old-fashioned. it's not about me. of course i mean. but i'm going to try to suppress it in the name of service. very different conception of politics and i was attracted to this. i think there's a lot to learn from it and a lot of others are attracted, too. i took a snapshot this spring at the foundation in plymouth vermont where he's from and if you look at his grave is it isn't bigger than all the other ones. it is huge but the coolidge monument is pretty small because he believed in modesty. he wasn't comfortable with what was going on at mount rushmore. maybe the heads are too big. he did into the lead in the great men of history. he was all about service. you think of cal ripken junior the baseball player that also shows up for good. they are generally about service. and that mark is on the presidency. what you see when coolidge is fixing the environment because there were scandals when harding was a -- he was meticulous about cleaning up. i think that he did make a living aquarium fish soup. he absolutely a port of the scandal. the exploitation of the presidency, how much? while committee would cut the name out of his suit because someone would sell them as the president and make a profit commercializing the office. it's what they accepted from the gifts, there were not many. they made his son dress up for dinner and play around at the white house. he was strict but it was for a reason. we are serving the public. we are not just here because of our self. >> host: how did he become the vice president and what was the relationship between harding and coolidge? >> guest: he was with harding just to remind the viewers. i think that he wanted to be the presidential candidate and he had a good argument. he was the governor of massachusetts and as of now there is a big issue may be very far, maybe take over the cities. that is what happened. remember, there is an enormous pommel after world war i and the workers were not paid well enough. they were right about that and the inflation and it is somewhat similar. they were at that time thinking about it and in the chain of command he was at the top for the police in boston. the policemen that for his constituents mostly irish he was famous for getting the irish voted into the gop was the immigrant party, there were rats in the station houses. he had 18 reasons to go on strike. they affiliated with a nice union, not the communist union and they were fired and coolidge backed off the commissioner that fired them. he said there is no right to strike against the safety by any wind or anywhere or anytime. >> the public sector was going too far and here was the governor drawing the line the way the governor can and you see that and everyone looks. then they actually lined up behind the governor. he had showed up. i don't think they should because there were riots and death and he had to call out the guard in the state. everyone riding in on the train with bayonets and it was terrible. he thought he had an election coming up and thought i might not win this. you could see that in the correspondence with his father. a wonderful book that we have. well maybe i am not going to win this time. but i think it was the right thing to do yet he was reelected as the governor and that gave him a national standing he went on the ticket of calming things down. normalcy was the phrase and they did get along although as i noted in the buck this is harding was tough. she was hard on mrs. coolidge and mrs. coolidge was younger. every color looked good on her and mrs. harding -- they are evident and mrs. harding didn't want them to have a very nice house so a hotel was fine. but there is no evidence of dislike between coolidge and harding and harding did something extremely magnanimous. he invited the president into the cabinet meetings. not every president did that. he was grateful because being vice president is purgatory as many of the noted. and therein the senate he was still the president of the senate but the real president was of course the senator from his own state and massachusetts who gave him an unrelenting hard time so he was grateful to harding and respected him and very sad when he died in the summer of 1923. >> host: very quickly before we go to calls where did calvin coolidge become the president and how long had it been since he had seen warren harding priod prior to that? >> guest: we hope the viewers will come this summer to that anniversary in early august when he was sworn in by his father and his father's authority was that of the notaries. he was a notary, justice of the piece. a very small in the middle of the night and some of our loyal members at the coolidge foundation are notaries. one of our board members is the longtime head of the notary of the national notaries because that's something very american. they said mr. coolidge hell do you know you have that authority you can do that? well, nobody told me i couldn't. it was in august of 23 don't let me get this wrong at the birthplace plymouth vermont not far from massachusetts if you drive up the road we will read out loud aaloud the autobiograpd reenact. >> host: what is your association? association? >> guest: i'm the chairman of the foundation which is in plymouth. we have a house we drive up there and visit and look at the town and we are partners which does an outstanding job of managing this historic site. it's in northern monticello. please, bring your grandchildren and go to the foundation you can sign up to read aloud from the short money savings and the autobiography. >> host: how did you come to that position? >> guest: it was founded by john coolidge, the son of president coolidge. it supports the state and together we built a building where we have classrooms for the kids from new england to the kids from new england, all year to work with our educator. i have two wonderful colleagues, the director executive who made a coolidge blast that you can sign up for and he said no and yet they got plenty and we have another colleague who is going to be blogging for us. he is giving a gorgeous audio of the president's autobiography. and my favorite thing about the site is no excuse to not come that if you don't, if we have a web cam just like at this key resort you can see the president place winter and summer what the weather is doing if you feel like going so we hope everyone comes. >> host: martha in maine e-mails i have listened to you for years on c-span. why did you switch from the economy to the biography? perhaps it isn't such a big jump giving the economic slant to your historical perspective blacks. >> guest: hopefully one could do both. he was a living economic avatar for the markets. he really was the president economics, so i made that trip and i think that it was worth it because i learned a lot about economics through coolidge into sometimes you can learn better through a person and i think many people were about not only economics of course the lo but f other things, patients, the law, leadership. >> host: amity shlaes, prior to working on the books and on the coolidge foundation, what else have you done? >> guest: i'm a journalist so for many years i worked at dow jones at "the wall street journal" and the editor there is the reincarnation. he was the reincarnation of the editor that we work for, and if you look he is gone now but he was an editor and you will see it was kind of a shy smile and the other journal, robert bartley had a little tackle and i understand although there is no audio, coolidge had a tackle a thoughtful man so a lot of people you have on your show were trained by mr. bartley. my husband and the editor now david brooks to write that "the new york times." you go out in the world and one writer after another was shaped by bartley and his leadership and character. >> host: he was the editorial page editor. >> guest: he wa >> guest: he was technically the editorial page editor but out of respect the trustees called him editor. sometimes there was tension because the side said wait a minute are indeed be editor in the news? but they did give the title to bob barkley. that's where i trained. >> host: 585-3881 in the mountain and pacific. a amity shlaes is our guest. rockville maryland, you are on the air. good afternoon. >> guest: good afternoon, peter and a amity shlaes. enjoying the show this afternoon. i lived in washington, d.c. right outside of washington, and in washington, d.c. and the downtown area, there is a large brick building that was built in the 1920s that's called the district of columbia jewish community center and there is a different picture built during the presidency of the 20s and they ha had to the initiation wn it was open and then that depression in the modern times. what struck me is that president coolidge went to this building when it was opened in the 1920s and it was unusual for a president to do at least i thought and he went there and gave this wonderful speech about how jewish people and christian people could be friends and neighbors and how it featured u2 their friendship with him and his administration that they would -- that this great building would be opened up and i got the impression -- i've never read anything about this but being a historian and i want to ask you about this, he was a very good friend of the jewish people, the jewish citizens in the united states -- >> host: is that your question? -- amity shlaes. >> guest: you know, i've been criticized for not writing enough about his relationship in the coolidge biography. he had a relationship for a methodist. you can see them. he really had a respect for faith. he would go all about to talk to every group. the coolidge did a conference call with jewish philanthropists in the 20s that were famous in my book because he said i like about your people that you try to take care of your own. that is a very old-fashioned idea. he said that to all the groups. you build hospitals or what all. he understood how important the faith-based charity was. that's kind of gone from the culture now that they had to be built by somebody. it didn't have to be the federal government. and in the same conference call that he did with the jewish leaders coming to talk about budgeting and he acknowledged something. he said it's kind of an obsession with me. they made me seem like a scrooge but you understand if i budget while it will be good for the country. the interest rate will go down. i don't do this because i'm mean but i do it to help us all and he kind of confessed some of this in the conference call that you can see him talking negatively about the plan to the veterans. he talks to every faith. >> host: you referenced somebody earlier at the coolidge foundation. we have a call coming in from new hampshire. >> guest: this is him. >> guest: can you tell us why you came to coolidge? >> host: first what do you do for the foundation? >> caller: i am of the program editorial associate it so i organize all of the events so like the july 4 reading he was the only president who won on the fourth of july. i organized it and we will have our high school debate program on july 8 come attend an august 1. we need judges. everyone please applied. so i organize those and i do research about president coolidge and blog about him. i run the social media for the foundation, and any other things that matt and amity shlaes want me to do a century. >> host: and what is the answer to how did you come to calvin coolidge? >> guest: . >> caller: i was at a symposium this past february and i was one of the behind-the-scenes helpers for the speakers and a amity shlaes and i started talking because i read her book previously and we kind of hit it off and fortunately i went on to graduate my master's degree in political science and she said he would be great for this job so i applied and the rest is history. >> guest: what do you like about coolidge? the qualification is that he found coolidge. the main thing i love is that he left the government smaller when he left office it's important for the government to be limit limited. he's like a new england original in my opinion. the american people rewarded him for that and i think that in politics today we don't have to see all of our enemies as the devil in order for us to win. the younger people are the readers of the coolidge foundation. >> host: we may never see the likes of him again. we seem on track to value personality more than platform. >> guest: i don't agree. i think the caller is rate only when interest rates are low. when we have economic trouble in a country like the united states we suddenly look for character and someone that can execute certainly policiepolicies. when the "coolidge" book came out it was the same time ms. thatcher died. and i had to write a column on what she was like. the tory party would never have picked her when times were good. they wanted to be compassionate and forgive student debt or whatever it was. put nasty edges on the conservative party. but england had real economic trouble and someone had to say we have to cut back. and then the more substance candidates. even the tough ones become attractive in that situation. so it is hard for any party to have a dramatic policy oriented candidate. interest rates will not always stay low in the united states. hopefully we are preparing to have people of substance ready to lead when that moment comes. >> host: you refer to or calvin coolidge refers to himself as an administrator. >> guest: he wrote to the hebrews to sit under the trees and being terrified of referring to the bible. he said he thought of his job if the provider. >> host: harbor springs michigan you are on the air with amity shlaes on c-span2. >> guest: was at one of the major problems that it was deflation, and by the extra price. he kept the country from dipping into the extremism and the overwrite. >> guest: you've hit on the two main things that we hear. it can be fatal for an economy and the other is that president roosevelt as a moderate. it's terrible the way that they were better than hitler, that of installing and mussolini. that is what we grew up with and many of us feel that. there was deflation in the 1920s into the economy didn't die. it ran in between on television. they are about a lower price. it is lower prices. it can be good. in the early 30s there's a lot of deflation during the international events that credited bunch of factors. what i found in reviewing the forgotten man boo by candidatesa lot of research and years and years america wasn't ready to go. we work to follow hitler and mussolini. the u.s. and i love the clothess that i found when i was researching by a european woman journalist so they come over to see the great john lewis or how we are having our revolution and she was honest enough to write what i found about american labor is american labor is conservative. it's not the way it was in europe so i guess that is a long way of saying to the caller that i don't think that we need to say roosevelt saved us from communism or extremism because as a people we were not ready. >> host: where did you grow up? >> guest: chicago. >> host: what did your parents do? >> guest: my mother was involved in politics had worked for the governor walker who was the key governo governor kind oe jimmy carter, not a machine democrat, and my father was a real estate appraiser and developer. >> host: where did you go to school? >> guest: sometimes they say the school of hard knocks. i don't say that. i went to yale in connecticut. i didn't get to graduate degree the following college i had good luck to get a fellowship to go to berlin germany, and that was the beginning of my journalistic career because i wrote little articles for "newsweek" and "the new york times" or the correspondence and from berlin and at tha the time the wall was still there. >> host: it came from your travels in germany did it not? >> guest:. they didn't think anything would ever change. i didn't think it was going to change necessarily and we have two kinds of stories that we wrote. there was a correspondent amed ted sangar who i worked with at news week and we wrote about how people did currency arb triage and take the money from the east because it was make money compared to the west german money. or we would write is hitler coming back? i interviewed a man who was a guard of hitler in the bunker. >> host: this emails is from harry ram. given germany's history its need for aialer the reliable source of energy and experience since 1914 will germany turn west or east or play a greater role between? >> guest: i think she will play a greater role. if you want to be optimistic about life you should look at germany. there is confusion now. but i remember when i started my career they were quite suspicious. they should never be reunified because they might go again. you can even see that in mrs. thatcher's reaction when the wall came down. well i don't know. germany did a pretty good job of unifying and being a wonderful country. and it's a leader in europe and it's close to russia. you don't understand the constraints. i never did until i saw the kremlin wall. you can't understand at germany at all and to let you see russia and you can't understand scandinavia until you see russia and no what they are up against and who might march in any day. there is no obstacle they just march along for a day or two from the east that is. so i think they are often only situated to the broker. they have a lot of historical memory and just a very important and interesting country in which we should place our faith. >> host: how many generations before they lose that? >> guest: you think about the hyperinflation in germany there was a hyperinflation where your money -- >> guest: that was almost 100 years ago, 90 years ago. they remember that. and that is one reason that germany wasn't the country to have the crisis. greece was. they remember that. some things people remember more than one generation. hyperinflation is one of them. there you go. succumbing it's important that you know you see them maybe hitler was right or so on. it's not the way that it was when they wouldn't dare say that. but sitting here i still have a lot of faith in the german policy. dick calvin coolidge deal with the fact that they were going through? >> host: this is a weak area for coolidge. he said you see them coming down the road nine of the ten would go in before they get to you. he didn't like to intervene very much. sometimes he would have intervened. he understood that europe needed interest rates to pay back its debt so imagine europe and the 1920s is like a person under water in the house. they didn't earn that much. so the treasury secretary said let's see if we can get that lower interest rates. in the lower interest rates that the administration pushed they were nowhere near as well as ours today. and you realize absolutely. they go bankrupt and default and not honor that. but they didn't understand is at the same time they were being nice, they were being nasty with tariffs. that was the goc policy. they make it harder to earn money so you can't pay back the debt. it was an absolute failure and contradiction by the republican party which coolidge ever fully acknowledged and what i like very much is he had a friend that worked at j.p. morgan international finance and figured out that they were not good for europe so he shifted the books to try to instruct his friend in the tariffs and economics and he said i've read these books. i've already been through them. but i discovered in practice they work. he just got through telling us how. welcome here's what i discovered in the research. i was trying to figure out how could he be for the terrorists and this is what they debate. when brian lamb was here and they deviated the protection of of plymouth notch, the answer is from the point of view of the little company. if you have a lot of pressure from labor from your employee saying we want our money and higher pay you can't pay the higher pay unless you're prices are protected and you have no competition from abroad. so he was for the terrorists to cause his party was but also because they reduced in the short term labor on the rest. so i have never figured that out, but imagine that you are of the factory. you don't want competition from overseas. maybe you can pay better wages if you have no competition. that's something that is lost to us in our memory. they forget what it was like to be a factory owner with the competition coming from europe are coming from australia you have to lower your prices. it was the scenario that was in the economic education. >> host: edward in new york you are on amity shlaes. this is booktv. >> guest: . >> caller: good to talk to you again. i would like to know how you feel as the current president in new york city and if they employ some of the same techniques that roosevelt used whether they succeeded or not in raising taxes on the rich and the commerce and the middle class today. >> well, thank you for that question and it's good to talk to you. the coolidge foundation has no opinion on that. it is a bipartisan foundation. coolidge himself when you look at the record tend not to like that kind of thing. i took tend not to like which government and i don't think it is the answer in new york. new york has the blessing of being a gorgeous pedestrian trading capital. when you raise the tax rate what happens is those millionaires, where do they go? they go right to florida and they only come here on some of today's depriving new york of the key capital gains revenue stream and maybe they may want to study it. that is what keeps it going to take the senior citizens around, that's what pays. and when people choose to realize capital gains or somewhere else because the new york taxes so heavily or taxes their income so heavily they lose the revenue that they need. so usually that is an education process and usually they discover that. we have a new mayor and he's kind of a redistributionist class lawyer but he doesn't understand that in new york when the wealthy thrive there is a trickle-down because that is how the pensions are paid. >> host: how they try americans crazy and what to do about it you write about the tax system and that the government likes the fatal illusion. we should tax and tax and spend. that roosevelt's advisor. federal tax revenues jumped by tens of billions by the korean war the correction from the income and profits taxes was $50 billion. more than 25 times what it had been in 1940. there were those that questioned the progressivity. he was one of those, but you write that most economic thinkers and politicians from left to right and embraced it even the most famous of the austrian economist that endorsed a progress of rate structure in those years allowing that some progression of direct taxes need not only be permissible but necessary to offset the tendency of the indirect taxes. >> guest: this is what i wrote a long time ago. the greedy hand, that is from thomas payne, the government making our prosperity is pray. and they actually know the progressivity is. most americans don't wear a kind of know, but what it is is you have a base rate and then they go up as you earn more money for the last dollar is taxed at a different rate than the first. the average isn't your marginal top grade under the progressive code. the rich pay more they just pay the same rate with more dollars. there's a great confusion about that. the progressivity is used often as they class to attack a class. it is a way of garnering the revenue to spend money in new york or anywhere. but it's also a class attack. let's make it harder to earn the last dollar. one of the things we looked at so often in "the wall street journal" and i know the journals told us and this is the history of the journal when you go back to explain when you tax the last dollar of the last marginal dollar people might work less. they might go to another state, europe, luxembourg, they might rearrange their income so you can't see it or put it in bermuda were so long. either way, it is a deterrent. it's human nature. should i try that extra hour? that is the concept i was trying to get. and of course he made the code less progressive. president bush allowed the taxes to go up. president clinton let them go up more. and of course we brought them up again. the progressivity is for the politicians and that is another of its negative aspects. i think as bad as the progressive rate is if you know who the top rate is it is so obscure and complicated that people just gave up. we definitely need a tax structure that people can understand and we don't have that right now. >> host: next call comes from jeff in forest grove oregon. >> caller: good morning. i was so pleased when i turn on the television and i thought you were going to be on. i enjoyed the book immensely. one that people don't hear or see much anymore and he's a humble man and understated man is one you spoke about the illinois governor daniel walker. i think that he was probably the only illinois governor in my 60 year old lifetime he was not invited. is that right clicks. >> guest: he was, but only afterwards. in illinois it seems a lot of them go to jail. you don't go to jail for the savings and loan issue. >> host: did you have any other questions? >> guest: were you hoping i wouldn't say that? [laughter] >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i grew up the next state over. franklifranklin roosevelt is als been frustrated by the fact that he was so popular but yet his programs, as you say, did very little if anything to help the nation recover. and i guess the question that i have is that because he then became after a few years of a celebrity. certainly wendell wilkie in 40 roosevelt crushed them in the elections so i just wonder how did he become almost godlike to so many people in the country if i may put it that way. >> host: thanks. >> guest: that is worth a lot. an educated and cheerful man. and he has that -- with his own disability and people knew about that, he was fighting and they should fight too and to this day you can't help admire when we drew him for the cartoon but i didn't want to draw the discussion of it but i didn't want to capture the energy that you see when you look at a cartoon book. the cartoon book. we show him swimming for example. by 1940 the war was coming so people were not voting on the economic policy. they were voting on who is the better leader. roosevelt had served in the department of the navy in world war i. he was the navy president and he knew everything in the east coast personally and americans knew that and that made him a good leader for the war that was on the atlantic coast to start. so i think what are the presidents elected on? you've seen the right one even if he served before. >> host: in the forgotten man, you write that the republicans of 1940 were bitter. were they concluded accurately enough that the sideline would be not only their parties at their record of accuracy when it came to the economy? they had been right so often in the 1930s and they wouldn't get credit for it, the great era of the isolationism is what stood out and the bitterness made them small. >> guest: that's the way it is. one reason we like coolidge and the executive director of the foundation is he was so positive. he would criticize the substance but not people. in the long run when you criticize people, you fail and in the short run you when. but you see them making this error over and over again let's attack those people instead of their policy and it was through the war trumps economics. it's kind of a sad story for those that like economics but the war will trump every time. in the news and in the opinion it is that much more important. >> host: how close did wendell wilkie actually come to winning? >> guest: he won a lot of popular votes. he won more than hoover in the back of the book. >> guest: he was a businessma businessman. wendell wilkie was a businessman and hoover was coming too, that he beat hoover. he hadn't even heard of him a few years before but he wasn't a ververy good at that electoral politics so he didn't get a lot of states. he was like i don't know. a lot of people that we know in that way. he didn't get a lot of states. we have the electoral college process. so i taken very seriously. he did go in 1940, and i think that contributed to his loss. he opposed to si the six monthse in the big campaign. >> host: jack says was at coolidge's decision not to run related to his sense of humility or something else, did he sense that it would end tax. >> guest: both. he didn't want to be responsible when it ended because he knew how hard it was for the government to say no. he knew the government should say no but he didn't know he had the stamina. remember he had been president for quite a while in the term and a half. the two preceding people in the office had been more or less killed by it. harding and woodrow wilson. it was a difficult thing to be president and he didn't want there to be saying no anymore. he vetoed 50 times while he was president. he is a low character because of that i don't think so. but like washington he thought you should go back. he writes about this quite eloquently in his autobiography. he says you better change presidents from time to time, i'm paraphrasing, but something to the effect everyone panders to presidents and they become vain. one of the things i want to say about president bush 43 is that he understands that and works very hard to make whatever he does now his library and so on dot about him, but about his service. it's awfully hard to leave the presidency when you're at the center of the world and become no one, but you have to do it for the republic. he absolutely explicitly made this point. and i want to add was his party grateful that he was so noble and so on and so forth? not at all. they wanted to kill him because he would have won. so he was all alone in his sanctimony as we often are when we do the right thing. they didn't say you did the right thing. they said you trust the party by not running again and that was hard to take. >> host: he announced it in south dakota, correct? >> guest: i don't think that was an accident. i hope to go to south dakota. i had a nice correspondence and i'm friends with the president of the university. i want to go because here is what happened. he went to south dakota for vacation for a number of reasons. one is that was an agricultural state that didn't do very well in the 1920s with agriculture he was trying to get the votes for the party and another is that he wanted to promote the american tourism that was taking off and as it happened while he was there very nearby the sculptor was sculpting away to make mount rushmore. and coolidge noticed that if he was saying give me appropriations for this great bust of theodore roosevelt and lincoln, washington and jefferson. did coolidge approve of this? not particularly. did he give an appropriation of? yes. through andrew melling. but he didn't really like the big presidency as we mentioned before, if there is footage of coolidge at rushmore honoring in some way the beginning of the sculpture and you can see his incredible discomfort with his adulation of presidents and he gets carried away and says he should be on the wall. he didn't like that. and you can go on. there's more to the story if you want to talk about it but he really didn't like the grandiose executive. .. >> guest: interesting people are asking about this. there's some correspondence among the hardings that said can we have someone else instead of coolidge as vice president next time in '24? but unfortunately, harding passed, he died in the summer of '23 when that swearing in of coolidge happened. and coolidge was absolutely meticulous in his demonstration of respect for the hardings. mrs. harding stayed in the white house with her doggy, i believe he was an airedale, and he had a special black mourning ribbon on his neck, and the coolidges had to cool their heels until mrs. harding felt like moving out. rather line lynn don johnson -- lyndon johnson, peter, to fulfill harding policy to perfection. he was the caretaker when he came in the way lyndon johnson was caretaker after the sudden death of president kennedy. and coolidge didn't say and now we'll have new policies since his unfortunate accident gave me this job. he said i will fulfill what we promised in '20 to perfection, and he executed the same things harding had promised, but i would argue more efficiently. he took it farther. >> host: ron, stillwater, oklahoma, good afternoon. this is booktv on c-span2. amity shlaes is our guest. >> caller: yeah. i have a show comment and then my question. you might be -- >> host: go ahead, sir. >> caller: -- sure and let people know that there is a broadcast delay between what they hear on the phone and what they hear and see on tv. and then my question is, have you done a comparison between coolidge's time and the more modern government, seems like the government keeps getting bigger and bigger and more invasive on our personal rights. i just wondered if -- >> host: thank you, sir. god it. >> guest: great question. yes. i've written a lot of articles. my book about coolidge is a history book. there isn't much today in it because history speaks for itself. but i've written a lot comparing coolidge to modern leaders and so have other authors. i'll name some for you. one is charles johnson who wrote a book called "why coolidge matters" which addresses directly what analogies we can see today. there's another book that was published before mr. johnson's. in fact, by the coolidge foundation and the notaries with all kinds of politicians, democrat and republican -- i believe michael dukakis is in there -- writing about why coolidge might be a model today. one of the groups we often hear from, whatever party, both parties are state controllers. they want to know about coolidge because coolidge was the maestro of budgets. he was the isaac stern of budgets. so whatever their party at the state level are, officials have to control bums, and they turn to -- budgets, and they turn to him over and over again. >> host: and i'll just mention to ron from oklahoma, that's the reason when you call into c-span and meg tells you turn down the volume on your tv, that way you don't get confused by the little bit of delay. just listen through your phone, and you'll, it'll be on tack. john in grapevine, texas, you are on c-span's booktv. john? >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call. my question for you is on the book which i just finished and enjoyed very much. what was it when you decided to write the book, were you surprised that there hadn't been that much written about calvin coolidge? and what really drove you to write the book? >> guest: thank you for that question. when i was writing "forgotten man," i realized the '20s were really pretty good, and i didn't see a lot of books about them. so i went and looked, and i thought i'd write a book about the '20s, and then i thought, oh, my gosh, this man, the president personifies the '20s. let's try and do him. there are some excellent earlier biographies of coolidge. all of us stand on the shoulders of other people, and hopefully we don't trample on them, we honor them. one of them was so bell. unfortunately, he's gone, but he wrote an economic biography of coolidge. phillips andover the big fat bio of coolidge a few years ago. there's why coolidge matters, the two volumes, and there's always more to come. i noticed bill bryson wrote about him in 1927. i mean, one way to ask this question again is why look at texas? because it's what the united states could be if it were growing faster. it's kind of a model. you're from texas, right? why look at coolidge? he's what we could be, very inspiring. he's better than ronald reagan in many ways. oh, my gosh. that's blasphemy, right? but it's true. so i like the dare of that. here is someone whose tax rate is lower than reagan's. let's figure out how much better he is than his reputation. >> host: dan cecil, athens, alabama. ms. shlaes, you describe coolidge as a prequel to "forgotten man." would you suggest a new reader read "forgotten man" before coolidge? >> guest: no, i would suggest you read coolidge first, but i don't know if i pulled it out. we're all connoisseurs of "star wars", right? and we have our opinion about which show to see first. i would say read "coolidge" first, and i would also say please read the graphic novel. it is a new genre for standard history as far as i can tell. although there is a book "march" about the lawmaker john lewis and civil rights that's beautiful. please have a look at this. we're hoping to translate into it spanish. and, because we have so many hispanic readers who are interested in the material, sophisticated about it but might be learning english and aren't up for a 500-page book as, indeed, most americans aren't. >> host: bill from jacksonville, florida. hi, bill with. >> caller: hello, good afternoon. i have a very pithy question. but first, i'd like to get an opinion from amity. amity, please name the conservative presidents serving since 1900. what is the import -- >> guest: oh. name the -- >> host: bill, go ahead and finish -- >> guest: oh, sorry. >> host: finish your thoughts, bill. >> caller: well, i would like to get the import of the answer that she provides. >> host: you'd like to get the import of the answer. what do you mean by that? >> caller: i mean, what is the significance, what does it mean? >> guest: well, i like a lot of presidents. one of my conservative presidents is john f. kennedy, because john f. kennedy understood that free enterprise is very important. and you can see that in ira stoll's new book which i'm sure has been on this show. another is "coolidge," is -- coolidge, another is reagan. i like a lot about eisenhower myself, too, and his humility towards job recalls coolidge. and you see the debates now about what kind of memorial eisenhower should have and should it be grandiose. truman i like too when he went home. he didn't make a show of himself. so, well, what are you getting at? >> host: bill is gone. i apologize for that. what about ronald reagan? george w. bush? >> guest: oh, i like the bush bes very much. you know, i was a germany scholar when germany happened, and i was astounded how well president bush handled that, 41. and i -- >> host: the fall of the wall. >> guest: fall of the wall. because we could have trampled all over it. we could have gotten away. maybe we didn't like the way they did their currency union. their currency union was kind of suicidal because it made labor too expensive in east germany, forcing unemployment there. but we could have gone over there and said you can't reunify germany without doing it our way economically. but the u.s. pretty much sat back. you want to give credit to the statesmen who were involved. zelico, i think zoellick, maybe condoleezza rice. i haven't been thinking about this today who, secretary of state, right? who all went and said, oh, it's okay for germany to reunify. i respect that. and president bush behind them -- on germany's schedule, more or less, germany reunified. wow, there was much more spin in england over it. oh, my gosh. they had stronger feelings, right? about germany. so that, i will never forget that president bush 41 did that and the skill with which he did it. he just saw the moment ofly, he was able to work with helmut kohl. about president reagan, it's been said -- i think the viewers have heard this before. i'll say about bush 43 with whom i have worked at the bush presidential foundation that he understood the economy, and he fought to reduce government when he could, in the tax area particularly. those tax cuts right, you know, as he came in early, you know, were very good for the economy and made a recovery of quality. >> host: you're watching booktv on c-span2. every month we have one author on and his or her body of work. this month author amity shlaes. we've heard a lot about her history, some of the places she's worked. she's also the author of these books: "germany: the empire within," 1991. "the greedy hand: how taxes drive americans crazy and what to do about it" was 1999. "the forgotten man," a new york times bestseller, 2007. "calvin coolidge" last year came out, another bestseller. and just this year, "the forgotten man: a new history the great depression, the graphic edition." came out. and i want to let regular viewers of booktv know that every month we have a new book for our book club, and this month we have chosen "the forgotten man," either the original edition or the graphic edition. so if you would like to read along, it's about economics, it's about the depression, you can tie a lot of things in to today as well, amity shlaes' "forgotten man" is our book club section for the month of june. pick up a copy, digitally get a copy and join us in reading. if you go to booktv.org, you'll see right up there at the to be -- top there's a tab that says "book club." and beginning this afternoon we will start posting your comments. we want to hear what you have to say about "the forgotten man," our book club selection for the month of june. well, tonya davis is the producer of this program. she's down in washington, and she works with the author prior to the show, and we try to find out a little bit more about the author, some of her influences and some of the books she's reading right now. here's a look at what amity shlaes said. >> booktv of covers hundreds of author programs throughout the country all year long, and here's a look at some of the events we'll be attending this week. look for these programs to air in the near future on booktv on c-span2. on wednesday we'll be covering michael waldman, president of the brennan center for justice at new york university law school. he'll be talking about his book, "the second amendment: a biography," and he'll be speaking at the national constitution center in philadelphia. on thursday night, booktv will be in columbia, missouri, at the daniel boone regional library hosting a talk by travel writer william pete moon, he'll be discussing his best-selling book, "blue highways." on that same night, we'll be covering james oakes on his book "the scorpion sting: anti-slavery and the coming of the civil war" at the new york historical society. and then on sunday, june 8th, we'll be at the center for african-american history art and culture in aiken, south carolina, to record south carolina congressman james clyburn talking about his memoir, "blessed experiences." and that's a look at some of the author programs booktv will be covering this upcoming week. for more, go to booktv.org and visit "upcoming programs." >> here's a look at some books that are being published this week. jack devine, former deputy of director of operations at the cia recounts his 32 years of service in "good hunting." in "sally ride: america's first woman in space," journalist lynn scherr details the life and career of the first female astronaut. journalist nell bernstein argues the juvenile prison system does nothing to rehabilitate young offenders and needs to be reformed in "burning down the house: the end of juvenile prison." in "america: imagine a world without her," dinesh d'souza analyzes the sociopolitical climate in the u.s. civil rights scholar charles cobb describes the role guns played as a form of self-protection in the 1960s in "this nonviolent stuff will get you killed: how guns made the civil rights movement possible." in "big money" ken vogel, a reporter for politico, reports on the impact the citizens united decision has had on politics and democracy. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week, and watch for the authors in the near tush on booktv -- future on booktv and on booktv.org. >> here's a look at some of the upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country. this weekend booktv is talking with authors and publishing executives at the publishing industry's annual trade show, bookexpo america, in new york city. watch booktv in the coming weeks to see these interviews and more. on june 7th and 8th, we're live from the printers row lit fest. that weekend also features the first sacramento black book fair. and on saturday, june 21st, the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library will hold their 11th annual roosevelt reading festival which features numerous author talks on the 32nd president. look for our coverage on a future weekend. and let us know about book fairs and festivals happening in your area, and we'll be happy to add them to our list. e-mail us at booktv@cspan.org. >> host: amity shlaes, you list willie brant is as one of your greatest influences. who was he? >> guest: well, the part that made me be influenced by him were his speeches as mayor of berlin during the period when the soviets and the east germans put up the berlin wall. and as i was answering this question about a month ago in preparation for the show, i was listening to billy rund speak out from berlin to communist that they were doing wrong by erecting this wall, and he said, in english he'd say the sow -- soviet union gave her lap dog, the east german regime, a little bit of string, a little bit of leash, that's all that's happened. they're just rooting up, they're wrecking all of international law. by building this terrible berlin wall in my city. and the way he did it was so dramatic, so tough. and here was the little mayor in a big, international game. it was geopolitics, and he stood out for his toughness like a tiny dog himself fighting against the monster of the soviet union, and i was just touched by the bravery of the speeches. why did i mention him? because the audio of that just became available. so you can hear old german radio and hear exactly what transpired as the german democracy was built. we have the same thing with mayor daley of chicago, what he said in the '60s. that's fun too. >> host: you also list a woman named sofie raven. >> guest: let's give her some credit. that was my fifth grade english teacher, mrs. raven. we all have a teacher or two like that. sofie raven was a wonderful teacher and had a lot of faith in her students. you know, you just have that one teacher that says you can do it. she was that teacher at the university of chicago laboratory school in 1970. i hope her daughters know how much we all adored her. sophie raven. >> host: laboratory school. >> guest: it was a school that belongs to the university. >> host: and what was -- was there anything different about it, its curriculumsome. >> guest: it was founded by john dewey, the great educational progressive. it was just basically, i mean, we still had things that were different like girls did shop in those days that was new. but it was supposed to be a laboratory for education and, of course, the education students at the university of chicago used it to run little experiments, but they weren't too intrusive. >> host: is that the school that the obama girls went to? >> guest: it is. it is. and, you know, one of the wonderful things about that school is that it was always integrated. so i remember having black friends and white friends, and i only learned much later that was not the average for the rest of the country. and you'll see great friendships came out of it across races where race did not matter. >> host: 202 is the area code if you want to dial in and talk with amity shlaes, our author for this month's "in depth." 585-3882 in the east ask central time zones, 585-3881 for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones. if you can't get through on the phone lines, you can also get through on social media. @booktv is our twitter handle, facebook.com/booktv, and finally you can send an e-mail to journal@c-span.org. the next call for amity shlaes comes from greg in ohio. hi, greg. >> caller: hello there, how are you? my question -- >> host: fine, sir. please go ahead. >> caller: my question is, has to do with the portrait of calvin coolidge that hung in the cabinet room during the reagan presidency. i find that significant. i find interesting. i'd want your, the author's thoughts and comments on that. >> guest: that's right. president reagan, thank you, ohio. president reagan gave the coolidge portrait rom innocence by putting -- prominence by butting it in a prominent -- by putting it in a prominent place. i believe it was moved after reagan with somewhere else in the white house. i happen to have a picture of myself with president bush taken under it, you know, some visit to the white house. i just don't know which room it was in. so it's not as though coolidge was cast out of the white house which some allege. he was, he was moved around. i think the significant part is the moving in of coolidge, many republicans don't really like him, and reagan understood. i heard stories about coolidge, reagan when someone tried to assassinate him, he was in the hospital, and he was reading a bio of coolidge. i don't know which one, probably the bio. oh, he cut taxes how many times? one, two, three, well, gee, i hope i can do that. reagan admired coolidge. >> host: some people who know your economic philosophy might be surprised to see paul volcker on your list of greaters influences. >> guest: well, paul volcker is a man of character, and he does what he thinks is right no matter what party it is, and i like that very much. and he's been a great friend to my work even though he doesn't agree with it because i'm not a monitarist, and he still has a lot of that in his philosophy. this is the former fed chairman. and, you know, he has been extremely respectful of my work as has, fortunately for me, chairman greenspan. so i, there's something about monetary authorities that i like, and they like me. what i see with volcker is why is he here though besides that we're friends is that when the interest rate needed to go up, he put it up even though he knew that would force the recession. and the fed chairman is going to have to do that again one of these days. hopefully it's a coolidge or a volcker who dares to do it. >> host: amity shlaes, you're working your way backwards as we talked about earlier. depression, fdr, willkie then coolidge. what's the next project? >> guest: well, the next project is actually forward, so we're making a trilogy of triptik, fending on your -- i would like to make it visual as well. so it goes forgotten president, that's calvin coolidge, forgotten man, that's the 1930s and then silent majority which is the book for which i'm under contract with hard per collins. this is -- harpercollins. i think you would just say it was bad america that was a little suspicious or skeptical of the progressive project and marched forward and did pretty well, and it sort of seemed as if right sector -- private sector would prevail. the emphasis in this book is a new emphasis for me but one dear to my heart and my passion which is urban planning. i don't -- i'm kind of -- i like the great philosopher jane jacobs who doesn't like big planners who came and build things -- built things for government purposes or for private sector purposes that had little to do with the community and who believe that neighborhoods grew organically. actually, jacobs and high yak are alike -- hayek are alike in that way, the economickist philosopher. a big group comes and says there needs to be a 30-story tower building here because we feel like it, and the tax lawsuits that. that doesn't mean it's good for the neighborhood. and what i hope if i can to add value, what i hope to add value with is my portrait of the abysmal work of urban renewal, of the terrible failure of urban renewal along with welfare, along with all the great society programs. but especially urban renewal. and, you know, how many cities have we wrecked? we asked earlier in the show why do people like new york? well, we like new york because it wasn't totally wrecked by robert caro. this will be a controversial book -- >> host: by robert -- >> guest: the great empire builder, the man who wanted to run a highway through greenwich village or all those places, the children you know want to buy condos from all over the world because they are pedestrian zones. so i want to write about the kind of stealing of the soul of cities by modern planners, and that will -- people don't expect that, but i'm going to give a lot to that. i think that planners are to blame for a lot, just as hayek said. >> host: next call for amity shlaes comes from gary in st. simon's island, georgia. hi, gary. >> caller: good afternoon. the reason i was calling, i've gotten at least two of your books and a number of your columns, but i particularly wanted to ask you in "the forgotten man" after the 1936 election roosevelt and the democratic overwhelmingly democratic congress passed a tax increase, and as you mentioned in the book, the unemployment rate which had slightly gone down after the depression or was starting to go down then jumped back up, and world war ii saved it. i want you to fast forward, and i don't know if you do any predictions, but i see the affordable care act that we're now implementing and rolling out and chief justice roberts has famously referred to it -- or infamously, i should say -- refers to it as a tax. do you see any parallels between the two? that's kind of the basis of my question. >> guest: well, i personally do, yes. i think too much law is unfortunate. coolidge said give administration a chance to catch up with legislation. you know, too many laws create a kind of social chaos. and when nobody thoughs the answer, then everyone starts to feel sneaky. of it's bad for civics as well. so i see a parallel, yes, between some new deal laws and the affordable care act. others may not. >> host: amity. >> lace, for whom do you -- shlaes, for whom do you write now? >> guest: right now i write for "forbes" print, david malpass, my good friend the economist, and i also write for national review. and i want to say just because i've been writing for them just a couple of weeks, national review is an awesome crowd. they make a lot of noise. they're a party that's fun to be with, and they are particularly interesting on the subject of faith. so wherever economics and faith come together, which sometimes they do, or i've never met such an interesting, receptive audience. >> host: do you maintain a web site as well so if people want to get the aggregate columns that you do? >> guest: oh, not right now. right now all is for service of coolic and the -- coolidge and the coolidge foundation. what we'll be doing all summer is bringing young people up to the coolidge foundation to debate economics. so i write for the coolidge blast which is edited by rashad and matt denhart. >> host: and do you still have an association with the manhattan institute? >> guest: well, i do chair the jury for an important prize recently won by casey mulligan of the university of chicago, the hayek rise. and be this is the prize for free market journalism. and it's very exciting. this prize will be awarded on the 25th of june. the two, you know, finalists behind casey were ger stand das of india for india grows at night and -- [inaudible] and the can co-author, i think is -- [inaudible] i'm sorry if i mispronounce it for another good book about india because india's key right now, is it going to go free market or not? and we hope they're all coming to the awards dinner on the 25th. what casey does, which is hard to do, gets at that issue of marginal tax rates we spoke of before. he establishes not what the law says, but what the effective marginal tax rate, what it really is even, you know, when the law, sometimes you'll have a law where it doesn't say in the statute, but was there's a surcharge, that's the functional, effective marginal rate. what he's doing is the work of showing what the rising tax burden means. >> host: and casey mulligan is an economics professor -- >> guest: he's a professor at the university of chicago. i don't believe i've ever met him, but i -- the jury found his book extremely solid, and that also gets at our theme of substance. it's not a polemic, it's extremely hayekian, but it doesn't say i don't like the other guy because of obamacare. it says here is the evidence that our recession was made worse by government redistribution. and he basically indicts those who would argue that income inequality needs to be fixed. he says by redistricting in our attempt to stop inequality we made the recession worse. so that's some statement. >> host: casey mulligan's book, "the redistribution recession." amity shlaes, you also say that you're reading elizabeth warren's book. >> guest: oh, i am, yeah. no, and my husband actually wrote a column about it. elizabeth warren is concerned about bankruptcy and how hard it is for people down at the bottom. and i share that concern that's "the forgotten man," right? her approach might be different from mine, but her concern -- and she writes about it beautifully -- is worth paying attention to. nickel and dime is a book that -- >> host: barbara aaron right. >> guest: how you're, i don't know, trashed when you live at the bottom. all of us agree that at the bottom and in the middle it could be better. we disagree how you so that problem. >> host: ralph nader recently wrote a book talking about how the left and the right are coming together on many of thesish shoes. >> guest: well, it is true. i once started writing a book about emma goldman -- the great left-wing anarchist -- and ayn rand, she's a great libertarian. who are they? they're two russian girls who came to america and made a lot of trouble, right? but very, very interesting and not that different because there's right anarchy and left anarchy. we're all closer than we believe. >> host: frank is calling from the center of ohio, wooster, ohio. hi, frank. >> caller: hi. thank you, i'm fortunate to get a call in. my question was back under the roosevelt era when you mentioned the working weren't really ready for communism that much at that time. and i read whitaker chambers' book, "witness," and those statements in there where he almost alluded to hopkins, the right-hand man of roosevelt, as a communist and how our policies were so affected in the war from a communist influence on our government more than just stealing secrets, etc. and then on to a marcia west book, russian archives and a lot of confirmation. so i'm kind of wondering has our society moved in the direction more towards communism than it was then or less, or is it it about the same? because i see a lot of pushback on the debates, and i just -- i don't know. i don't have a feel for that. and just a comment -- >> host: thank you, sir. >> host: very quickly. >> caller: time's up. >> guest: thank you, sir. >> host: just a second. go ahead, frank. very quickly. >> caller: well, there was -- i can't remember the name of it, korean war vet sponsored by south vietnam on trips back to south vietnam, and the young children even thanking them for their service and maintaining grave sites, etc., and be in effect saying thank you that we're not -- north korea, i'm sorry, and that's south korea. and thank you that we're not north korea. so i'm kind of wondering about that. >> host: thank you, sir. amity shlaes. >> guest: thank you, frank. i think there are two questions. the first is what happened in the '30s, and there's a lot of debate about that. it's a hot topic. what i discovered was many new dealers were influenced by communism. and others have rib about that -- written about that, including ben steele and diana west. whether they were traitors, that is, did they work for the communist government? i'm not an expert on that. certainly, harry dexter white is especially key and did work for the other government, for the other side. but you want to draw that distinction because if you get caught up in a fight about who actually works for communism, you ignore the important part which is which of our policies were influenced by communism or, for that matter, mussolini was a great hero over here in the '30s, and that's what's important. so to that, no, i don't think we're going communist now at all. however, i do think -- and i think you're getting at this too -- that we're giving, those of us who know that markets are good and that freedom is good are kind of giving away the future when it comes to education. and we, we're awfully cavalier about it. there's a big emphasis right now on politics, you know, and it's an election year, you can only talk about the candidates, and nobody talks about how little young people know or how we might communicate with them. it's my work for the rest of my life to know that younger people know stuff. they can make up their own minds, but they have to know stuff. and that's what the graphic novel is, we have the coolidge foundation. we must give the young people a chance to engage with these ideas wherever they come out. >> host: kevin e-mails in to you, amity shlaes, i always thought the modern day equivalent of calvin coolidge is mitch daniels, former governor of indiana, current president of purdue. >> guest: i try not to compare people to coolidge, and one of those is governor and president mitch daniels. what a mind and what a temperament. he's a lot of fun to be around, that's important too as vooz svelte showed. another is paul ryan, another is ted cruz. do i endorse these people? no. i'm just saying who has a coolidge-like bent, that is to say cares about budgets viscerally. some of this is temperament, isn't it? we were talking about coolidge and money, he liked to hang on to his money, even tired a white house house keep enwhen she -- when she spent too much, right? that was coolidge. and you want to look which candidate has the temperament that he likes to save? who were those guys? who likes books? who likes to keep books? who likes excel? coolidge would have loved excel had he lived. >> host: you write in your biography of calvin coolidge that his salary was $75,000 which was a lot of money back then, but he had to pay for food and housekeeping. >> guest: oh, and he didn't like it. why do we know this? because he offended a lot of the white house staff because he wasn't a very good tipper. scrooge, right? and they wrote books. it was just as now, it was just as bitter, and one of them, the housekeeper, told her story to cosmopolitan, owned by hearst and published. she really wanted to succeed. she went around in a horse and carriage to to shop for the white house, and she would say, look, mr. president, look at this spread. we talk about pork today, we mean it figuratively, especially on c-span, right? budgets, pork, you know? items in the budget. she said, look, look -- coolidge took it literally. look at my dinner for the foreign diplomats, coolidge said that looks like an awful lot of ham to me, mrs. jaffe ray. you're spending too much of my money, and soon she was gone, and he replaced her. we have the documents where her successor, who kept better records and didn't shop in specialty shops, went to, i don't know, the supermarket or something, the new supermarket. of all her savings and every time she overspent, the new house tokeeper, she would -- housekeeper, she would explain why. so this is not just he was nasty, though i'm sure he appeared nasty. it's that he was principled. if he wanted the nation to save and spend less government money and veto things people might even need or wadly want -- badly want, then he better live quietly himself. and he did. >> host: herbert hoover, that's the first federal presidential library, correct? >> guest: i believe so, yes, sir. >> host: and calvin cool you can was the president right before that. >> guest: right. coolidge wasn't too friendly to the idea of a federal presidential library, and i've spoken about this with president bush and other leaders. the presidential library law is a great gift because the government supplies the librarians. they have a wonderful librarian, alan lowe, at our library in dallas by smu, right? that's a government -- the presidents have to build the building. and president bush and, you know, his father before him and certainly president clinton and president carter labored mightily, and they raised the money for the building. you know, it's a partnership. the president raises a lot of money, and the goth supplies -- the government supplies the scholars and archivists. it's a wonderful marriage. that was too much for calvin coolidge though, he didn't like the idea of being partners with the federal government. though he gave some things to the library of congress and the archives. he thought a politician should be friendly with the state. that's where it was. i almost laughed. i shouldn't laugh. or even with the town. so he kind of cut off his archival nose to spite his face because he gave a lot of stuff to the library in northampton, massachusetts, where he spent much of his career as a young attorney, rose in politics, and he gave, you know, some to, some of it was in vermont. and in his spirit, we partner -- we, the coolidge foundation -- with the state of vermont. we don't partner too much, although we've taken grants before, with the federal government because the president would have liked it that way. and john coolidge himself, we did get a large federal grant, called it pork. the son of the president. the coolidges have a bit of a hesitation about taking federal money. long live the coolidges. it's very interesting. but as a result, there's no grand library to coolidge. he would have liked it that way. we're going to make the coolidge site in prelim moth notch a grand monument to restraint. very interesting. the anti-- how do you make a monument to someone who hated monuments, especially to himself? we have young people debate there and see his beautiful house. he didn't live over the store like margaret thatcher, he was born behind it. there's a difference. one donor gave the money, so the wires could be buried so it would look old-timey like williamsburg. another got easements, paid for easements so houses wouldn't be built all around so that prelim moth notch would look like it did in coolidge's time when it was a tiny electricity-free village. so it's a different kind of monument but very, very compelling, plymouth notch. >> host: michael phillips asks via e-mail, for an english major from yale, where did you get your profound knowledge of economics? >> guest: oh, thank you for calling it profound, i don't know if it's. one is i worked in eastern europe, and when you work in eastern europe or are position zed to it -- exposed to it as i was, you realize what doesn't work. and that is a collective government. i want to give credit to my father, jared shlaes, who is an economist though he is in real estate. he taught me a lot, and his business experience taught me a lot too. finally, wall street journal. got to say that, right? >> host: elaine is calling in from getted that da, colorado. thanks for holding, you're on with amity shlaes on booktv. >> caller: yes, i've enjoyed "the forgotten man," and that's the only booktive read from you, but i would like to ask you what the teapot theme, dome scandal had on the harding and coolidge, and i'll hang up and listen to your answer. thank you. >> guest: oh, thank you. so elaine wants to ask about teapot dome. teapot dome was the scandal of the harding administration. what they wanted to do sounded kind of good. the government had extra oil. well, they should privatize that. sounded like something the reason foundation might advocate, right? privatized excess reserves. but the way that the harding administration did it was too close to friends for comfort. friends got contracts, people who gave money, new people who got contracts, and so it became teapot dome which is the name of the place where the oil, where the energy was. a scandal that lived down the centuries in name. there was another scandal much relevant to today regarding veterans. they had a new veterans bureau. it was supposed to build hospitals. instead, people took kickbacks, and the veterans suffered in pain. and remember, many veterans in that period returned from world war i, one-third disabled, and there were no antibiotics. so you can imagine all this money was spent and often for corruption. the head of the veterans bureau, charles forbes, ended up in leavenworth prison. so that was harding, you know? where it was his -- whether it was his fault, it was his fault at least in his choice of friends, and coolidge was extremely horrified by the whole thing. you can see the physical tension. there was, i think it's fort myer, a cannon went off every morning at sunrise and he'd say how i hate that sunrise noise, because he knew that every day as vice president he'd be deeper embroiled in a scandal that was not of his own making by any means and about which he probably knew very little. so as president he endeavored to clean up, to shine up the presidency again. and i think he did a pretty good job. >> host: and just a quick clarification, marsha grace e-mails in that when you were talking about hur newest book -- your newest book, that you mention to be talking about robert moses, not robert caro. >> guest: oh, i'm sorry, you're right. i'm getting tired. i'm sorry. robert caro wrote about robert moses -- >> host: right. >> guest: getting tired. i love robert caro's book. >> host: and david holmes e-mails in: in the '20s, fascism rose to the commanding heights of the economy in italy and germany. our current president and big government supporters appear to want government again to command the economy here. is there anything coolidge had to say in opposition to fascism in the economy that we today can use as a guide to protect our constitutional freedoms? >> guest: oh, well, men do not make laws, they do but discover them. you didn't really like a lot of law which comes with big government, fascism or no. he always respected the individual. have a look at his vetoes. they're poetry. you know, i like veterans, but if i help one group, maybe i'll hurt another, that forgotten man. right on the senate web site you'll see beautiful statements by coolidge. >> host: amity shlaes, "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression," is your book, and david e-mails in this interesting fact, the german version of "the forgotten man," has a subtitle that translates to "a new view of roosevelt, the new deal and the state as savior." why the difference from the english version? >> guest: well, actually, i don't have it in front of me, so i can't confirm that, but it doesn't sound wrong. because the german version understood that so-called austrian economics would get the forgotten man. and austrian economics isn't about roosevelt, it's about the state being too big. hayek was a kind of austrian, right. >> in that pill soft call school -- philosophical school. and the germans and the austrians understand all this philosophy about how government being too big. and i am sure that germans like to poke at roosevelt, too, because he was their enemy in world war ii. but the book itself was not changed. it's the same book. and most of the german leaders i hear from -- readers i hear from want to talk about economics, not president roosevelt. >> host: brad is calling in from studio city, california. brad, good afternoon. you're on booktv. >> caller: good afternoon. good afternoon. thank you for taking my call. >> guest: good afternoon. >> caller: i'm a big fan of your books, mrs. shlaes. i got both "coolidge" and the other one, "the forgotten man." question for you, right next to calvin coolidge is my book called the forgotten conservative about grover cleveland. did coolidge have a thought about cleveland? >> guest: i don't know, i don't think so because i would have nosed. you know -- noticed. you know, someone who's very interesting to read about is the poet, robert frost. there's a lot in common robert frost and coolidge. and robert frost actually campaigned for grover cleveland as a child, he's that old. and he got it. it was another kind of democrat, right? grover cleveland was a democrat from today's democrat. all three of them respected property rights. >> host: john in berry, vermont. did i say that correctly? is it berry, vermont? >> caller: yes, sir. can you hear me? >> host: okay, please. yep, we're listening, please. >> caller: greetings from a moxie addict in the socialist paradise here in vermont. great show, amity. i met you last summer at the coolidge event. and you do such a wonderful job with the young folks. but the reason i was calling today is i recently finished a book called "the unique inauguration of calvin coolidge," and it leads -- >> guest: oh, yes. >> caller: and it leads into my two questions. that they drank a lot of moxie that night, and also what i alluded to with the socialist paradise remark. i'd like to put up a big banner in our statehouse that says "what would calvin have done" and beg our vermont legislature today to, please, listen to calvin. and i'd like the hear your thought on it. oh, also is there any chance of getting brian lamb back as a guest? i met him last summer. >> guest: oh, we'll consider it. mr. lamb from c-span came and judged our kids, and mrs. lamb, and then they -- mr. lamb interviewed the kids all dinner about their hopes and dreams, and there's a video of that on youtube. he did a wonderful job. so, question, let's see -- let me -- >> host: what would calvin do? >> guest: calvin left vermont and went to massachusetts, but his dad did serve in the legislature while he was a younger politician. in vermont, well, he'd be like governor jim douglas who himself has a book coming out. he would say, well, moderation in vermont, please, try and cut back the government where you can, where you can, right? that's what he would do. i have great respect for vermont. there are vermonters of all kinds despite the reputation that vermont is uniformly progressive. so we'll say that. and rust orton was one of them, i believe was he not the founder of the vermont country store? is that right, listener? oh, he's gone. anyway, we have plenty of friends of the old-fashioned coolidge in vermont and plenty of friends who might not glee with coolidge's tax policy but love other aspects of him; his respect for the constitution, for abraham lincoln and so on. so vermont is a great place for coolidge, and, of course, we should get a banner. i love the idea. >> host: amity shlaes, on our facebook page a lot of the comments are along this line, and this'll lead to a question. as if the 1% needed one more propaganda, revisionist history, etc., a lot of that. ask then jost -- and then joseph has this comment: amity, retrograde thinking is interesting, but nonsense for our future. globalization and the digital revolution has changed everything. forward, creative thinking is what is needed. >> guest: oh, thank you. well, i'll ignore the first part and do the retrograde part. don't worry about the first part. the retrograde part is what matters. what i noticed about coolidge is how intensely modern he was. his main theme was networks. he believed in networks. as a young man, he studied the trolley network which was really electricity, right, of western massachusetts and what it did to commerce. and in that time you could take the trolley to amherst there north ham on the and back again, and -- northampton and there were three or four different lines of train you could take from boston in to western mass. if you're interested in trains, a lot of us are interested in trains because as vain as we are about the success of our internet network and our linking, we've failed in trains and in some areas of electricity, right? so i see a ton modern in coolidge. the other thing he liked was aviation, aviation wasn't unmodern, right? he believed in aviation as a vehicle of diplomacy. he sent charles lindbergh down to mexico. and i'll say finally to those technicians who say history's old and retrograde, those are the same technicians whose stocks were really challenged in the market crisis, because they were unacquire that policy -- unaware that policy and the history behind policy could affect stock prices. history affects stock prices. it affects bond prices and interest rates. so those who operate in a purely technical area do so at their peril over the longer term. >> host: speaking of peril, you write about tax prepares in your book, "the greedy hand," and i just want to read -- >> guest: that's a long time ago. >> host: i think you'll be able to follow it. unlike other advocates, tax experts don't have a different opponent every time they go to trial. their opponent is almost always the same, the irs. and that irs is not just any opponent. it is the one in the enrolled agent's case at at least that certified them in the first place. i knows them and knows that they have co-signed the returns they prepared. rejection by the irs can be the end of a taxpayer -- prepare's career. >> guest: well, that's right. and it's even more true today. maybe that -- i don't know the technical format, but that's the creepy thing about the current era, is that it's all about who you though and how you get along. so if you go to see an attorney or a tax preparer or a school or a bank, who's on the other side? i'll give an example with the bank. when you go to talk to the bank, sometimes you have -- i have the feeling here in new york that i'm talking to senator schumer, not the bank with. because the bank is talking the regulation that senator schumer wrote, and it's afraid of its regulators and senator schumer. that means the bank isn't working just for me, even if it says outside home equity loan extension or whatever. everyone is we holden to someone -- beholden to someone else in a not transparent way, in an opaque way, and it makes us all creepy and nest. i mean, i read about this in chicagoland, actually, and a problem with chicago. for a city that's an options city where trading is important, chicago is a lot about deals and who you know, and it always was, right? .. >> guest: the government response, and that will be bush and obama, was too large and we will all live the with consequences of that forever. >> host: jeff, fargo, north dakota. >> caller: i have been doing a lot of reading and i think the number one bill that has sent our country in this hundreds years of progressives is the federal reserve act of 1913 and once this next collapse comes will be get back to the george washington and thomas jefferson and take of our own because this $120 trillion of unfunded liability will bury us. >> guest: the list is talking about the law that created the modern fed. it was created as a club for banks to help each other with liquidty in the crisis. their responsibilities have been expanded over the years and now the fed is supposed to run everything. i don't think at the time many people thought the fed would be running the economy in the way we should imagine it should now. a lot of us are concerned with this. thank you for pointing that out. >> host: next call is dean in stockton, california. you are on with amity shlaes. >> caller: thank you for that wonderful biography of coolidge. you changed my mind on him and i think he should rank high and that is based upon my reading in your book. my question for you is if coolidge was here today and he was looking at social security and the medicare entitlement program and how that is making it impossible to lower marginal tax rates and grow the economy, what would he do if he was president and what would amity do if you were president on the issue of entitlement? >> guest: social security isn't that hard. you freeze the benefits so they increase with inflation but not with real growth and that reduces much of the problems like scholars you know have shown. maybe you invite some immigrants in and they pay a social security tax and that takes care of the rest. medicare is much harder. medicaid is harded. those other things. but i would start with something you could do in social security. both parties are making the good, the enemy of the best there. it should be every high school's project to solve social security because a high schooler can learn statistics and do it isn't that hard. i would talk about the cutting the capital gains tax. that would make it easier to cut down other tax rates. the real question is when are challenged and we will be, then all of the steps will be more obvious. i think coolidge would be for a flat tax and best friends with steve forbes. he likes clarity and understand complexity was as bad as a high rate. he would have certainly cut back the veterans service even though he had great feelings about them. and he would have been careful about foreign engagement. >> host: from amity shlaes' book "the greedy hand" social security is a fantasy. a comforting pleasant fantasy. one that has sustained many millions of americans over the decades but a fantasy. washington promised from the start that social security would be a trust. in reality there was no trust. mainly cash flow from con tributers and went out the same day to senior citizens. this was the root of the deception. >> guest: it is. it was edited a few times but that doesn't mean it can't be converted we just have to do it yesterday or today over to something -- if you go back and look at the literature, i think in the "the greedy hand" i had pictures, roosevelt said you have an account as if your name is on it but the supreme court didn't think so. they have cases showing it is their money and we have no account. i think it would be to good save social security and made it a truth not a fantasy because that would restore trust. i have had debates because they would like to stop making payments to wealthy people and i think everyone who paid in should be getting something out of it and not because i think the rich deserve more money but because we should other than this. and in the articles, it is a very important story, right? $2 $2 $2000 from a president but only 6-10 were published. and go for a meeting with the president and the president says exactly what the editor feels, oh, my, gosh, you published ten articles. and then i was asked what did coolidge do because he took out of his pocket a check that was already ready for $8,000. he gave it to the editor. and my students say sucker. why did he do that. it says in the contract and it did say regardless he got to keep the money. what a fool! he did it was, and this is so important, because he wanted people to know he was reliable. that building of trust is what is missing in our trenches of this culture. we are just look, i fooled them, ha-ha. well everyone knows everyone in the world and we remember how we are treated. so it certainly isn't good civics, character, and not even good business to mistreat people you work with. what coolidge was saying is my articles were not what they wanted. how can i improve? you would be more willing to tell me if i give you back your $8,000. much of what is wrong today could be fixed if he head this. >> host: what drew you to coolidge? >> guest: just that's he was quite. not many know his tax rate was lower than regan. and we are betting he is worth restoring because he has a lot it offer. >> host: e-mail, scranton, pennsylvania, earlier in the program you accused of new york mayor of engaging in class warfare, a study done by the congressional budget in 2011 found the top 1% increased their income by about 280% after taxes over the period of 1979-2000. at the same time the bottom people grew by 8% and doesn't this prove there is class warfare going on in this country? the very wealthy against everyone else. >> guest: thank you for that question. i don't believe it matters if the rich are rich but i do believe it matters when the lower makers are not making more. use unemployment as a big program. entitlement taxes continue to want to hold on. i will always ask and i share with you what does it look like at the bottom and what i i do changing it. and the number one thing i would say is for people to invest money here and they will create better jobs. there is nothing more important. this is an inquality debate that is relative to the question of why do young people not earn more. i would ask that. why is the process for starting a business so dense? why are all of the rules there to block when they start a business? why do they have the student loans? one reason is not wealth. they have the student loans because the universities cost a lot because the education is so subsidized. it is all messed up. figure out a way to become great yourself rather than fall into a negative culture of envy. coolidge said you can't help the weak by pulling down the strong. >> host: next call comes from george in wichester, massachusetts. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i had the privilege of visiting the coolidge center in west plymouth and been to the western store and everything you want to know about him is there. i picked up a cassette last time i was there by jan cook -- >> guest: jim cook, yes! >> host: please finish your thought. >> caller: was coolidge's father wo working for dun straight? >> guest: his father was sheriff, he did a million things, but as far as i know he didn't work with bradstreet but he might have. the voice you were speaking of jim cook, cranky yankee, is a coolidge impersonator and he is going to be at the event on july 4th. he is a wonderful reader and actor. he has played coolidge at a lot of my parties for coolidge, too. >> host: michael is in chevy chase, maryland. >> caller: hi, it is michael pact. we are working on a film about calvin coolidge and it is an exciting project and i cannot wait to get started once we get the funds. my question is why did she approach me, and what do you hope to get out of it and accomplish. >> guest: i will tell all about this. coolidge is so great we cannot just be trapped in a book. he needs a graphic novel and a movie. on public television there are not many movies about a lot of our history and certainly not about coolidge who is an in between for roosevelt. michael has new film about admiral rick over and did work on hamilton that attracted me. michael and i and many others are hoping it make a movie about coolidge that doesn't treat him in the throwback way or you know he had great personal tragedy but always looks at the tremendous economic contribution. michael is gone? i will say it is michael pack. man fold production. i thank him for calling in. >> host: in your book, "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" you sent a bit of time on fdr's court packing plan. why? >> guest: it is a big piece of history. fdr found the cases were overturned and he got angry and the drawings of his anger of very good. he said i am going to change the supreme court. and he had the court packing plan after safely winning a big election. 46-48 states. he said if they are too old, some of them can go. we drew him questions the compitance because of their age and you see that today, too. maybe they are too old? the justices didn't like that and fought back and roosevelt's legislation didn't pass and some people said he went too far. that was the story. however many of the cases that the supreme court heard s subsuquent to the packing effort were favorable to roosevelt. so that was with they had the court saved its own self going in the liberal or progressive direction. >> host: ruby is calling from riverside, california. >> caller: i admire fdr because he took on the special interest and fought for the people and established many work programs. my dad was in the ccc and i remember he got the economy going. isn't a reality these elite big corporations and special interest are influencing everything as proved on the bill myer show alec: influencing public legislation. this doesn't sound like socialism but facism to me. and it means the cuts are going to hurt the people at the bottom especially with no jobs. i don't understand this or am i image all of this? >> guest: thank you for your solid and civil questions. it is true there were big interest in america that were conservatives. the trust and the big companies who got their way. roosevelt and his cousin didn't like them and we had an anti-trust law and action. right? and that is one special interest group. roosevelt on the other hand created his own special interest group. we are speaking of franklin. senior citizens. the veterans. the worker. and that helped him win the great election and rewarded them. no one should be in a group. we should be seen as an individual regardless of race, gender and so on. and that went away with franklin roosevelt and it was all about groups. he liked women's group and thought they should join with labor and fight for political advantages. you see one grouping with the trust who were for the tariff replaced by another political grouping. i agree we should be aware of them but i way we should be aware of both. >> host: what was the relationship between coolidge and hoover? >> guest: not pleasant. >> host: why? >> guest: a lot of this isn't about what your politics are like. it is about what you are like. hoover was the smartest guy in the room. i have a hard time liking him because he is arrogant. coolidge said rude things about him. not public but he wrote them down and we can read the books. he was secretary of commerce and vice secretary assistant of everything else because he butted his nose in everywhere. he was like the puppy that pushes himself in everywhere. it really bugs coolidge. no body is perfect but this really bugged him and it didn't show advantage because he would get sour with hoover sometimes. and hoover same saying i have of of these votes. and if you have them you better keep them. when hoover had to run again in a terrible time when they needed the gop would loose coolidge was sick. his heart was bothering him and he went out and campaign and gave speeches for someone he didn't like. there is interaction between coolidge and sterling, his secret service man, and they would say when the down turn comes they will want him to spend money but not enough and the democrats will come in and spend even more. he thought hoover wasn't like him. that temperament thing and would cause trouble and was more of a progressive and by that time coolidge was no longer a a progressive. >> host: what was his relationship with the tr family? >> guest: very interesting. the daughter of roosevelt was his good friend. they were in the same circles. mr. longworth mattered. he was an important republican and was speaker of the house or something like that. alice came to like president coolidge and president coolidge came to like her and when ally was going to have a baby she ran to the house and told ms. coolidge who was was a beautiful, nice lady. coolidge lived under his shadow of roosevelroosevelt. obon his on -- on his honeymoon he went to canada and on the papers cause roosevelt this. as he grew up, as a politician governor and in washington, he wasn't roosevelt's kind of progressive at all and you can feel the tension. coolidge didn't believe in sliming your peers so you will not find a lot of it. >> host: charles in connecticut, go ahead. >> caller: i wanted to ask you about the person who edited the book review session of the tribune and was featured in a book called "the making of middlebrow culture" which was about the attempt to treat the general reader of someone of intelligence and had an interest expanding their horizon and someone like virginia west, someone you like, could garner an audience. would you stab middlebrow culture of the '30's with whatever we have today. >> guest: i think it would be called highbrow culture, wouldn't it? because we are less bookish than we used to be. she was the girlfriend of wilky. and he was married. it is sad, but true, can't change the truth so we draw it. he was his mousse and helped him figure out he cared about the forgotten man who wasn't in a particular group. middlebrow is a little mean because it has a tone that is c cond scending. we can't even imagine how important the tribune was. and laura ingles rider daughter and dorthy thompson, the woman who challenged hitler and it made the discussion interesting. we are loosing that now. you can see in the cartoon book the artist loved her. see is the most beautiful in the book. and made a lot possible in the 1930's. >> host: from our facebook page, did coolidge transfer donte's divine comedy for fun? if so, has it been published? >> guest: i cannot find it, but i looked. he studied aaitalian and latin t amhust and there is information about him falling asleep in greek. he had a wonderful classical education. julie nelson, at the forbes library pointed out a letter that said i want my son to be educated as i was. i don't want philosophy to be changed at all. so his formation and knowledge very literary for a president was important to him. >> host: amity shlaes, coolidge has lost a lot of talk in the whitehouse -- lost his son -- >> guest: things were going well, they missed harding and they had two sons. and calvin junior defies expectations. he was the second son and worked in the tobacco fields outside north hampton. someone said if my dad were in washington i sure wouldn't work in any tobacco field and calvin, jr. said if your father were my father you would. he understood service. and someone wrote a letter now you are first boy. and he said i am not first boy because i didn't do anything to earn that title. he didn't like derived status. what a wonderful child. and he was taken in the cruelest way by infection. they had no anti-biotics. he was 16 years old. he was off for it summer and it was because of a tennis blister that who died that went septic. and you can read how the president agonized because you are the most powerful person in the world but you cannot save your child. >> host: >> host: when and where did grace and coolidge die? >> guest: coolidge died in january of 1923. it wasn't a good time. he was wrong about history he felt but he looked forward. and grace much, much later, i believe it was the 50's or 60's. she was the first aerobic first lady. she would march with the special team and president coolidge would get jealous and fired one of them even. that was his worst behavior. he fired his secret service man in the dakotas because she came back a from a walk late. ms. coolidge tried to help the man -- he wasn't fired truly but transferred. she visited the girlfriend's tea house to help the economy because she felt bad her husband fired jim, i think was his name. that is the hot coolidge. there was a hot coolidge. you just didn't see it a lot. >> host: joseph, pittsburgh. good afternoon. >> caller: i wanted to ask you about the rating system. the standard day rating system. you have murdoch getting a large portion of the s&p. there is a vested interest, isn't it? >> guest: there is a lot of vested interest. we are making the cost of this public and the details private. the ratings agencies need competition. they don't need reinforcement. if an agency is failing and the agencies didn't predict the trouble there should be an opportunity for new agencies. >> host: amity shlaes, this e-mail from jerry in ann harbor. what do you think about money in politics? for example citizens united? >> guest: i don't have much to say about that. but coolidge was very careful and went through after having a washington office because he didn't want to take a lot of money. one reason he was able to become the vice presidential candidate is many of the candidates in '20 were discovered to have taken money from this or that interest group. >> host: why don't you want to say about it? >> guest: i don't know a lot about it:. >> host: is there anything coolidge should have done different? >> guest: a lot of people say coolidge caused a great depression. there is not a lot of evidence about that. but he could have supported fair trade. he would have had to move the whole party. he could have reduced tariffs. as the executive, he had the authority to fool around with them. he let it lie, though. he didn't like change or discretion a lot because that does its own damage. but he was a creature of his period. you cannot ask people to go outside his period so we didn't. i think that is the main one. >> host: andrew, logan utah. about ten minutes left in the program. >> caller: thank you for your work and educating the upcoming generations on economics. my question is related to the lost science of money and any parallels you see with economic philosophy of coolidge and what do you think of the work of steven? >> guest: thank you for that. i know logan utah. i don't know zurlanga. is he a hard money author? >> caller: in 2003, he spoke before the u.s. treasury. the book he has written exhaustive work on the bases of economics and how money is defined and used in the philosophy. the book again is the loss silence of money. >> guest: thank you. i say coolidge was a hard money man. in fact one of his -- guest >> host: what does that mean? >> guest: he was for the gold standard. in 1896 he was just coming out of college and one of his first debate was about the gold standard. and he was scared but he did it and he said i improved and began to understand this area because i was able to debate it. >> host: e-mail from joseph. calvin and ike were not as much a daily news item as the modern presidency has become. please have your guest comment on this. >> guest: ike had that because he was general in a terrible war. i find i work with ike people often. bruce coal is a great friend at the foundation and it is that uh-huh -- humility -- of someone who worked hard. >> host: mike is on the line. >> caller: i am hooked on this and going to buy the book tomorrow. you know this was a civil rights disaster during this presidency. for someone who appeared moral and would return money. what did he do for civil rights? black people? women? what about the workforce? >> guest: thank you for the question. very important question. what did he do for civil rights. more than his predecessor or some of his successors. women got the vote and he supported that. they voted in the 1920 election and one reason harding was the candidate was because he was handsome and that was supposed to affect the women. for the blacks, coolidge as a grown man was pretty admirable. you can see, for example, someone wrote him do you think a black man has a write to run for congress and he wrote back a letter i cannot believe you would even ask that question. and coolidge in the '20s, kkk was the main group and he gave a speech saying no more kkk in his second term out west. that is pretty tough. i don't see much evidence coolidge was racist. he didn't desegregrate areas but neither did anything else. he believed the federal government can fix everything but if the economy is better things will get better. and that happened with lynchings and the kkk declined in the course of the coolidge presidency especially in terms of membership in the clans. he wasn't a civil rights president but he wasn't the shape of the cities as you suggest -- shame -- >> host: i want to remind you this month we have chosen the "the forgotten man: a new history of the great depression" as our book club selection of the month. it came out in 2007 and the graphic novel just came out this year. if you go to our website you will see book club, click on that, and go in and make comments via our website about the book and we will be holding a conversation throughout the month and you can comment when you feel like it. but this will begin this afternoon. our book selection were the month of june "the russian gas matrix: how markets are driving change." phillip in fort mitchell, kentucky. >> caller: a question to you. what was the extend of facist thoughts on fdr's recovery program on the new deal? much is written about the communist but recognizing this thought didn't carry then the baggage it does now. >> guest: very important question. one should ask "what works" -- what was the extent of this where everyone thought fascism was awesome. and the question of civil right and that was regard wasn't focused on. it wouldn't be just fdr. but it did influence him. i draw a picture in the cartoon book of the new dealer going to italy and checking out the fascist farms and it influences them and influenced republicans as well. germany versus russia depends on who you hate more. >> host: from the "the greedy hand" and this is a quote that seems to carry through in your work or how you -- public choice theory, any other industry wants to survive and wants to compete, like a business in the market it will work hard to damage challengers and other parts of the government. >> guest: that is right. public choice theory is an odd name but an important philosophy. and george mason university, where it lives, has become a power house since i wrote that. james bucannon, the philosopher i learned from, is gone but his students have said government is another operator and now higher than the private sector. that is taught now. tyler cohen or pete becky the dean of this area teaching this. and now many young people are learning this interest relevant school of economics. >> host: again your next book? >> guest: "the silent majority: a history of post-war america" is my next book. >> host: when is it coming out? >> guest: soon! >> host: and this summer at the calvin coolidge foundation what can they find? >> guest: please come and judge the debaters we will train you. and come to the anniversary of the swearing in. home schoolers of new england and partners with dartmouth and kids are there all summer talking about economics and presidency. >> host: this has been in-depth on
North-hamptonIllinoisUnited-statesAlabamaAustraliaMontpelierVermontFort-mitchellKentuckyManhattanNew-yorkConnecticut with the cia and ops outside the u.s. at 7:45, comedian turned mayor of reykjavik, iceland, john gnarr, discusses efforts to stop the u.s. and nato for using reykjavik for military purposes. then daniel halper discusses "clinton, inc.." and at 10 p.m., beth macy reports on the bassett furniture company's decision to not move production offshore. and we'll wrap up at 11:30 ian with paul kengor and his recent book, "11 principles of a reagan conservative." >> next on booktv, from the 2014 harlem book fair, tracey syphax discusses her memoir, "from the block today boardroom." it's an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone, and welcome once more to another panel by the harlem book fair. t i want to thank max rodriguez once again for putting on this event year after year. the television audience cannot see outside of this auditorium, but if they could, they would see the street is filled with people, books, there's enthusiasm, it's just a wonderful day, and thank god thf sun is out. thank god the sun is out. i am5cn elizabeth nunez, but bee i introduce myself, i'd like to introduce my co-panelist, tracey syphax. >> just want to do a quick introduction. my name is tracey syphax. i'm a 20-year entrepreneur. i wrote a book titled "from the block to the boardroom" that basically has chronicled my life story, and i'm just here to share with you all this morning. i am also just a recent, just as recent as two weeks ago, one of the white house champions of change for this year by president obama -- >> wow. [applause] >> and i spend a lot of my time, thank you, i spend a lot of my time speaking on mass incarceration and using proper reentry tools, and i'll tell you a little bit about why i do that later on. >> while we may seem strange partners on this stage here -- [laughter] the thing that binds us is that we have both written memoirs. and for me, it's my first memoir. i've written eight novels. some of you may know some of my titles, "in between boundary boundaryies," etc. i really am an academic. i have been teaching in the city university for many, many years and am currently at hunter college. and this is my first memoir, "not for everyday use." so the first question i want to ask tracey is a question that a lot of people ask me, actually, is how do you get the courage to put in print some really true and hard things about yourself? because when you're writing, when i'm writing a novel, i can hide behind the fiction. when you're writing a memoir, you've got to put it all out there. >> yes. and be that's a good question, elizabeth. a question that i get quite often. in my book i take people to my lowest point in life, and as a 20-year-old -- 20-year business owner, a lot of people have asked thatñi question, why would you do that? and you own a business, i own a construction and real estate -- >> could i just ask you, what, why did you do that? >> yes. there's a reason why. it's because as i said even though i'm a 20-year business owner and, as i said, i was honored by4 the white house a couple years ago, i also made history aspirinston chambers entrepreneur of the year. princeton is princeton, trenton is trenton. first african-american in the 51-year history to ever win that award. so the reason, and to answer your question, the reason why i wrote the book is because i wanted to encourage anybody else that's trapped out in that lifestyle to let them know they can not only come out of that, but they can prosper. i wanted to take people to my lowest point in life and then to bring them to where i am at today as a respectable business owner in the community, a community activist, to show them that there's a way up and a way out. >> could you talk a little bit about that lowest point in your life? how old were you, and what were the pressures on you to go into that life? >> yeah. you know, and i say this all the time, a lot of our kids, we grow up, we don't have an opportunity to choose our parents. we don't have an opportunity to choose the environment we grow up in. it is what it is. i grew up in a single parent household, mother on drugs. i was first introduced to drugs by my mother and her then-boyfriend. >> wow. >> a lot of my family members would go to jail one year, come home. so i grew up thinking that going to jail and coming home was normal. that's what we did. only to find out later on in life that that's not what we do. so being able to take people to those lowest points, i started using drugs at the age of 13 -- >> wow. >> very young. started selling drugs at the age of 14. and i just grew up in that lifestyle until i was 31 years old. and i finally said enough is enough, and i made a vow in 1993 when i came home from prison, i made a vow to myself and my god that i was going to change my life around, and i was not going back to prison, and i was not going back to that lifestyle. my last conviction was from 1988, and i've been free ever since. >> wow, wonderful. .. >> like going on vacation, i guess. >> what made you after all those years say enough is enough? >> well, that was easy for me. in 1988 when i got sentenced the last time, i went back in front of the same judge that i got sentenced in 1980 under. and he told me point-blank, he said, listen, i've seen you twice since i've been on the bench, 1980, and here it is 1988, and you're doing the same thing. he basically told me, threeng time's a charm fore, you. next time you're eligible for an 18-year sentence, and i can double that up and headache it 36 years. -- make it 36 years. so right there a lightbulbake moment -- [laughter] aha, i realized i could not comf back before him and expect to get out of prison. >> i sometimes, you know, i really should be talking about my memoir, too, but -- [laughter] i'm just fascinated by your story. because, you know, i think people have children, and they don't realize -- my sister used to say to me, she said, you knoi what? when you go into labor, have aai good time. [laughter] because that is the least amoung of pain you're going to have. it's a lifetime thing, and people have children, and they don't realize what this precioug thing -- >> responsibility, yeah. >> -- is in their hands. on't re the pressure is in their hands, they could shape it one way or another. you are seeing the other way. >> i tried to do something different with my kids. as a father, me and my wife celebrate 30 years of marriage this august. we have been together for 30 years so we met in the eighth grade. i am telling you my story, everything i have gone through, my family has gone through, a whole chapter in my book where she talks about the experience see had to go through being with the person that has a drug problem, been in jail, trying to get something together says she has a whole chapter in my book, the name of the chapters from that perspective and talk about that. >> why didn't she -- >> it did affect her quite often. we used to call it our seasonal breaking up where she said enough is enough. >> why didn't she go into that life too? >> she has never been involved with drugs. i did a lot of things from her. is ironic now that here we are celebrating our 30th anniversary, my wife is a corrections officer. my daughter is a corrections officer, my son is in prison. talking about how we as parents have a responsibility to our children. my son and my daughter grew up in the same household, my son is in prison and as a man is my responsibility to raise my son right. my wife does all she can, but i say this all the time, a woman cannot raise a man, cannot raise a boy. take a father to do that. my daughter, corrections officer at the age of 23, she is a 7 year correction officer and as a whole career in front of her and my son, starting to realize the rap he took was the wrong one and he is getting himself together and i had high hopes that he was going to do the right thing. >> two she huge questions and you have questions too but one of them, i forgot the name of the woman but she had done the deal and said most of the women were in jail are there because they -- because of their connection to a boyfriend who pulled them into their life so my question is your wife was important. >> she pulled away. >> what was it that had her pulling away and not pulling into the life? you said you got pulled into the life because of your mother and her boyfriend and the community around you but there she was. what made her so strong? >> my wife believed in her children more. loved me that loved her children, more than she loved me and she told me that. when we broke up the last time she set i have to leave. you are not doing right. i have a son and daughter and my responsibility is to raise my son and my daughter in an environment away from what you are doing and i understood that. living the life i was living i understood that some my wife is -- i have been with her 38 years. she is a very grounded woman and very strong woman and i thank god being able to have someone like that in my life, to have that to fall back on because the same relationship i had with my wife for 30 years is the same relationship i had with her mother who is another strong african-american woman who is like my mother so these two strong african-american women that have been part of my life for 30 years basically set the standard how to conduct my life and brought me from a dark time in my life to who i am today. >> why is it your son is in the households with a mother who is a strong woman stands up against this. why is it the daughter goes one way, what happens to the sun? before i get there i want to say there was something you said it struck me which was that your wife loved her children more than she loved you. that is pre courageous for a man to say, for a husband to say. that was the passage in beloved that got me, when she says that her husband, you know, he fell apart when he saw what was happening to her and she said i went on and the reason i went on is i had two children and the baby needing my milk and i couldn't just -- in other words, she was -- raising my children over my husband and i say that because would you believe i am going to mention my memoir? that is one of the hardest things for me in my memoirs. my mother loved her husband more than she loved her children. i felt always that my mother, my mother's choice she had to make one was always with her husband and i recall a scene in my memoir that my mother had six children ranging from ages 9 to 2 and my father got a scholarship in london and i remember i was 5 years old and i remember seeing my mother crying crying crying every single day. she was useless, she couldn't take care of us, she couldn't do anything. u.s. -- couldn't hold it together waiting for letters from my father eventually my mother took that ship from trinidad to england. i am talking long ago. and stayed with him for quite a few months. it just was something that stayed with me for the rest of my life. my friends who didn't have that situation and even in my family, there were 11 of us but i could tell you something at as i got older, all my siblings left the home and my parents died in their 90s, they had a very long life and healthy long life. they were not sickly or anything like that. i began to appreciate that they loved each other more -- my father loved us too. if they had to make the choice it would have been each other. i resented it growing up which i talk about in my novel but in the end i got to feel they didn't need us. they have a good time. so let me get back to your son, what happened? >> my son made bad choices. >> i am talking about the influence, what influences someone to go one way or the other and we are saying parents have a great thought because you were saying that is what happened with you that your mother had a great part in your going that direction. >> as i said, my wife was very grounded in her beliefs and strong in her convictions and that is why i said it is hard for a woman to raise a boy into a man. it takes a real man to do that and for the better part of growing up i wasn't there. i was in prison. my wife raise my daughter and my son and my absence and my daughter like i said is -- has a career in corrections and my son is in corrections. i take ownership of that. that is my fault. i also know that my son the last time it was just bad choice. my son -- my son just went to jail five years ago so he went to jail when i was at the height -- he was working for my company. things he did he didn't have to do. he made the choice, people telling him -- being influenced by that crowd and ending up getting shot and spending time in prison. >> i want to ask about those choices when it comes to blackmail and it just seems to me, what is it that makes them make those wrong choices? is it a kind of hopelessness, a kind of like i don't see a future, seeing the future with you. >> that is a question. one of the things i talk about in the book i grew up in the 70s and 80s in trenton, new jersey. don't know if anyone hears familiar with trenton, new jersey. there was a street in trenton, new jersey two miles long which in the 70s and 80s was 11-12 african american-owned businesses and i grew up in that area so i grew up at a time where i got to see on a daily basis what an african-american entrepreneur looked like. i looked -- i worked for two of them for a couple of years so i grew up knowing what that looked like. a lot of our kids to they grow up and don't see that. they don't see themselves as entrepreneurs and i have been involved with a program for 17 years, johns hopkins university, the business program and what we do in that program is going to public schools and teach six fort seven how to run a business. african-american and business owners were part of the program so once again our kids are not getting the opportunity -- to see themselves. i have been involved for 17 years. i have to be the example of what they can be and i wanted to say this real quick. in trenton, new jersey, i am the only second private citizen in the history of that town to have built a private residence in that town. and i did that for a reason. number one, once again, kids growing up need to see that image. my office is located on martin luther king boulevard like any other martin luther king boulevard across the country. one of the most challenging areas in trenton. a nice office, we renovate it. once again, it is because -- i can have an office anywhere. once again, our kids in our community need to seek fissions. not just drug dealers, not fancy cars, clothes, they need to see visions of central entrepreneurs look like them so they know they can aspire to -- >> exactly what i believed for many years because i have been a professor in the university and i believe when i stepped in front of that classroom i don't only teach a subject but when the students see me it i give them an idea of what they can be because at this point i had written nine novels and i can tell you that i spoke my first novel at 42, why did i wait so long to write my first novel at 42? that was because i never saw anyone like me writing a novel. i never saw a black woman and i have to say john oliver kilns, the great african-american novelist, a hero, came to my college as a writer in residence and eyes that look at these papers and he said you are a writer, elizabeth. without that role model, without one who looked like me saying it was possible, i wouldn't have had this career. people talk about diversity as if making different colors in a room but it is not about that. it is about giving young people, older people, if you don't see some things that is possible it is hard to do it so right now i actually -- i give workshops in my room to residents there. i do it free of charge. it takes a lot of work. i am paying back early. it leads me to the other question about leadership, black leadership. could you talk a little bit about that and before you do that tell us about the business you run? >> i believe black leadership myself, i speak for myself, i have an obligation. i have an obligation as a present that grew up in a city neighborhood that has been able to accomplish something in life and be successful. i have an obligation, my obligation to reach back and do more. i wrote this book not -- and trust me -- 16, not like getting rich selling these books. i wrote these books to be able to be that -- with the lot of young folks need. on the daily basis are losing hope. >> how are they going to get the book? i am speaking as an academic. one of the big problems is they are not reading. >> i understood that when i wrote the book. i did it -- if you get a chance bill on youtube and go to the board rob -- the boardroom and the video will show up. of very positive message describes this book and the reason i did that is because once again just like you are saying a lot of our kids are visual and audio. i need them to see themselves in this book so i did the video young man out of trenton, new jersey, up and coming rap star and i knew this guy had talent because i gave him my book and said i need a theme song for this book. he did that theme song in one take. if you listen to it it has 10,000 hits on youtube. it is phenomenal that this young mind could create with rap music that song in one take and i didn't have to say take this out and put this in and the video itself when you go to youtube he directed the video, we shot the video in 12 hours in one day, we start in the morning and end at 9:00 or 10:00 that night. the talent that our kids have is there, just needs to be cultivated and brought out. >> i am going to tell you and you may tell me i am totally wrong, you are unique in this sense, it seems to be that most people when they get theirs, take pairs out of dodge. that is why i am asking about leadership. i just feel -- i don't understand when someone helps you get somewhere that you finally get there and you don't feel you have a real responsibility to get directly to that person, the community as you are doing. that is not what we see all the time and that is part of the problem we have. >> i agree and you can talk about that to athletes and entertainers. >> millions. i tell you that i am really offended. i turn off the tv when they show programs of people living in houses where they cannot possibly for a whole month, what do you tell me? the values you are asking me to have. i just feel come john, what are you giving back? >> it is important. i am very grounded in my faith and my religion and what i believe in and i got that way. it didn't just happen through my addiction to drugs and i say this in the book. i got shot in 1988 and i have but 102-year-old grandmother and chief is sharp now. she told me 20 some years ago, i can't tell you to get out of the streets but i will tell you something. god is going to find you in your darkest hour. only then will you realize what you truly are glitch that happens to me in 1991. i was in raleigh state prison, spent 20 hours in latka for something i didn't do. for years separate. >> explain that to us. >> 23 our law. you don't the come of the cell for 23 hours. in half an hour, like in a yard like this where the walls are so high all you see is the sky. i did that over some things that i didn't do. i had a cousin who was locked up, the correction officer, tried to break it up and he went to the hold and got charged with assault. i got charged with assault. he got shipped to state prison. i got shipp to raleigh state prison. they gave him a street charge. they gave me a street charge. they dropped might street charge, the administrative charge is the prison system charge so i spent a year in a cell that is no bigger than the average sized bath room. that is good. god has a way of doing some amazing things to wake you up and smacked you around and he did it then because i remember sitting in that cell, i read the bible from start to finish and found out who i really was and i knew then that i wasn't the guy that landed me there. when i came out of raleigh in 19 -- around the end of 1990 i was shipped to camden, new jersey, to riverfront state prison and i was a changed man. i was a changed man. i was not the same person that went in. stuff like that, i really believe, i get this question of a time. if you go back over your life would you change anything you went through? i got a bullet lodged in my spine. i tell people all the time i would not change one thing i have been through because what i have been through is because god wanted me to go through that. he wanted to put me where i am today and do the things i do today and to be an example of what you can do. >> you made the choice. god put you in the situation but you made the choice. >> it was a hard choice. >> you could've gone either way but you made the choice and that is admirable. tell us about low award you got from president obama. let's -- >> june 30th, now i can remember this date for the rest of my life. in 2011 when i became a entrepreneur of the year as prison chamber of commerce as the first african-american in the 51 year history and the first acts offended but they didn't know it. i thought that was the top. once i am gone, i was going to be there but a month and a half ago i got an e-mail from the white house. as i said, i developed programs which i talk a little bit about, i also speak in prison and drug rehab stories and halfway houses around the country on ending as incarceration for non-violent offenders and on capitol reentry to entrepreneurship for folks coming home from prison because i've learned this from 1985, october of 1985, i attended the million man march and if you don't have a charge you don't have a job your charge was to go back to your community and create one and i started my business three months after that. fast forward to june 30th when i got the e-mail from the white house, actually missed it became on tuesday on election day in trenton and i was working on getting a friend of mine of elected mayor and ironic when i was trying to get elected mayor the former police chief, best friends of the day, i talk about him in my book also but he didn't win, and checked on thursday and the white house had hidden e-mail, and was nominated as a champion of change 2014 and i had to respond and i didn't so i responded that thursday and i was done. so she said listen, give as information by the end of the day and you are still in there. this was unprecedented. thousand nominees from across the country. i was one of 16. [applause] >> went to the white house and was on some panels with attorney general eric holder and i believe we are in a good position, attorney-general older doing things are revamping the justice system and criminal laws and all these laws that are continuously incarcerating african-americans at alarming rates, incarcerating more people in america than any country and it is as immoral that as free as we say we are, it is mainly african-americans and as free as we say we are we have laws right now, as was written so eloquently in the new jim-crow, we have laws, don't care if you're a convicted for one year in jail or ten years in jail you are convicted to a lifetime when you get home because you will never be eligible for housing, for a job, you're voting rights. all those things you need to reintegrate yourself back into society or strip for the rest of your life. i put my old state number 226926 as a reminder in my book. if i was ever to go back into the job market next week guess what? i will still have to check on the application i have been convicted of a crime. we worked in the state of new jersey and this is why i wanted a chance -- just recently i announced because it happened two weeks ago, the state legislature of trenton pass a law i worked on tirelessly for three is with the new jersey institute social justice called ben the box, which stops employers from discriminating against people with criminal records. it is not the you are going to be asked about that criminal record, just that we want you to release the second or third interview. we thought you could at least a we offered him a job, now we need to hear back before we give you this job and that is giving them the opportunity to get their foot in the door because if you check the box on the application your application only goes in this pile over here and that piles is to not hire a you could be listing your best employes, over 20 years in business during the height of mike company, 18 employees might best jobs are ex offenders because of a comment, 18 employees, some of the best employees i ever had. looking for an opportunity. i got guys to come to my office on a daily basis a guy can't go back to jail. i just need and opportunity. i will sweep up, i will do anything. i cannot go back to jail. i have a son. when somebody tells you that and you have been through that and you know where they're coming from is not something you can walk away from. not something you can just ignore. winning the award of being a champion of change in the area of reentry into mass incarceration is not something i take lightly, something i'm going to work on until the day i die because it is such a very important issue. >> my father used to say there for the grace of god go i.. limited too hard on ourselves, there for the grace of god go i. if you were in god's situation what would you do? i am sure you have a number of questions to ask so we are going to maybe exchange one more question here and if you would line up the microphone so we could go right into your questions while we are doing that. how is your son now? >> my son is in north new jersey at anne hathaway house so he is on his way home. this is my son's second bid. in the first one we sent to north carolina. we fly and my wife takes another airplane and listen. you were young. he came back to new jersey, got locked up again. as a parent you say that but do you really mean it. i am doing it again but like the judge told me, third time is the charm, i am telling him i am not doing it any more. for me as the person being locked up to go into the prison system i don't mind going back. i do at all the time. i will be speaking to the inmates at trinity state prison on september 12th which is my birthday i told him was my birthday. i will be spending my birthday in state prison talking to the inmates for the naacp to have a branch inside the prison because i believe it is such an important issue. this is it, i am not doing it anymore. i think he understands -- >> you will be there every single time. >> i used to say just don't let your children here several hits against the grounds. and under them, this is the last time it takes that sliding for you if you do it again. tell us your name and your question. let's go to questions rather than comments because we have a wonderful opportunity. >> my name is chris johnson from albany, new york. the question for tracey syphax is what role did the memoir play in your healing process from when you finally came out of hell to where you are today? >> i talk about it in the book. i was abused as a young kid, 8 years old. my mom moved to texas and when we got to texas she got locked up and i was in a foster home and abused by a young lady that was there. something i never talked about. i talked about it with my wife. my mom didn't even know. when i wrote the book i talk about it and a lot of my family members found out about it's only then. so writing this book, i had a ghost writer that wrote the book so you are talking a lot of full conversations, tape-recorded conversations to atlanta. it was almost like on long caps being able to remove my whole life. i start to where i am today. i have a great opportunity to cleanse myself of a lot of things i held in. a lot of things other people did know about and did very well. it was good for me, good therapy for me to do the book. c-span: >> i will take your question too because the memoir has a kind of cathartic release and you find yourself facing some things you would not ordinarily face and one of them i have to tell you, when i was having my son in hospital in brooklyn which i will not name, the night before i was -- to take him home the night before, i am getting myself ready because in the morning i am taking my son home. in comes this doctor. he was a young doctor. along with social service person with a clipboard in his hand saying they reported me and i said reported me for what? you know what. giving your son macedonia to calm him down. i was a professor. i had a ph.d.. i had written of book. but i was okay. i don't know what they are talking about. i can't connect. i didn't know what that was. he told me i was the heroin addict. and i said how? immediately in front of everybody, i didn't care. i said find it. find where i injected myself. it is in my memoir. it is a hard story for my son to read because it happened on a friday and they have already reported me and therefore the bureau was locked up. i couldn't get my son out until monday and of course at this point the hospital is afraid i am going to sue them so when i come on monday to get my son they have all kinds of excuses. cheese spitting up, he is this, he is that, you can't take him, i can close my eyes and see myself ripping through that hospital and taking my son and i said i don't care what form you want me to sign he is going out here with me. it is a hard thing and people don't realize, they talk about racism but don't realize the extent to which it affects us. almost in tears, you kind of hide that from your son because it is like once people believe it is absolutely not true but people believe it. i don't even know what it is about. you hide it and i wrote it in the memoir and is a hard thing for my son to read because the next thing in my head -- when he gets to go to college and looking for a job they have a hard thing, is an unbelievable thing that happened and that was 1976 missing a long time ago for some of you but that was yesterday for me. let's take another question. >> good afternoon. i am from new jersey, the brunswick area. i have a question regarding your daughter. you mentioned your daughter is doing well in her career and had a strong foundation with her mom. strong african-american woman. how is your daughter able to establish a healthy relationship with african black men since there was such a conflict in her life with her father not there and her brother being incarcerated. >> that is a good question. my daughter has done very well in her relationship with other men. as far as i know my daughter is 30 years old now. i can only remember three boyfriends in her life. her daughter's father who she is not with now and the person she is with now who they are looking to get married in 2015 so i think she has done very well and i think once again i attribute that to her mother. >> to you too. >> she talks a little bit in the book also. my daughter will tell you that i am not the father that i used to be and she remembers but also remembers even in my addiction i had my daughter. you know what i mean? i played with my daughter, have a lot of pictures in my addiction, meet with my daughter, laying in the bed with her, so we had that father/daughter relationship. she remembered that but she has done very well now. >> as i said i am an epidemic condition and academic and one thing i always told my female students, sex with a boyfriend, two children, you can be met with your boyfriend all you want but that is the children's father so no matter what happens you keep this relationship, let them have a father. was a lesson i applied to myself too. my son has a great relationship with his father. he hasn't got a clue. he hasn't got a clue with what happened in my life. i think when i told him i was getting divorced, everything seems fine, what is going on. it is two different things. i learned it from my parents the same way. your child is entitled to a father or mother. no matter what your little problem is or your big problem is. >> before we get to the question, with my father also, i didn't have a relationship with my father, i lived in trenton, new jersey, which is a 50 minute ride. .. i took a buzz from trenton to asbury, got beach and went back to trenton. even today, a relationship i had with my dad is beautiful. my dad supports me in everything i do. i have a great relationship, my dad had challenges growing debt but he got clean the law earlier in the newseums to work for the federal government. he did well for himself but he had some challenges growing up also that he had to overcome. that was my relationship. >> we have the beating aside, totally against that. 1,000 -- >> this is in the early 70s. >> selling that out, just the fact that she is not doing that, and that was love. >> i am from and eddie -- and eddie --amityville and i have a question about my relationship with my sister. she is an entrepreneur, and she entwines all these things and gets caught up with unsavory elements in our environment so she has been incarcerated most of my adult life back and forth. since i was 15 years old. in the frost this of differing times she has impersonated me. i am counselor and the work and different boards and that live in the town of babylon to assist in opening a silver home and i have been awarded certain things. as a veterans they allow me to start my own business and i think that mean -- i have one major challenge and that is how do i at this age find healing and forgiveness for my sister and be able to help her because literally she is asking for my help. >> let me have tracy answer the question. >> i have to be fair, i have to give her a chance but where and how do i start? it has to be a way that i haven't been manipulated in the past. >> that is of very important question. i have a lot of family members in prison. just recently, my cousin that i got in trouble with that i was locked up with, that same cousin is locked away for murder, and i still write him, send him money, support him even though he is still in prison now and may be in prison for a long time. i think it is a way you can support from a far. it is hard -- these are my brothers and sisters, these are my cousins, my cousins are like my brothers. we are always that close. i try to support him and support them. another cousin, his brother actually who came home from doing 17 years, has a job and lost the job so i am trying to help him get another job to keep him from going to survive, family is family. you don't let them bring you down and stop you from doing what you need to do. family can do that also. you have to support -- your sister, that is never going to change. you have to support her but you don't want her to hamper you from doing what you wouldn't do for yourself or your family. >> i appreciate your time. >> i don't know how much time we have. i need a timekeeper. we have eight or so minutes. ten minutes. let's have your question. >> right on time. i always find it a privilege to be in places like this. how is it that you haven't found your darkest period? that is what your grandmother said, you will be found in your darkest moment. you were able to recover to a point that you flew to the heights that you did and open a business and have people who come to you to be employed with the same background you have. and your people are pursuing -- and the people before me. where did you find that you can pass on to the next person to do the same thing? >> it is less god for me. they don't like to talk about religion but they help me, that is what helped me. my faith and my belief in god. and that would be the cornerstone. when you start reading the bible and the talks about the first will be less than the last will be first and i look at myself and was rejected. and what you really believe in is nothing that -- i believe even with all the stuff you have, all the convictions, prior addictions, everything i have my still believe and my faith allows me to believe this. there is nothing that i can't do. people say you should run for mayor or senate. in my mind, and if i wanted to, not something i'm interested in right now but when people say that to me, it is not far-fetched for me because my faith allows me to believe that anything i want to do in this lifetime is impossible for me to do and do is cut and dried with me. >> i grew up in trinidad in the tropics where we have a lot of bats at night and my father would say to us you are not a bad. when you fall you don't fall on your head and get knocked out because you are not a bad. you don't fall on your head and get knocked out. you fall on your feet and jump up. the piece that a lot of people need to tell lot of young people again, here i am as the teacher, it is about hard work and persistence. they missed the idea of hard work. people say to me he elizabeth, how come every time i look around you have written another book? this morning at 5:30 in the morning i was on my computer. i knew i had to get here. from 5:30 to 9:30, how many hours is that? i got four hours of riding the morning i just started. it is persistence and doing the work. when students come to me and tell me, when i start, if you coming at 10:30 when you better go to somebody else's class. because i have to model it. i have to be fair on the dust at 10:30. when you and your papers, the next class i have to have your paper corrected. i want you to give me back. so you models that. there are no exceptions and it always interests me that students come to my class the next semester, you know what you are into. sometimes when you say you wish it, i want it, i wish it, i want it, that is fine but young people have to understand people who reach where you are, wishing it and dreaming and imagining it, it is by working, putting hard work, i say to my son all the time, and -- >> that is important. and it started early and end very late. and i believe in hard work. i believe like you said from being on time, doing what you say you are going to do. if you can't be on time, the early. that is something we have to live by. i also believe -- no excuses. i don't believe in making excuses for anything. i believe in results. my dad always told me for every problem there are ten solutions and as you walk away at you get harder and harder but you have to figure it out. i really believe that. >> people have to understand. what i tell you i stopped at 9:30 my granddaughter who is 7 years old had not finished her chapter in the book yesterday and i told her parents at 930 she comes over to my house at 9:30 and says can i look at tv? i simply 10 minutes. you have to finish the chapter. i am saying to you you put that with generations, you let somebody -- i let her know if you are going to finish this and you didn't finish it today you finish it tomorrow even if it is -- you finish it. and i think we need -- many more years that i want to tell you but i know really my students who have done well who have achieved and some of them i just, you know, i was walking down lewis avenue and this man comes to me and practically bows in the streets and everyone is walking him and he says do you know who i am? he is a doctor ought some prestigious hospital and he says to me i was in your class where i teach thousands of students, can't even remember, when i heard you call yourself a doctor elizabeth nunez, what is that? talking bout modeling and i am not american but it is that and the sense of knowing -- is not just a few can dream it you can achieve it. that is not it. you dream it that is the first the. if you work hard you can achieve it. you have a question. >> my name is david. i wanted -- a quick question. how can we address the mentality young black males in our communities, get them, find some way to get them out from that mentality and getting themselves in trouble realizing that is not really a thing? i got to get them to read my book. >> that is the reason i titled it -- some students i teach in my business program didn't know anything about it. i don't want you to experience that. i want you to go straight to the board room. and how to get there and allow our kids in the inner city and the young man who did the introduction to the book said it so eloquently, it is a walking beautifully with god, hard work and opportunity and those three things, i don't believe in good luck, i never wish anybody good luck. i believe we all have the ability to create our own version of lock through hard work and opportunity. i try to spread that message wherever i can. i don't believe if you dream it you can achieve it. when you dream you got to wake up. do something to make that happen. >> i am tired of hearing that, you have no idea. this is the first time i met you but i am inspired by you, i am inspired to get more
VietnamRepublic-ofUnited-statesNew-yorkMacedoniaNew-jerseyTrinidad-and-tobagoNorth-carolinaBrooklynTexasRaleighTrenton so it's pretty interesting. what else? well, i think i've about worn out my welcome. i appreciate you guys coming out, especially on a friday when there's lots of things to do in the local area. so i hope you enjoy the book. if any of you want to and you want me to sign it, i'll be happy to, and i've got, i've got the standard web site. harpercollins has a facebook page for me if you want to ever get ahold of me direct. i do get back to everybody who contacts me. it may take a while, but i do. they put videos on there, interviews and other things, and i'll answer any questions that you may think of later. anyway, thanks very much for coming, and i enjoyed it. [applause] >> thank you so much. and thank you for coming. i would invite you to line up on that side and come around in the front of the desk if you would like to have your book signed. and thanks again for coming out on a friday night. [inaudible conversations] >> booktv is on twitter and facebook, and we want to hear from you. tweet us, twitter.com/booktv, or post a comment on our facebook page, facebook.com/booktv. >> up next, attorney stephen halbrook argues that the nazi government in germany used gun control to disarm and repress its enemies and consolidate power. he spoke at the independent institute in oakland, california. it's about 90 minutes. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. my name is david thoreau, and i'm the founder and president of the independent institute. i'm delighted to welcome you this evening. this is another meeting of a program of ours called the independent policy forum, and in addition to our audience here and our conference center in oakland, california, i want to welcome our viewers on c-span and also those who are joining with us worldwide who are live streaming online. the independent policy forum is a series of lectures, seminars, debates and other discussions held here at the independent institute. we are delighted to have our old friend dr. steven halbrook with us who will be speaking on are there lessons for us today from nazi gun control. and that, of course, is based on his new landmark book called "gun control in the third reich: disarming the jews and, quote-unquote, enemies of the state." you can find information in your registration packets or online about our program. to provide some background, the institute is a nonprofit, scholarly public policy research institute. we sponsor in-depth studies of social and economic issues. and the purpose is to boldly advance peaceful, process produce and -- prosperous and free societies grounded in a commitment to human worth and dignity. the results of this work are published as books such as dr. halbrook's and form the basis for numerous conference and media projects. one of our other publications is the quarterly journal "the independent review." this is the current issue. for those of you who we could interest in becoming a subscribe iser, i think you'll find you will not be sorry. if you go online, you can subscribe and get a free copy of the book called "crisis and leviathan." we seek, nor -- we neither seek, nor accept government funding. the institute draws all of its support from private contributions, memberships and the sale of books and events such as tonight. with tragic shootings in the u.s., we've seen a triggering of a new debate over gun control. but are there lessons from history that we should be mindful of? based on recently discovered secret documents from german archives, diaries and newspapers of the time, dr. halbrook has now written an unprecedented new history of how violence in the liberal democratic society or system of pre-1930 germany, pre-nazi germany led to gun control measures that that werer utilized by the national socialists to repress opponents and consolidate power. ironically enough, the countless books on the third reich and the holocaust have failed even to mention the laws restricting firearms' ownership with very few exceptions. and these policies rendered political opponents, including jews who were viewed as political opponents, powerless. a skeptic could surmise that a better armed populace would make no difference, but the nazi regime certainly did not think so. it ruthlessly suppressed, literally crushed gun ownership birdies favored groups. -- by disfavored groups. it spans two decades from 1918 through crystal knot or, quote-unquote, night of the broken glass, unquote, in 1938 and the pertinent events during world war ii regarding the effects of disarming policies. research fellow at the independent institute, dr. steven halbrook is the renowned constitutional legal scholar, attorney and author who has won three cases before the supreme court, testified before numerous congressional committees, been interviewed on cnn, fox, court tv and elsewhere and been published in the "wall street journal," "usa today" and many other publications. his many books in addition to the gun control in the third reich include "the founders' second amendment," "securing civil rights," "that every man be armed," and "target switzerland." so i'm very pleased to introduce steven halbrook. [applause] >> thank you, david. it's a real pleasure to be here. it's getting rather déjà vu. i can't remember exactly how many times we've done this, but -- and thank you all for coming out tonight. and i just want to have special thanks and recognition to my wife, brenda, and my daughter, melissa, who just graduated from high school. they're in the audience in the back if you'll wave or something. [applause] i got interested in this summit, actually, in about 1968 -- subject, and there was a big political debate in this country about federal and state gun control laws, and there was a federal law that passed, gun control act of 1968. and it's probably not well remembered now, but there were many proposals at that time to require registration of either all firearms or all handguns in the u.s., a federal law that would do that and would have criminal penalties for failure to do that. and there was a historic debate that actually took place between congressman john dingell, who's still there, and a senator named tidings from maryland and also representative dodd, chris dodd's father, who had been a prosecutor at nuremberg. and congressman dingell suggested that, i heene, the war had only -- i mean, the war had only been over 22 years at that point, 23 years, and kind of like haven't we heard this before? it sounds like nazi germany. and the proponents of the legislation said that, no, the nazis never registered guns, and they would never have used registration records for anything naughty. [laughter] and so the administration commissioned a library of congress study, and it came back stating that registration of guns was not something that nazi germ had anything to do with -- germany had anything to do with, and there's no records that guns were ever confiscated that had been registered. and when they invaded other countries, there was no information that they ever used registration records to locate gun owners. and they didn't do much research to come to the conclusions. but anyway, i got interested in it way back when, and what was incredible to me was that no historian deals with this subject, it's virtually unmentioned whatsoever. and if you see any mention, i think there might be one of the two books that might have a footnote or something. but that's about it. and i want to say right at the beginning the title of this presentation has to do with are there lessons to be learned. and i think the lessons speak for themselves. i will not engage in the kind of discourse in which i would say that some proponent of some legislation, that that's nazi-like or that these are gestapo tactics or anything like that. i don't think we need to engage in that kind of rhetoric. there's too much of that that goes on. but one thing that is clear is that there's been a lot of denial about what took place in nazi germany, and it's time that the historical record be made clear, and that's what i set out to do in the book many years ago. i actively wrote the book and did research for it for about 15 years because being that the sources are either in english or german, published sources don't deal with this topic. it was necessary to do a lot of archival research in germany. i did some myself. i also retained one of the best archival researchers in germany who does this topic who knows these record groups very well. and we came to some very interesting conclusions that are presented in the book. but historically, the way it all started was right at the end of the great war. 1918, 1919 there were communist uprisings in germany. the monarch fell, the republic was established, and there was a virtual civil war. and i will do a little bit of show and tell. i don't have any of the street scenes to show you from that period, but if you've ever seen any documentaries on it, you'll see people running every which way and machine guns in the streets and the fight corps which was the, basically, voluntary group that sided with the government to repress the communist uprisings. like had taken place in russia, a bolshevik-type coup. and so there was quite a lot of chaos. and then under the versailles treaty, there was the idea in germany that either all arms or all military arms had to be surrendered including by civilians. there were actually legal interpretations in germany that no civilian could own any gun, and they all had to be turned in. there were actually court cases about this during the early 1920s. but things calmed down somewhat. but then we head to 1923, you have the great inflation, and you have a communist uprising in hamburg which was ruthlessly put down, and then you have hitler's -- nubble in munich where -- [inaudible] in munich where they actually succeeded in seizing a beer hall, but they didn't succeed in seizing the state. [laughter] so then he goes and writes "mein kampf" when he's in prison, and things calm down. 1928, however, the reichstag passed a gun control law that was the first of its kind in germany, and it required a lot of recordkeeping. thatthere was no registration system, but there were records to be kept that could be subject to police inspection. and a curious thing about it is there was no debate in the legislature or the reichstag. it passed without any debate whatever, which would be a phenomenon in itself. but things started getting, raring up again as we approached the '30s. and in 1931 for the first time, germany adopted a legislation or a decree, there were legislative decree that is the executive branch could make -- that the executive branch could make, and it called for a registration of the german state that is adopted it. so you had, like, berlin and most of the large jurisdictions adopting firearm registration, and some areas did not do so. but by and large, most places did. because in 1931 before this took place, there were -- the nazi party had declared itself in favor of legal elections by that point. but there was an incident, there was a hotel called boxheimer, and there was an individual named werner best, and he was heavily involved with the sa, the stormtroopers. and the document had purported to deal with if there was a communist revolt and the nazis needed to seize power, which many people interpreted to mean this was a plan for a nazi seizure of power, and it had things like there would be rationing of food, jews would not get any food supplies. and it had a provision that everyone would be ordered to turn in their firearms within 24 hours, or they would be executed. so this individual, werner best, actually would go on to become an official in the gestapo, and we'll hear from him a little bit more this evening. but these documents were discovered, and they weren't taken too seriously. nonetheless, there was still a lot of street fighting going on between the communists and the nazis. they were basically armed thugs in the streets. and so it was decided in december of 1931 that the executive branch would decree these firearm registration legislation. now, at that time the republic, the executive branch could rule by decree. you hear a lot about executive decrees today. well, this allowed the executive branch, basically, to not bother consulting the legislative branch at all and simply make decrees, and this was one of 'em. in fact, this decree covered a lot of subjects, and the consulate at that time -- and now we'll test my electronic abilities -- heinrich bruning, basically the head of the german government, and there was something called the enabling act which allowed the executive branch, as i said, to issue these decrees. and that's what he did. and that was one thing that the republic adopted that was a horrible precedent, because when the nazis came to power, they could rule by decree just as well. and so this one particular decree, if i can move to that, this is like the decree about internal security, and it's about misuse of weapons. but when you look at the first provision, this section one provided for registration of all firearms by all people. and then it had a provision too here which stated that anytime the officials, the authorities decided it was needed for public security, they could require everybody who registered their firearms to turn them in. now, that's an interesting thing to put in a firearm registration law. it was quite honest, wasn't it, that they would admit -- because when you have firearm basically registration, you know, debated and proposed, it's always, we'll never confiscate them. well, here they had it right in the law that the authorities can decree a public emergency, and they can confiscate all firearms, and there's a duty to turn them in, and you'll be incarcerated if you don't. so that came down right before christmas of '31, and the equivalent to our attorney general, the interior minister, gorner, cement out a directive saying -- sent out a directive saying you have to be very careful with these registration records. this went to the officials who were keeping them. we don't want them to fall into the hands of extremist groups or radical elements. he actually said don't keep them at the local police departments, put them in more centralized facilities for safekeeping. [laughter] and so that was the directive, and that's, i assume that's what they did. they didn't have computers, obviously, at that time. but they did get the ibm punchcard technology by the time the nazis came into power. how many of you remember that? i remember those very well. there was a lot, a lot of that technology in our own lifetime still before this electronic business. so they could pull registration owners for -- records for gun owners, jews, protestants, catholics, the whole works. they had all the records on anything. so 1933, hitler and his party comes to power, and they immediately start attacking physically their political enemies. that would be social democrats, the party who had, probably had more power than any other as a single party. but also liberal parties, conservative parties. they multiplied day by day. the more opposition that arose, the more this repression would happen. and all opposition was invariably called communist. so that if you opposed what the nazis were doing, you were a communist. and if you read the newspapers of that time, you'll find on a daily basis accounts of searches and seizures of ire -- firearms and arrests of so-called communists. so that goes on 1933, and you had the use of the ire arm records -- firearms records. i have a whole chapter on this, actually, the case where i got the records of a directive from herman goering came down who was the high official in the nazi regime, and he basically said you need to check the political reliability of all persons with firearm permits. and so i actually found records where local authorities went through, and they would give a name, and they would say what that person's profession was and whether he was politically reliable. if he's a social democrat, he's not, and his weapon permit's going to be confiscated as well as his gun. and then you go down the list, and i found there was one jew where they wanted to take his weapon permit, but there was another where they actually let him keep it, at least for that point. so political reliability meant that you supported naziism or national socialism and that you were not politically reliable if you did not. and so these were actually records not there the registration of guns, but from the licensing. people who had license permits to possess guns, to carry guns, to purchase guns, things like that. or ammunition. so there was some repression against jews in 1933. it was not as harsh as against the political opponents, because the dictatorship wanted to consolidate its power. it was basically use of the law and physical force in every means necessary to make sure that the nazi party became supreme. because for all anybody knew in those days, it'd be just another temporary government. during the wymar republic, the governments would rise and fall very quickly. sometimes they would be in power a couple years and sometimes maybe just a few weeks. so adolf hitler wanted to make sure that his power was consolidated, and you had the reichstag fire more emergency decrees to justify there's this communist insurrection that's going to go on, so we've got to ban free speech, assembly, things like that. but by the way, the wymar republic did a lot of the same thing. the registration law, if you go to the provisions after gun registration, it was no public assemblies and no free speech. you could not make political, politically-subversive speeches. so these things seemed to go together. but there was one case, there was more than one case, but one famous case of a search and seizure operation against jews in germany. this was in april of 1933. there were raids that took place in the jewish quarter in berlin. and here's actually some illustration. this picture and the next one i'll show you are illustrations of that raid. this is from the nazi paper, and basically it says raid in the jewish quarter. and if you read the article that follows, it talks about the subversive literature that was seized and the guns that were seize inside this search and seizure operation. and here you see a number of uniform police that's in the jewish part of berlin at that time, and so basically it was kind of more of a sideshow, the repression of jews at that time. but the biggest actions were against the so-called communists or political opponents. and second illustration that's from the the same article, that's an elderly jewish man, and down on the left is a criminal police inspector interrogating him. and you see the little square in front of them, that's radio. and so they're broadcasting this interview, and the nazis were masters of propaganda. and so they're putting this raid on the radio, and they're basically depicting it as, you know, these jews, they shouldn't be in the country, and just here's this old man. he pretends he doesn't know why he's being arrested and interrogated. i mean, you're supposed to get it, right? you know, he's a jew, he shouldn't have a gun, he shouldn't have this subversive literature which all that. and all that. so that's an example of some of the repression going on then. but as time goes by in the coming months, it gets more internal because you have, i mean, the nazi party was like a criminal gang, so you had hitler wanting absolute power n. 1934 you have him, basically, wiping out in the night of long nighs the sa leadership and others. so it becomes like a fight within the mafia itself for who's going to be the capo. and hitler comes out supreme. and at the same time, everything was coming under nazi control. political parties were abolished, the labor unions were abolished, sports had to come under the control of the reich, and that included gun clubs. and there were a lot of independent gun clubs very -- some of them had been in existence for hundreds of years in germany. and if they refused to make their leaders of the club nazi members, then the club president and the vice president and all that, these people would be arrested and taken into gestapo custody. so this is in the period of forcing into the line or -- [inaudible] in which all elements of society were being taken within the nazi way of life and the national socialist agenda. so we go through that period, and at the same time you start having a lot more focus on getting at the jews and how horrible they are. and here's our friend werner best. and he's the one who authored the 1931 boxheimer document which talked about the execution of persons who were gun owners who didn't turn them in within 24 hours if there was a nazi takeover. he was actually a, he had a law degree, he had some kind of judicial office. and when the nazis came to power, he became the chief legal adviser of the gestapo. the secret state police. and in that role he had quite a policy-making role. one of his documents about gun ownership for jews we'll look at a little bit closer in a minute. but he was involved in getting the j stamp put on jewish identities and passports, and he was involved after the war began, he was sent first to france and then to denmark. in 1931 when the war began, every country cannot occupied by the nazis -- country not occupied by the nazis, they had a policy of putting up posters and saying you have to turn in your firearms within 24 hours or you'll be executed. that's exactly from the same document from 1931 that he personally had authored, and he was in charge of those policies and others in those occupied countries. if you ever go to the museum in france, the one where napoleon's body is -- [inaudible conversations] >> right. they've got, they've got one of those original posters there that you turn in your guns within 24 hours. and you know what? they didn't put a date or a time when the clock started ticking. it just says that. and i've dope a lot of, wait, you're going to turn it in, and you're five minutes late? [laughter] but, actually, i've gotten a lot of original records on that. it was a decree they made throughout their occupation, and there were so many frenchmen who wouldn't go by it that they kept just publishing it over and over in the paper. you know, you've got 24 hours. [laughter] the next day, you've got 24 hours. they actually did start executing a lot of people. that's also in the newspapers. and then the french were so bad about turning in their guns that there came a time when the commander in paste -- in paris said we're not going to publish the names anymore, we're just going to shoot these people. so that's another summit, but werner best was in charge of some of those programs. and we'll return to him in a moment. actually, this is probably a good moment, because i think -- yeah, that's the document that's next. so this is a document authored by werner best. the gestapo had asked about issuing gun permits to jews. this was dated december 1935, because there was never any, there was never any decree or law against jewish possession of guns in germany until at the time of the crystal knot. and this, werner best's advised and said: the jewish people are considerable danger to the german people. and, i mean, nothing had happened. i mean, in germany itself the german jews had done nothing. there were no assassinations, no attacks on the nazis. they had a central association we'll talk about in a minute that tried their to alleviate the harsher and harsher conditions. but he's making this policy statement that you had to look at the the political reliability. and in most cases we don't think jews are politically reliable, meaning that they're nazi supporters. and, therefore, you had to be very careful about issuing gun permits to jews. basically, he's advising don't do it, and it's got to be, basically, approved by gestapo officials. you're not going to just, you know, the local police are not going to just issue these permits. and so this was from the gestapo, and this was addressed to the gestapo, and the gestapo which is part of a kind of underling of the gestapo and to all the other relevant police agencies. so here you have nothing had changed in the law, the jews were eligible for the gun permits. so so one thing going back to the wymar law to get a permit to acquire a gun or to carry a gun, you had to meet certain criteria. you had to be trustworthy. so anybody who was considered up trustworthy by the authorities, you don't get your gun can permit. they had a discretionary issuance as we would call it today. so i think it shows you the danger of language like that if you have selective language that will allow authorities to decide who gets a permit as opposed to subjective information. things like that. .. fully involved ibut we involvede jews in 1938 grade but when he came as the police president he strongly objected to the kind of tactics because basically he unleashed these brownshirts to go wild in the street. he was not in berlin at the time he was in munich. 1944 they joined the opposition to hitler and when the attack took place in july of 1944 and we were exposed and wound up and it was a part of that conspiracy and he would be one of those that would be tried at the trials that took place at the piano wire so he made it into berlin, but that was the case with some of the opposition they had been part of the nazi party and a lot of the bad things that it did but then they came around to the point where either it was because we had enough of the oppression or because hitler was becoming an idiot and couldn't win the war and passing the city and its anniversary of these four days ago of july 1944 to 2014 quite a historic day when the bomb went off and unfortunately some idiot had moved away from hitler. here you can article from november 91938. this article it wasn't published but they were disarming the jews until i think it was november 8 there was a polish jewish teenager who walked into the embassy in paris and shot a german diplomat, not a very high position at all but it was just the kind of event that not the regime could latch onto to justify what it was about two to. it could be the conventional story was this young teenager had relatives who were polish jews and they were deported and was he trying to get revamped from that or so that a jew would kill somebody and then they would have the excuse to launch the program that came next? the article talks about in the last -- in the last few weeks and it doesn't give a starting date, often they were disarming and it tells you the supposedly seized 2,569 handle weapons, 1702 and the 20,000 cartridges. what kind of bureaucrats do you have to be to handle cartridges? i don't know. and it goes on to explain the jews were made emphatically known in berlin they have to turn in their gun stand there with him and who knows what they consider to be a hand weapon like the letter opener would be but it was made known to them the article states by a suspect putting up notices in the judicial orders in berlin. maybe word-of-mouth. we do know that they had their records on all gun owners in the jewish gun owners and they had registration and do not see information in germany at that time when you were born they would put them in the record. we had to be his harsh means to let them know because they were not turning them in and it says that those without licenses are required to turn them in both we had the documents so we are going to get to the instance mixed that exemplifies the fact that all of them were required to turn in their guns. so this was published with the first noticed to the world that they were being disarmed in germany and this was summarized and published in "the new york times" and other papers, prominent papers in the u.s. and britain and countries like that. now we go back in history and bring it up to that same period again in a moment. a gentle man in the middle was a three-time gold-medal winner in the olympics and in 1896 in gymnastics and the fellows on the left and right are two other gymnasts who were prominent german olympic stars at that time. alfred was jewish that didn't make much difference in those days and he went on to become a top figure in german athletics. he became a prominent individual and we will see in a moment today to the olympics in berlin in 1936. they didn't want to dignify the regime because they were being severely attacked at the time but then he called it off so they could kind of clean up their act for the olympics and they could show to the world so he refused to go and then we turned the clock to 1938 and 19t a moment we will go over what happened to him in terms of his guns but by 1942 the world had come about if they were wearinga star of david and he was deported to the concentration camp that was kind of a concentration camp for intellectuals and people like that who wasn't the worst one in the world probably for that reason but within just a few weeks of being there he was starved to death so he met his end that way. but now we get to the reason why i'm talking about him and there was able to detect -- detective work going on with this. the. we didn't know the significance of this employee started researching it, but at the top it says report about a political case so they could arrest for political reasons and that's what this is and we start looking at the information on it and that is alfred fliptop who has the date of birth and place of birth done into the current address and i didn't know who this guy was but i googled him borne on that date and it turns outurnedout to be this olympic o that made it pretty interesting. and then it added political affiliations. that is the word of political affiliation. that doesn't say communist or anything like that. he was not political. this is the address for the crime scene. he turned out to be the police station. so the crime scene as the police station and that sounds kind of weird. we will put two and two together in a few minutes and see what is going on there. and it has to. he had a bicycle shop and sold stuff and in those days there was a lot of street fighting going on and if you wanted to protect yourself you might want a knuckle buster. but it's very bizarre. but what is not bizarre is one revolver, two pocket pistols and twentysomething rounds of ammunition so that was confiscated from him and in the book in the illustrations you will see the next page of the report which i don't have that i will tell you what was in it. the next page was criminal act and it said possession of weapons. it wasn't a legal for a jew to have a weapon at a time. and arms in the hands of the jews are dangerous to public safety. and the most important part for the topic the arms are registered in police station 13 and on january 261932. he registered his gun with the police during the repair period and the records were still there. that's how they knew he had these weapons. so, you look at the rest of the report and i don't have that illustrated here that copies are not in the illustration part of the book but it's the translation is there. but the report basically said it's been turned over to the gestapo which is the underside of the gestapo and it doesn't say what happened after that to him. i suspect he was probably interrogated and released after a while. but the curious thing was when you look at the time of this arrest and the next report that we had it was only about 12 minutes later at the same crime scene and the police station. and if so wha so what i know isn them it doesn't take much to summarize the head in order to turn in their weapon and that is what they were doing. they were the police station turning them in and they were in line and he gets turned over to the gestapo as well. what do you have here? they are ordered to turn them in and they are arrested as they are effectively disarmed and then they could move onto the next stage. so, the next stage was chris. they have to point it so they can go. what it shows is that suggests he was planned on the nazis. they were getting ready for it and they were disarming and this would leak it really easy for them to carry out and make sure there was no resistance. >> now that this individual was the head of the central or the jewish association of germany and that was the umbrella group for all of the jewish organizations and he was an attorney and him and his associates had to try their best to represent the jewish community in tha the country and under the rest of the conditions. when the order came down it came down nationwide in germany do they turn in their weapons because he was apparently in munich in either him or his associates went to see the munich police chief and turn in their weapons and what was repeated to him was there a danger to public safety and he records in his autobiography that he had bought a new browning's gun which he doesn't know what kind and he had to turn it in and he was disturbed about this. he would be arrested and thrown into the concentration camp and he escaped with his wife who is a famous historian in england and in the. and here we have a motley crew you would know who they are and this is in september of 38. they are both going to play a major role in what is about to come. after herschel shocked the german diplomats into the embassy, he lingered a couple of days. the regime with the party was having its annual event in munich where the old comrades from the 1923 beer hall that would get togethewouldget togeto their comrades. he hated hunting and sport. but basically the phone call came in to say that the diplomat had died. and so they had some conversations and basically he said let's let them have a fla flame. so he basically orchestrates and orders one around to all authorities, police type of authorities basically saying the tsa is in charge, the police are not to intervene, firefighters are not intervene unless the five-year spreads from a jewish synagogue to comic you know, the non-jewish facility. and then the brown shirts startinstarting that night and g through the next day and night basically going on this horrible rampage in germany, and what we have here is the morning after the first action convinced the head of the ss and the german police issues this proclamation and what it says is it' it is illegal for jews to have weapons and you see the symbol issues this november 10 in the decree that persons who are according to the laurinburg law archi areh and any evaluators will be put into concentrations longer, concentration camps and will be subject to 20 years incarceration. so had the war not come you could have been a jew with a weapon, felt the surrender. this is 1938 could be there until 1958. so it is quite phenomenal the threat of the punishment. so, that was decreed at a time and what was actually going on at that time was this where you have the attacks on the jewish home and it is justified by saying research for weapons. i think whole chapter o that people that live in those days were either wrote books or were interviewed or what not and they would ask where are the weapons. they asked that at synagogues and orphanages like why don't we have weapons here? but it also asked in places they did have weapons. rusty revolvers, jewish men played a major role in the german defeat could german army and many of them had been officers said they had their revolvers still because they were about to keep them after the war. there were numerous accounts of the gun owners having turned americans into getting arrested were trying to get rid of them. two friendly police officers were throwing them into the river and things like that so that takes place you also have familiar seems like that's why they call it the night of the broken glass, and here we have the concentration camp. it is about 10,000 here you can see their heads are shaved and he gave a press conference about the same day november 10 or so and he said what are you talking about? jewish men are being picked up. then he left the press conference a few minutes in and came back out and the swiss journalist asked him like you know, we are getting all of these reports. what do you say about that? there were a number that were picked up for weapons. so they had at least ten, 20,000. maybe more. nobody really knows. they were mostly picking up people who were thought to have money but then they had to pay their way to get out so one more scheme for them to engage in class warfare as they saw it the entitlement program of the day. that basically ends the book. i guess i can turn it back. you have to look at this more in picture. we have a chapter like what happens next, and it was interesting if you were seized by the gestapo could never get that review of your incarceration or why you were there. and it just right after, there was a ruling verifying that. it was about a gun club where one of them that didn't want to be nazis that was sticking them into the context and of course with the concentration camps for all of that time if you were seized by the gestapo and you were in that kind of custody you couldn't get the review but if you were seized by the ordinary police you couldn't have your case go to court and there was a case i found that because there was also an alternative to create by the interior minister that said they couldn't have weapons and that if they were arrested for that they went through the ordinary proceedings and they found a record of jewish man who was arrested and they didn't tell what the result was that at least he got his day in court. in the rest of the book i have this kind of an incidental review of some of the different things that happened. and i think what most people are familiar with in this issue is the uprising where they were able to get the guns and a day to go for that ghetto in warsaw. they stop the deportation of few days and one of my favorite incidenceincidences as a germanr has been shot and he was running it telling. he is running away. and they said this shows what you do when you have guns in your hands. their hands. so i thought that was quite an endorsement. so i think that's probably about enough for me and if we want to move on we have a few minutes for q-and-a and i think questions and comments i will open it up. yes sir. wait for the microphone. let's get the microphone. >> does this also apply to people that were not wholly jewish part clicks connect to the extent they were jewish by the number of law and it is very complicated and they had a think if you're down to a fourth maybe it wouldn't apply that i've seen charts of these how did you ever figure this out. out. >> you titled this talk are there lessons? what would you suggest? what are the lessons for us? the lesson is be careful what you wish for. another is history does repeat itself and there is the old comment about those that don't learn from history do repeat. it doesn't always repeat itself or do it in the same way. but i do think that we should be cautious. the supreme court justice felix said in the case involving the police search and seizure in the supreme court case what we don't want to exemplify in any way is what we have seen, for example with the gestapo tactics. so, what i think is it some slick pr unique society where nothing bad could ever happen and so if we talk about the gun registration or that kind of topic you have to talk about is there any benefit to it? they registered the gun and the communistcommunists in the '90st were called into trouble never did. and so we have to assess to the extent some of these proposals or even constitutional and we have to assess what can happen. are there bad things that can happen with it and so i think all of these topics all of the different laws are the republic passed before them have to be taken into consideration to that calculus. .. >> it was not the fascist party, tt term gets misused. it was the german, the national german socialist workers' party. national socialists, that's what they called themselves. they were socialists. hello. there's an excellent book called "the vampire economy" which was written by an economics professor who escaped nazi germany and came here, and it explains how through and through that regime there was government control of the economy. and it's the same, it was the same in russia. so it was about competing attempts to have supreme state power with different doctrines to some extent. >> [inaudible] >> goebbels was -- there were a number of nazis who were originally communists. and -- yes. >> well, my comment is a bit late. but i would have wished that you had entitled your book gun control in the wymar republic. because so many people that i have talked to and raised this issue with have sort of made it sounder relevant because they say, well, they were nazis, so what can you expect? but the fact that gun control originated in the w, with mar -- wymar republic, a democratic republic, i think, is the real lesson to be learned from history. but maybe you'll write another book. [laughter] >> no, that's a very good point, and i've got three whole chapters on that. we're only talking about the title, and probably if it said gun control in the wymar republic, nobody would buy it. [laughter] okay. all right, where's the mic? yes, sir. who's got the mic? >> considering that there were very few jews in germany compared to, say, poland, how many jews in germany actually owned weapons? what percentage? >> well, no way to know how many jews or how many so-called aryans or -- >> they knew who was jewish, therefore, they knew who to send out the orders to surrender them to. >> well, you know -- >> germans can cross-reference. >> it's never been published, i've never seen any archive that is that, but you're right, there could have been a document that had the number of jewish gun owner who is registered their guns or who had licenses for their guns. there would be no documents for those who had neither of those but who were gun owners. but the history i went through is full of the fact that jews, they were very assimilated in germany, and they were very much like other -- >> the only reason most jews, if any, the few jews that had them was for target shooting and for sport. they didn't hunt. we don't hunt for food. it's not kosher. [laughter] >> well, as a matter of fact, it was decreed twice that germans had guns for hunting licenses. but, you know, the record is the record. nobody has data on that. you can make surmises. there were certainly members of jewish gun clubs, because they were kicked out of them. but that's another study, and that ooh's -- it's -- that's, it'd be interesting to know all those things. >> we're talking about lessons from history, and this is right up my alley. unfortunately, americans all know one quotation, and they do not know a certain other one. everybody knows santana's quotation that those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. brilliant at its time, meaningless today. why is it meaningless? it is repeated as a mantra. this entire room can repeat it, and it means nothing because it is no longer a warning of the danger. the actual operative quotation comes from hagel who died in the 1850s. all right? and his quotation was transferred, was translated by george bernard shaw, one of the great intellectuals, a socialist, of england. and he said, his translation is -- he simplified hagel. he said the great lesson of history is that man kind learns nothing from history. [laughter] and that one if you use it, you have some warning. so what history you know, please, adopt it to what you see going around you today. thank you. >> thank you. >> here's a question from one of the live stream people. >> okay. >> i have a question from the live stream people, wherever they may be. and what do you think, why do you think that any mention of nazi gun laws is dismissed by -- [inaudible] as paranoid exaggeration? >> [inaudible] >> pardon? >> mainstream media. >> mainstream media. sounds like one of those other, what do you call 'em, terms? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> yeah. there's a, if you go on the internet, you'll see a lot of denial that any of this ever took place. hitler was the gun owner's best friend except that he wanted to kill all jews and disarm them first. we actually, in the year 2000 i published my first law review article on this subject, and there was a professor bernard harcott basically saying, right, he wanted to kill and disarm all jews, but other than that he was the gun owner's friend. [laughter] it's like, other than that? isn't that enough? [laughter] and he was not a friend of gun owners. he was a friend of, you know, national socialist power and occupying other countries and killing other peoples. sure, he wanted his military people to be well trained, but that was so they could disarm and kill other people. so, you know, and if you go on the internet, you'll see some of the same line of reasoning, that none of this happened and that the nazis actually made it easier for everyone to own guns. do it tonight, you'll see it. i promise you. >> early in your talk you mentioned something that i didn't remember reading in the book, and i found it fascinating, and and i'm kind of curious why you didn't have it in the book, or maybe you're going to do something in the future about the u.s. government being assigned a study to find out about gun control in nazi germany and the -- in 1968. >> right. >> when they're discussing the original proposal for the u.s. gun control law. and i'm curious why you didn't mention that in the book and maybe is there something coming up about that? >> it's actually in the introduction of the book. >> okay. >> it's actually there. >> okay. >> i promise you. >> because that seems like a very big thing. and there's another book which i think is -- you cited it in yours, but it seem to be a great complement to your book. it's a little more radical in certain ways, but it has some great archival material too, and that is "gun control -- excuse me, "gun control in germany, the gateway to tyranny." >> right. >> and it actually translates those three gun control laws in germany and then puts the '38 one side by side with the 1968 -- >> right. >> -- one. >> right. >> and it's really scary about how much overlap there is between the two. >> well, it's all about keeping records on law-abiding people. that's what it's all about. but that -- the book you mentioned did a great service by having the original german in the gothic type, the way it was originally published, in one page. on the facing page, it would have english translating for the 1928 law, the '31 decree and the 1938 law. >> [inaudible] >> right. and the u.s. law. >> [inaudible] >> it just -- you'll see in the parts of the congressional record or hearing records, rather, where i found the library of congress study that dodd had a copy of the german law that he loaned to the library of congress to do their study. but let me say that england had passed the same kind of legislation in 1919 and thereafter. so they didn't really have to learn or translate the german law to get ideas for what they wanted to do on registration and all the licensing requirements. certainly, he was aware of it, yes. >> i don't know if you're the one that deemed the wymar republic legislation to be well intentioned, but however, it is mentioned in some of the literature that that legislation was well intentioned. if you disagree with that, can you tell us why? and if you agree with that, can you tell us on what basis you believe that it was well intentioned? >> they perceived of themselves as being well intentioned. okay? in terms of judging other people's motives, that's a difficult thing to do. by and large, i don't think the leaders identity weimar republic, they showed no proclivities to do that. they did have a lot of problem, the hyperinflation, the fighting in the streets, communists shooting police from buildings, nazis murdering people. and, but the thing is what kind of scheme do you come up with to deal with that? you know, do you focus on people committing acts of violence, or do you just focus on the general public? it's easy to focus on the general public. and so you had some officials, and they didn't get what they wanted, but there were police officials who wanted to ban all guns by civilians during the weimar years, and there were the same debates we have today, a document took place in the weimar period in the discussions about the 1931 decree before that because the executive branch put it out, like we're thinking about doing this and what do you say. and there were some officials would say this won't do any good, you've got to go after the criminals, it doesn't do any good to hyperregulate law-abiding people. and then the other side of that was the same familiar tune that you hear today, that we have to do this in registering these people, we have to, you know, make sure their papers are in order. and your papers are not in order. [laughter] so -- >> here's another one. >> okay. here's another streaming one. [laughter] how do we -- i have to read this. how do we inform state, federal legislators of these facts and draw similarities to what we currently see going on such as state laws and how federal agencies are being used? and, i mean, when you go through this history, you see a lot of familiar things, executive decrees, a mistrust for the general population wanting to register gun owners or confiscate guns, to ban certain kinds of guns. you have a lot of that here in california. that's why you're all here. [laughter] and i think it's important to study what happened in history. i was always amazed once i really got into the topic why doesn't anybody say anything about this topic. but the national socialists were emphatic that they had to disarm people. and why did they do it? they weren't, like, looking out for the -- they didn't want, it wasn't like they didn't want jewish children to have accidents with guns or, you know, they were protecting them from themselves and, you know, if somebody wanted to dispossess of a gun, it wasn't because the gun was likely to be used by a criminal against them. i mean, they were doing this to disarm people so they could oppress them and kill them. and i don't ascribe that motive to people proposing similar things today. but i do think they don't trust the people at large to use james madison's term about this, in america the people are trusted with arms unlike under the european monarchies. so, you know, motives are one thing, but reality is another. you've got -- who's got the mic gets to talk. >> yeah. speaking of well-intentioned laws and relate that to the 1968 federal gun control law. as i understand it, correct me if i'm wrong, the reason behind that was, i believe, a number of assassinations; martin luther king and the two kennedy brothers. now, how do you relate that in terms of the infamous quote? do you see that as well intentioned or another interpretation of never let a good crisis go to waste? [laughter] >> well, a lot of that was going on. these bills had languished in congress until we had a lot of, you know, terrible political incidents, assassinations and what not. and so, i mean, the way the dodd bill got started out was he wanted to protect the american gun industry from imports, and it ended up having -- [inaudible] for imports. so that was achieved this the final bill as well -- in the final bill as well. a lot of other stuff got added there. but also a lot of things got defeated. like registration was defeated soundly, and it has been ever since. we actually had a law right before pearl harbor that decreed against registration. you had the same in the act of '86 and you even have the brady act without which it couldn't have been passed. so you have some protections, but you, you know, how good are these protections and how -- will they last? that's the critical point. whoever's got the mic. yes, sir. >> one thing we're seeing this day is the increasing militarization of our, of our police forces, particularly local lis forces -- police forces and statewide. the ramping up of the firepower there. supposedly to go against the firepower of the criminal gangs. but it seems from reading the news that it's more convenient for them to go against unarmed or poorly-armed civilians rather than to go against people who might be able to shoot back at them effectively. my question, the question regarding that was is there any parallel -- it's not clear, this doesn't seem to clearly fit into german history, but how do you see this sort of militarization fitting into the issue of civilian, you know, of guns and lessons in the third reich there? >> one thing you'll see in the book in 1933goering had become head of the gestapo, prussian side of the gestapo, and he made it where -- he told, there were a whole bunch of new police officers coming in because they were sa people originally and what not, and he told them don't worry about it, you know, shoot first and ask questions later, and you won't be held liable for that. there was an official statement that he put out to all of them. he basically said, you know, get tough with the communists and all our opponents, and don't be afraid to shoot. and so a lot more of these people came under arms, and i'm sure their equipment got better. but, you know, the problem of militarization of law enforcement in this country right now is the same problem as, you know, overcriminallization of human activity large by congress and other legislative bodies and all the eavesdropping. so we've, you know, think about it, gestapo eavesdropping, they're trying to listen on the phone. they're listening, they have informers everywhere. and like now people don't talk together anymore because they're on the internet, but then they know where you're going on the internet. so it's, you know, it's quite an eavesdropping heaven that we're in right now. >> back to history again. all we need look at is hurricane katrina and the flooding of new orleans and the police department of new orleans instead of going out and rescuing people who were standing without clean water, food or anything on their roofs surrounded by water, they were going around confiscating firearms. now, this is part of the same thinking that hitler was fostering. hitler didn't just pose as the leader who knew the way and the answer to everything. by the way, he was copying mussolini in that. mussolini -- [inaudible] mussolini is always right. [laughter] this was a type of thing that goebbels was spreading. hitler was posing as the protecter of germany, of the german people. and we could go on about that for many, many times, but other than bouncing back to the united states, you find that in the late 1930s there was a concerted attempt not only in congress, but among various different gun-owning groups to come up with a new gun-owning law for the united states. a national law to get rid of the patchworks of various different conflicting laws. and what happened to it? roosevelt's advisers told him it's easy: veto it and say you're tough on crime, and it worked. he got a lot of votes doing that. people said, oh, roosevelt will take care of us. he's our leader, he's tough on crime. [inaudible conversations] >> in the back there's -- >> right here. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> i mean, a comment on, you know, the mantra for those who want to control the government, is public safety. i wanted to ask you, you mentioned very early on that with very few exceptions nobody talks about the gun issues and the history of the third reich. can you tell us some of the exceptions? >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand. >> exceptions to history that actually do discuss, you know, the arms regulations of weimar and nazi -- >> oh, they're virtually nonexistent. i mean, you can -- rise and fall of the third reich by william shirer is that thick, and it doesn't mention it. i thought this was about the rise of the third reich. like i said, the only -- maybe a couple of books will have, you know, a footnote or something. and they'll repeat the article that i mentioned about helldorf decreeing the disarming of the jews, and that's it. there's nothing else. >> [inaudible] >> why -- no, there's never been any real discussion about this. and what i wanted to do in the book was to have a scholarly, historical discussion that would get into the facts and get outside of just the rhetoric. >> this is a real question, not a statement. [laughter] do you have a sequel planned called "gun control in america, 2014"? [laughter] >> i thought that was a question. [inaudible conversations] >> the question is, do you have a sequel planned to your book? again, titled "gun control in america, 2014"? >> um -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i'm still trying to document what happened in the past, and i am doing a lot of work on gun control in occupied france during the period of 1940-'44. where they decreed -- they still wouldn't turn their darn guns in. that's an interesting historical lesson. you can make it a felony, a double felony, a triple felony to have guns or certain types of evil guns, and people don't turn 'em in. i can't understand why. they wouldn't even do it under the threat of death. [inaudible conversations] >> peter, let's just wait for a question. >> my question is a little different. it's a more practical consideration. i don't know how many people in this room have actually purchased a gun from a dealer, but there is an enormous amount of paperwork, and even if all of it were to be eliminated, one still has to fill out the warranty paperwork which provides for protection and being able to get the gun if there's a recall or whatever it is. how do you, how can we prevent the basic information we need to give a manufacturer from falling into government hands to achieve the result that this book is trying to prevent? >> well, one thing that -- i'm going to just add to what you said because there's no real answer to that. that's the way reality is. but california has been requiring all handguns to go through licensed dealers for transfer. and it used to be up until last year it was actually a crime for a government official to register long guns. and that was repealed as of, i think, january 1, 2014, in which case all private long gun transfers have to go through a license dealer, and it's reported to the california justice department. and so the records are there. you know, if you want your warranty, you might as well send it in, because they already know. [laughter] not to mention if you make a phone call to a gun shop or to the nra -- [laughter] they've got your number. >> a striking thing about the german laws is the way they focus on enemy groups, political opposition. in this country we usually think of our gun debates as just applying to everybody, but i guess historically there's a lot of originally gun control was targeted at blacks. and i'm wondering what you think of the targeting opportunities today when we have an irs now that is weapon niced to go after political -- weapon niced to go after political opponents? could they start auditing gun owners? >> i would be shocked, shocked that they would do that. [laughter] i knew you were going to mention the irs. [laughter] and, no, that could never happen here. [laughter] no. >> so one of the most, i can't think of a better word than idiotic, examples of an attempt at gun control in modern times was during the early days of the war in iraq. when the american executive this charge, i think his name was bremer, oversaw the disbanding of the iraqi army, knew that the police who were generally associated with the old regime had essentially disbanded themselves and run for it. so there was no effective authority. there was, of course, plenty of problems between the different religious communities. people were shooting each other. there was no police, there was no army, and bremer issued an order that all civilians had to turn in their weapons or at least their automatic weapons. the sense of reality or the lack of the sense of reality that some of the people who believe in gun control seem to espouse is quite remarkable. i thought that was certainly not one of america's findest moments. finest moments. i mean, especially given our own tradition of citizen militias, where did we get a guy like bremer there? it's a rhetorical question. >> right, yeah. why don't we take one more, and that probably should be about the end. anybody dying to get a question out? >> yeah, right here. >> in the front. [laughter] >> two questions. they're kind of related. which supreme court cases cited your work, and then if you could possibly cop travis the -- contrast the reis sense of your deny contrast the reception of your previous books that possibly led to those supreme court cites of your books and then with what's happening with the reception for this book. >> um, well, whether this book will ever be cited in a supreme court case remains to be seen. because it's more of a historical book, and you don't interpret the second amendment based on this. but one thing i will say that i -- it makes it relevant to me in terms of gun registration is, for example, the district of columbia has gun registration which is being litigated right now, and i'm kind of involved in that case. and there's been, there's historical reasons why politically american legislators, although they've passed a lot of laws in some cases involving records kept by ffls and what not, it's very rare for registration to be passed. hawaii's the only state nationwide that has total gun registration. we have degrees, lesser degrees of it in certain states, but most states don't have anything to do wit. with it. but one of my books, "that every man be armed," was cited by justice thomas in the concurring opinion in prince v. u.s., and my book "freedom and the 14th amendment and the right to bear arms" which was reprinted by securing civil rights was published -- can i mean, was cited in both the heller case and the mcdonald case. and then the founders' second amendment was also cited in the mcdonald case. >> and heller. >> it was not cited this heller. >> oh, i thought you said -- in it was not. >> okay. >> reception for this book -- [inaudible] >> oh, it's been -- you'll have to talk to david about sales figures, but i think it's done very well. and we've, it's been very well received, i think. and there's, was it the new yorker? "nation" magazine -- >> new republic. >> "new republic" published a very interesting account of an interview with me and the book, and it talks about the fact all these people together today talk about the nazis and the proposals of the nazis and this and that. which i totally disagree with, and i told him on the telephone interview. and so he mentions chapter one and nothing else because it mentions the dea bait in the -- debate in the u.s. hello, there's more to the book than that. you could throw chapter one out, and the book would still be the book out. speaking of chapter one, i'll close on this. one of the most interesting things that we found was in, let's see, january the 1st, a year ago, there was some kind of decades-long anniversary. i don't remember what it was now. but germany, part of the e.u. the e.u. decreed that all guns have to be registered, and germany proudly reported they were the first nation in the e.u. to require the registration of all legal guns. [laughter] so -- >> there we go. >> thank you, germany. [applause] >> i want to especially thank steve halbrook for joining with us and for his really path-breaking work with this new book. we hope all of you will get a copy, give copies to others. it's an amazing story. it's, it's one of these stories that resonate and stops people, i think, for good reasons. steve is available to autograph copies of this new book by his, by him and others that he's done. we also invite you to visit our web site, independent.org, and i want to thank you again for making tonight so successful. so i want to applaud everyone here. [applause] and we look forward to you joining with us next time. thank you, good night. [inaudible conversations] >> you're watching booktv on c-span2. 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. here's our prime time lineup for tonight. up next, jack devine recounts his career with the cia and operations outside the u.s. at 7:45, comedian-turned-major of reykjavik, iceland, john gnarr talking about his country's economic situation and efforts to stop the u.s. and nato from using reykjavik for their military purposes. then the weekly standard's dan yell halper discusses "clinton inc." on "after words." and at 10, beth
New-yorkUnited-statesHamburgGermanyMunichBayernOaklandCaliforniaBranch-atAquitaineFranceRussia and we'll rap up at 11:30 eastern with paul kengor and his book, "11 principles of a ray garre kin. -- reagan conservative." >> coming up next, jack devine, co-author of "good hunting," talks about his 32-year career with the central intelligence agency. he headed up the cia's efforts to arm the mujahideen in afghanistan and was involved in the iran contra affair. he also helped to track down fbi mole robert hanson. this event was hosted by the association of former intelligence officers. it's just over an hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. for those of you who have not purchased the book, you need to go out and buy the book. for those of you who already have a book in your possession, you need to turn to the photographs. [laughter] and find a wonderful photo of jack devine, a much younger, slimmer, longer-haired jack devine undercover in santiago, chile. not for the in-house audience, but for the at-home audience, i am going to read just a little bit from the handbill so those at home can follow along with us. many consider jack devine to be one of the legendary spymasters of our time. he was in chile when -- [inaudible] fell. he ran charlie wilson's war in afghanistan. he had far much to do with iran contra for his own taste, and he actually tried to stop it at one point. he caught pablo escobar in colombia. he tried to warn george tenet that there was a bullet coming back at him for iraq. in 1986 he walked into our director, bill casey, and said we had a tremendous breakthrough yesterday, we deployed the stinger missell, and we shot down three helicopters. casey responded, jack, this changes it all, doesn't it? mr. devine is a 32-year career officer with the cia. he began in the 1960s. he has a brand new book out called "good hunting: an american spymaster's story," which is on sale today, and he'll be glad to sign questions after today's session. he'll also take q&a. jack devine was already an established field operations officer when i joined cia, and if you can keep a secret, i'll share a little bit of history with this small, intimate room. [laughter] jack devibe was the kind of -- devine was the kind of clandestine service officer that i wanted to be when i grew up. please join me in welcoming jack devine. [applause] >> what jim really meant to say at the end of that is he wanted to be like me because of that picture. [laughter] and those of you that have gone to see "american hustle," they are plaid pants. i had long hair and a moustache. and i could have easily at that point in time played in the role of "american hustle." by design i didn't put the color picture, but jim thought they were pretty fashionable at the time. and i believe peter sort of tormented me once saying do you still have the pants for the museum? [laughter] you can't tell a book by its cover. and this isn't because of vanity. i love the cover of the book. and if you look at it, one of my employees took the book home and showed it to her young daughter, and she said, well, mommy, i thought he was a nice man. [laughter] and with a book you have to have some fun, and there are some private jokes in here. the picture with the pants is funny because i've often heard how can you be a spy at 6-5? we won't put the weight in, but at 6-5. those of you, and there's a lot of practitioners in here, and it's wonderful to see them all. it's not about what you look like or your size, you get it done when the invisible spaces exist. so that was sort of a private joke. but the picture has some roots that go back in my career, and as i said, i always thought i was a pretty affable person. one day when i was in a central american sort of country -- because i can't say which country -- but the ambassador was going up the elevator with tom -- [inaudible] former chief of station this south vietnam, last one out. and tom said to the ambassador, you know, i want to send devibe out for that it is task -- devit for that task, and he said you don't mean that big, sinister-looking guy? [laughter] so i went home and i mentioned this to my wife, and i said, you won't believe what the ambassador said. big, sinister-looking guy. she said, well, jack, if i walked in and saw your face and didn't know you in your office, i'd turn around and walk out. [laughter] so i went to a fellow that's in this room, and i believe he has his back to me because i asked him to, i didn't want to look him in the eye. and i said, jerry -- [laughter] you know, what do you think? he said, well, jack, did you ever see how you make a point? [laughter] so, however, what it really gets to in a way is the role-playing that operators undertake in their mission. and if you fast forward when i was running latin america division in the 1990-'92 period, as you remember, president clinton wanted to remove the dictators in haiti. and tony lake was a director, and sandy berg was deputy director. so they called me down and said, look, we want you to go down and tell the dictator to get out of town. now, this speaks to my iq. i thought it was great idea. [laughter] there's the chief down there, however, and i'll add a little note on him. so i went down, and the office had to report to the police of chief at the time. i'd gone out to the voodoo doctor and put some powder on him, and he came -- because he was fearful. god knows why. but the, when i went down, he came to the chief's house. it was just the three of us, and there was water. he wouldn't touch the water. and then for those of you that engaged in poisoning, you realize that pumpkin soup is one of of the best things to disguise poison in. in comes the maid with pumpkin soup. [laughter] so i thought he was going to die on the spot. now, when you get instructions from the white house on your script it's -- and it was in this case -- now, you say this, and he will say that. then you say this, and he says -- i've never been in an operational meeting where you can script it that way. and i'm irish. so when i went down to the room, i decided bad jack has to show up. so he was seated there, and i said, look, i want to tell you a story that a latin friend of mine told me. and the latin friend said, you know, you are like that train -- you americans are like the train roaring down the track, and we're the latins in the middle of the track, and we see you coming, and we puff out our chest. we say, bring it on. and there's a very important lesson if you're working in latin america. so i thought that was just the right poetic thing to lean across and say you do not want to be that rooster. now, i thought i made my point, but it wasn't tony's script, and they didn't leave even though i had a large bag beside the menacing message. a week later jimmy carter was at the table negotiating with the general, and they were not budging. and he received a message from the president of the united states saying you should leave the meeting. and he kept jawboning. and we were ready. the cia was ready with its covert action capabilities, and the planes were off, taking off from the runway in florida, and a spotter notified the negotiators, and they folded on the spot. and the dictator, the chief of police specifically, went to florida. where else would you go if you're a dictator and you're on the run? he got on the radio, and he said, oh, they sent this menacing guy down who threaten today kill me, my wife and my chirp. now, i promise you i never said anything about the wife and children. [laughter] so what rhyme getting -- what i'm getting at is there is a role to play. i did a piece for "homeland," a promotional piece. you know you've arrived in new york, and it was this that 30-second piece at the back of a cab. one of the questions was how much covert action -- not covert action, how much is operational work like an actor? and i never thought about the question. but it is true. when you deal with foreign governments and foreign liaisons and you're dealing with assets and agents, you really do need to act. you have to be a good one. if you get beyond -- well, we should stick with the cover. it took me two years, again an iq issue, to come up with two words: good hunting. i don't want need to explain it to people in the room, but it's a very old adage used by operators. the first thing i see it noted in history is in kipling's "jungle book." but if you look to some of the classic world war ii black and white movies where they're organizing the partisan, and there was one, frankly, i named it before i saw this, they were breaking up the meeting. the parting -- [inaudible] was "good hunting." i know i have signed cables, i don't know how many, but certainly more than a few where there's a certain point in an operation or you're doing something you say, "good hunting." and i thought that captured a key part of the business, whether it's hunting for a source of information or hunting for can si or hunting for bin laden or hunting for pablo's copar be, it's a -- escobar, it's a key part of our business. if you go inside, and mike montgomery, every time i see him we arm wrestle. he's got the strongest handshake in the u.s. federal government. he looked at another picture, and it was a picture of me in the jump tower during the training -- so the book starts at the training -- but i tried to personalize it a little bit because if you didn't, when you went through the training, the operational training, then you did the paramilitary training. and if you were pre-- post-world war ii, you had to jump out of a plane. by '6ed it was optional. i was married with kids, two weeks off after all of this? i got it, i'm outta here. so i said to my wife, you know, i think i'm just going to go to the beach. i love the beach. she said, well, you're going to miss all that camaraderie. i said, yeah, i like them a lot, i'll probably like them as time goes by -- there's a few here today -- but i said i think i'm going to enjoy the beach. and then i went to the farm, to the bar, and there was a colonel there. he said, jack, it's better than sex. and i thought, well, okay, this is getting interesting. then i took a second look at him, and i thought, look, he's missing a boat here. [laughter] so finally when i applied for different officers, and i didn't know better, i actually thought covert action took place in the covert action staff, so i put that down not knowing. and i went in and -- [inaudible] was the head of it. there was parachuting memorabilia. and i walked in, and he said, jack, have you jumped yet? it's the greatest thing a man can do. and i said, no, but i'm looking forward to it. [laughter] so not for camaraderie, but for careerism, i would jump out of a plane. i did that five times, and i will assure you, the colonel had it absolutely wrong. [laughter] but, and i didn't excel in demolitions either. chris is here, and i don't know if you remember, we were down at the demolition training, and they literally came out with an instructor was missing a couple of figures and scarred as heck. he says, you know, it's dangerous dealing with weapons. i got it, you don't have to speak any more. but then you blow up poles and detonating chords, and they burn at a certain rate. i don't remember the rate, but -- and so they would have six or seven poles, and i always thought to myself, add a couple more inches to give yourself a little more time. so pole one would go, policy two, four, five and then mine would go. they really didn't think it was as funny as i did. and in my file somewhere it says this man should not be allowed near explosives. [laughter] in 1986 i was responsible for more explosives than anybody in the history of the agency, so there's not necessarily a direct link there. but the last thing, if i can laugh at myself, was the brush pass. and today with electronics no one thinks about a physical brush pass. but i was in irving cantor's district, and we had to -- [laughter] make a -- i had a beautiful location. it was wonderful. you couldn't see it from any angle, so i had my hand ready, it was going to to be the slight of hand. the instructor walked by and didn't put his hand out. so i was livid when i got to the bottom of the steps. i am a gentleman, but i did engage in a really gross hand signal. [laughter] now, not to worry too much about it, when i get back to camp that night, they said, oh, we have a treat, and the treat is for the first time we videoed the brush passes today. and needless to say, mine was the first one. but i retained that skill, and i was in amsterdam with my wife two years ago, and the waiter was being particularly solicitous. we had a little more wine, so i gave him the 20 euro pass. i mean, any new yorker would be proud of the handoff. but you know your wife. you look across, you know something is fundamentally wrong. it's that half-smirk, half-smile that really means trouble. and she said, what did you do? i said, i did a brush pats pass. she -- brush pass. she said, yeah, but he wasn't our waiter. [laughter] anyway, things got quite serious after that. it was great fun, and i feel nostalgic today because so many folks are here from my past. i ended up the very first assignment in chile, it was the most fortunate experience from an operational point of view. there were two places in the world that were high priority. one was vietnam, the other was chile. and the reason chile was so important was that the nixon -- nixon himself and henry kissinger felt that in the cold war so many of our children and grandchild have, you know, talked about the cold war. it's really talking about the -- [inaudible] so nixon viewed it as a red -- [inaudible] chile supporting a socialist-turned-far left latin mesh be caught in the sand witch and -- sandwich. he was elected with a plurality, but he was elected in a very democratic country that had a democratic history for many years. so an instruction went from the white house to the agency to the field station chief. who's long dead, and i would like to mention he was great operator. european officer in many ways. and he wrote back a cable saying it can't be done. we don't have the infrastructure, there's not enough popular support, and it's going to be very messy. and the response came back, give it a good college try. and it was put in government language, but that was it. and they did. they gave it their best shot. and i would, and it ended in disaster. there was a rogue group, not tied to the cia, that tried to kidnap the commander of the armed forces and killed him in the process, and the entire country turned in favor of i have yenty. and the, well, there are a couple lessons, but i think i want to make a key point right here. many people confused the chile coup that took place in '73 with that misadventure. the next cable that came said cease and desist, you will not plot with the military. and that stayed in vogue until -- through the entire administration. in 1973 in september, actually in june there was a mini-coup. a few highly intoxicated tank drivers pulled up in front of the palace, the commander in chief talked them back. our analysis in the agency was, clearly, the military stood behind the constitution and would not overthrow. and that was june. late june. and what happened, and we found out only later that it was at that moment that the chilean military went back and started to plot because it wasn't about the constitution, it wasn't about the economic policies, it was they were afraid that they were losing the discipline of the military ranks and that they were going to take charge of the coup, and it wouldn't be a junior coup. and that was when it began in earnest. as circumstances would have it. i received the first -- as circumstances would have it, i received the first report that first notified the u.s. government that the chilean government was going to be overthrown. and it was three days before. and i didn't want even receive it personally -- i didn't even receive it personally. the call went to my wife who knew this asset who said i'm at the airport, and i'm leaving. there'll be a coup on september 11th, tell jack. and i was drug out of a restaurant to get that message. that was the first time. three days before we learned. and then there was a second report, and at that point we had sent a message, and the rest of the show you though -- story you know. pin they -- pinochet came to power. what surprised everybody, all the opposition parties, we contributed and i personally went out and worked newspapers and political parties and my friends to support the opposition. but that is quite different. did we contribute to the environment? yes. what was the weight of it? i would say in my analysis the government really fell of its own economic conditions and its policies, and my expectation, frankly, is that if we'd got on the an election, that he would have lost, and we might have had a different outto come. when -- outcome. when pinochet came to power, we were just not expecting the opposition to stay. it was a democratic country, they'd bring order, and then there'd be an election. you couldn't find anybody that would tell you they'd be around for 19 years. and then the human rights violations, which were huge, and that surprised etch. took us a -- everyone. took us a while to find out about it s. and when we did, the relationship chilled with pinochet. when i was getting ready to leave, the chief said, jack, what do you think? write a memo. i'm an add advocate of covert action. remember, i had the long hair and the pants, and i said, well, we ought to use covert action and get rid of pinochet. so that was where my mind was x i don't think i was alone on that. so i think in the world out there there's a view that we were strong supporters of the military government. just isn't true. foreign affairs magazine, which comes out next week, takes the chile chapter and reduces it to half the distance to fit the length of their articles. and it's title. titled "what really happened in four different places," and chile's one of them. it's such a hot button even today that it surprises me. i got ahead of myself in a way because this book isn't about the heavy into the espionage part. you can't really write about it because so many of the agents, you know, you can't write about agents. this is about the action. and for those not audiences like this, but, you know, over the years people get confused between covert and clandestine. and we all know that covert is the james bond, never meet an agent, never take a report, never do an accounting. and then the espionage is the george smiley plodding along, getting his agent, handling it as -- so there are the two different types. this is the action part. and not only do i believe it's an essential part, i believe it's going to be and should be a major role of state craft. the stimulus for the book came because of another author, and we are not going to mention him because we to not want to promote his book -- [laughter] but when tim wrote his book saying that, you know, the agency was a rogue element and that covert action never works, i was inspired, and that's the nice word, to see if we couldn't come up and point out that actually cia's made up of a lot of very fine people and that action not only works, but it needs to be applied. somewhere at the end i'm sure someone will have questions about where we are today. but that is one of the key themes in the book. on james -- on sean connery and covert action, i was in an undisclosed country. don't google, or you'll find out where i was. i was sitting in this restaurant, and in walks sean connery. and i was with my wife and the service. there's just fluttering in the room, all the women and some of the men. [laughter] and it's annoying, you know? so i'm going to blame the other service chief, and he said we're the real thing, you know? and they both broke out laughing saying, you've got to be kidding. there's 007. you're just too bure bureaucrats that we've been married to for a long time. [laughter] so, and think used to annoy me -- they used to annoy me, those movies. let me move on, because i can get bogged down in things. i went on to do other latin american assignments, and because they're in the collection point area, i can't really talk about them in detail. there's no reason to. and the reason i can write this book is -- and there's a young man here who's going out to the field, and i used to remind people when you do covert action, in your lifetime you'll have a chance to read your cables. i never thought back then. so covert action becomes public. so i was assigned to the iran branch in 1985. i wanted a change of pace, and jim mentioned early on i just got the iran branch, i knew very little about iran, and i was backed up by a deputy. and i'd mentioned him, but he's been scratch 3. scratched. and the, at that time i got a call from a european division chief, and he said, jack, you're going to be called by the creditor in a few minutes -- directer in a few minutes. okay, great. you know, you don't get a call every day. so i got a call and went up, went into the room, and they said, look, want you to go out and meet a contractor with the white house. and he's got something, he's got a source who who's really valuable who can tell us information about the hostages in beirut. and so i went out. but then i went downstairs, and there's my deputy holding a two-inch file. and he said, jack, this is bad news. we have a burn note out on it, plunked two sets of poll lay graphs, he's an armed merchant, we shouldn't be touching it. and god bless deputies like that. when i wrote the book, there was 80 people that we interviewed. some of them aren't in the book because their family members are tied to the agency and it would cause problems. a couple of them didn't say anything worth high. but there's a lot -- worthwhile. but there's a lot of people we interviewed. so i called him because we were doing rapp, and i would call them, and then i would turn him over to one of the folks in my office so you'd have an independent, non-chatty discussion but, rather, sticking to the mention. so i remember calling this fellow. and i hadn't spoken to him in 25 years. it's the honest to god truth, he came off of the tractor. he was on a tractor, and he came in. it was out in the west. i said, this is jack devine. and honest to god, i heard this -- oh! i know that call, i know what that is. that the jack devine got me into something, and it's legal. it's something that we did back then that need to be addressed. and i said, relax, i'm writing a book. but the second thing i said to him was -- and it was one of beauties of writing a book -- i got a chance to you know the movie 400 dates where the guy goes around and says, look, i really lost your number, you know? and it was an opportunity to say thank you in a robust way. i did that with my first chief of station, tom. you know, they're in their 80s. they were touched, but so was i, and that was one of the benefits. and the reason i mention it is he really stopped me from going down a path not knowing the person i was dealing with. but i went down and met him, and what i found was that they had exchanged, already had one exchange for missiles for hostages. .. i am not even sure of that. i was going to report it upstairs and said don't bother. they are not going to be involved in this. they didn't tell me the second part which is the end of another part of the agency and a couple of months later actually, it was february he said you're not going to like this. will you do the shipments and it was one of those points that you think it's so bad it's not going to happen. and i remember being in the watch when the plane took off. what happened is we were asking for a million dollars roughly and that they were being charged the extra million went to central. it almost brought down. and again when you look at what goes wrong i believe that it works very well. if you get an interagency you brief it on the hills you are going to have to have american support. your chances of getting it turned into the flat are much better -- minimized. i think everybody hears about it. i went on to afghanistan. i sat 20 feet from the office and i can tell you i had no idea that it was a problem of any magnitude. if you think back to 1985, 86 we actually thought the russians were winning. they mentioned charlie wilson's war. he was a smart guy. flamboyant for sure, but the program is actually a republican president and democratic congress working with government people within the rules and regulations and the government supported by an ally in pakistan. and you have a group of people that wanted to fight for were robustly funded. that is not a good move but it is the truth. i gave charlie the maximum credit and he told me after he retired from congress he said let's have dinner i'm coming to new york. he's a great because i always found them fascinating. i want to have a state dinner at sparks the restaurant where they were murdered and of course that is where he went. so when i walked in and sat down he said you didn't like the book you are going to hate the book, you know. and i traveled with the fellow and he was on him to do something and didn't 9/11 he pulled out his notes and turned it into a good book. my concern was the people who were going to think that's how you do the covert action. you have to pass the test of being reviewed and that's where i think the buck goes wrong. and i pay great tribute to charlie that i wanted to correct the record on that. he knew this was a true story. there was an hbo series and they have charlie in the hot tub and how he got inspired to get into it and i had a small role because it was jim's when the helicopters were shot down and i ran the photo ops so they had an actor playing my role. i think it had ten or 12 spots, but the first three were stunning. i thought they were going to be against the stinger change history? i was a little annoyed. i'm not going to be there with charlie wilson. so you could hear the enthusiasm coming out. i guess he is who we thought he was all along. but the third call was okay i've got this but the thir third oned look i don't want to talk about it. so i left it. but with my wife -- the stinger don't want to point them out but there is a trouble that made them physically. we tried everything and eventually i was called out of the white house and there was a demonstration of a mock helicopter and our truth didn't have been in the field, the forces didn't have it. it was coming up the assembly line. you go out and make a right turn and blow a helicopter out. and i think everybody sat there and said we are going to have the first u.s. armament. they were not without great quick to take the first picture because the missiles pas passed along the ground $60,000. when i saw it i said find another piece of this inadequate equipment might have been a different phrase. the next came bang bang bang out of the sky and it might have played a big part in history. why did it change the work lacks about the day they started flying above the range of these things. at that point the web ends flew across the border and, you know, i probably personally signed off on buying more trucks to get the weapons across. the last leg tie in a city folk. but the chief of the divisions of tennessee said tennessee mules don't work down there. any place we give them is china. so a western rodeo they would drive 9,000 across china and we made hundreds and millions of dollars of weapons to accommodate. they gave me a little sort of fake reminder but when you think of the words you think of the stingers and then you start going down the lines of the nitty-gritty. they had it in bold print and i left afghanistan and went to r row. it's about covert action with one exception. it is because of the other part of the business as the betrayal. it's how we look for people to be trade system or recruit them and it is unfortunately what we have to look at when we are betrayed. i knew from him my very first day in office and he would argue about the importance of counterintelligence and as a kid i kept saying how important the activities were and we traded books. he gave me a book called a call for demetrius. i gave him a book of leadership from 1930. of course you are going to be republican. so, what i was getting at was sort of people are destined and end up in certain places readers with you fast-forward i haven't seen him for 25 years. he went to the bookcases and he said this is your book. i should have had him sign it to pay for one of the kids education i guess. but when we think about james come it's important to get the psychology. i have sandy review who's written a book and led with the hunt to look at it to make sure that i didn't miss parts of it. he had a drinking problem for sure. he was the son, his father was a field officer. he was estranged from his father put in the tenuous relationship. he dropped out of school, came back and i thought that he was smart and well read not as much as he thought he was. he would like to d do abc did nt des. he was smart enough. you think that you are really smarter than everybody else and you don't work hard regardless you will see people pass you by and then you can struggle with the system and what do we look for when we look for traders, when we look at people satisfied in the system in that range? so, rick was moving in a direction. and i think the fact that he had access to the russian embassy and the position he had at the cia provided an opportunity to walk in and look like it was a normal event he said he could handle the russians. he was only going to give them a little bit and he left having turned over 11 of the agents. when i was in rome we had a walk and yet it was written in the book. they tell half of the story. i didn't think it was safe to do that. where in the world can we not be somebody. do we show is there a source inside of the cia to be generated and then the policy was weak around and have a polygraph and if you have any problems you come back and we go over the questions so i walked in on monday and i ran into him in the hall and i said how did it go? he said we did it six times seven, eight times and i don't know what we have. so, i walked briskly to the haitian dictator and said what are you doing? what is interesting i'm sure he was irate but he's absolutely nothing. in spanish it's a moment that means watch out. for the first time i felt a level of presentment. he thinks we were friends but so sandy came to me years later and they said look we have to have a meeting with you. we can't have it in our offices. iran and said look, we have a mole. you've got the list down. can rick be a spy and i said yes. the only person i've met in the agency that could be and it was that instantaneous connection in a moment and that question. and the fact that in my own mind he represented in rich respect the ingredients of the trader. and we know how that ended. i find fascinating i wanted him interviewed for the buck. book. i couldn't do it for obvious reasons, but i knew the justice turned it down but i did see the one interview on television can absolutely amazing. the interviewer had brilliant question. did you ever have trouble sleeping at night and there is a momentary pause where he says i thought he was going to have a problem with no i didn't have a problem and they are you have the first. and i think it speaks to us. so, i went into the counter narcotics program where i found a new way of doing business. it was a community business. it was providing a higher level of support for the liaison than i ever thought and that is not only for the centers o but the agency at-large and i still hold that. i eventually ended up on the seventh floor which was fascinating. i will leave it for the book because i want to leave time here. my chief of staff is here and held me up during that time. i have i had a lot of people hop along the way. but she is quoted in the book and i think it captures -- you really don't touch another agent. you see a lot of the foreign service chiefs, but she describes how she would be in the office at 6:30 and started to read and to try to narrow the pineal down for only the decision papers so that the video and myself at that point early on could go to the decision papers. at the end of the day she had to take the papers home and never got through them. what did i do? i met people and did nothing but make decisions. and frankly, i loved it. but you can't do it too long without wearing you down mentally and physically but that is the job and i thought i was the only one. they put a safe in your house. i don't want to stir up security but they want you to take the documents and there are only so many ways that could go wrong, but they did. you take on a suitcase at the end of the day and i thought well am i the only one? they had two suitcases. but that was the nature of it. then i went to an undisclosed country. as i said even skimming the photographs you might be able to sort that out. i left the agency and went into the private sector. the network is the type of thing that you do and i spent a fair amount of time talking about it but it's like our business and the best case i can't talk about. what i tried in the book i'm going to read one little part. i'm not going to read a lot. i tried to turn some of the important covert actions and i tried to humanize them so they could understand the people the cia made up of the neighbors. so i worked in the stories of my family and wife and so on. but i have an op-ed that came out its dealing wit of this deao you tell your children that you are a covert operator. i was in seven different countries. i'm a pretty experienced guy in this field. but i had to policy or plan and that was back in the united states i would do this when i was traveling between washington and the jersey seashore and i would get onto the delaware bridge. if you see a father and daughter out on the bridge, you will know what's going on. anyway, the first two i caught my 13 and 14 and he said that school. it wasn't a big deal and the fact that i wasn't an embassy officer but worked for the cia. well, i picked my middle daughter that 16. i told you there's a huge difference between 14 and 16. so i sit by the way the cia operative and the response was my father is an assassin. that's why the other hour and a half to work my way back. the point that i guess i'm making is you have families and i took language school the past looms largest. but there couldn't be a book without her because there is no -- we know that is not possible. he was always wise enough, it wasn't as good as we were taking it practicing to the shore. the window rolled down and out onto route 95 and that was the end of our lesson. i tried to humanize him. before we do questions you fall in love with your own book that doesn't mean it's necessarily flawed. but intelligence is about hunting for information, about the enemies as well as for ways to naturalize and then i go on to name someone but then the very last paragraph. the language applies through the relentless pursuit or adversaries in this world. he claims they cannot outrun his destiny. so the enemies cannot outrun the long reach and that is the end of good hunting. >> [inaudible] >> go ahead. >> let's hope that there is a second edition. >> you start off by talking about junior high school and you sort of make the point that you hope someday if he were a high school student were reading this book that about what inspired him or her to the covert action in the agency and you think that a little bit of such today as the big punchline that you can close but not quite. page 99 says charlie wilson's war existed only in charlie wilson's p5 mind. get -- yet you are taking on the most powerful institutions in america, hollywood. $100 million. tom hanks, $200 million net worth. >> unlike hillary, i'm broke. [laughter] >> in "the wall street journal" review he picks up on it very first thing. everybody is getting it wrong. we all kind of worked for charlie wilson. president ronald reagan, you tell us exactly in the book but i don't use this punchline on page 99. charlie wilson's war existed only in charlie wilson's mind. it doesn't come from me. it comes from frank anderson. i'm saying it was a u.s. government program and legal. since you mentioned hollywood i don't think that we read a book through it. i think that we read a chapter or two and it just doesn't work. but he was in the business. i must tell you over the years i changed my mind. we all have problems with parts of it. but when you think about the bottom line they said every 16-year-old girl is leaving the theater wanting to be her and i think james bond -- if you want to look like sean connery, or you have a second option who doesn't want to. it helped us for people who think we are so powerful and there is a mystique about us. so hollywood -. the website's -- i think i could have controlled the world in the social networking. but now the most powerful propaganda piece was rambo iii who was hanging out with the machine gun at hacking that didn't change the opinion of the russians in afghanistan's. i talked to menendez and he will tell you right out they were not being chased by cars down the road. there is more truth than the hollywood version because how do you project that feeling that your stomach is in knots? you can't do it in the second cinematography. i also give the audience a level of sophistication. they understand hollywood. and i -- my own sense and maybe in washington i remember we had the cia memorial foundation and a number of my clients wrote checks not because they had a contract that they were just patriotic. there was a lot of patriotism and support for the cia. and we have some big bumps in our history and we continue to have been. but not all, not everything is a downside in the hollywood world. sometimes they actually get in front of the trends and that hasn't been a strong suit late lately. >> in 1987 when the major defected, fidel castro released a film about the cia operations in cuba and the portrayal of the course is that the cuban intelligence but i would think the story is more complicated. what can you tell us what can you share about the cuban intelligence and what kind of opponents they were in perhaps the u.s. success? >> most people have a higher regard for the operational skills. they have the language skills and if we go back to that period, there was a further that they were able to project and i would say that in the world we did today, talk about the islamitalked about theislamic fd threat that it poses. communism was a real threat but russia is stale. cuba is stale. back then, they represent a revolutionary threat but that has been a on by decades. they were trained by the east germans into the russians. they were very good. and they were able to protect themselves effectively. i am trying to think of an officer in the default satisfi satisfied. once you have the fervor i know that your questions about cuba the world we live in today is about terrorism and they have a losing hand. that is not saying that they won't cause a great grief but it is not a winning ideology. in overtime, and part of our struggle should be working a thought process of it and how to find within the world people that will stand up and say that isn't what it is about. i don't doubt that we can handle them. i'm very outspoken on the enhanced interrogations. i don't believe it's right. i'm an advocate of drones, big advocate. why am i an advocate of drones? because after 9/11 everyone is talking about asymmetrical warfare. how are we going to deal with these rogue states, these individuals as opposed to countries? and we were fearful and i don't doubt for one minute that there is a terrorist will that isn't weary that they are not going to be in the face of the earth two minutes later and they leveled the playing field and it should be used carefully. i don't know anyone who does. [inaudible] that cross borders with the wild west and pakistan. there is no reason that you should know my background. they don't think that they can handle this militarily. there is nobody. even the terrorists know the strength of the military. george bush senior even though i thought at the time i didn't get why he didn't go all the way and i think that in retrospect it was a brilliant strategic move. so i'm not surprised about what happened. as we are going into afghanistan bringing down the taliban, the cia with the special forces together did a brilliant job. by my standards he said he was in afghanistan dealing with the same people that we dealt with but a lot of the troubles are the same. after keeping the special forces in thand the cia below the radai think the nationbuilding. waking up this morning this is one of the biggest developments with the speed it is happening in the discussion. i think we are now looking at the virtual partition of iraq. it's a very sad day i think for all of us. i worry about afghanistan that it will revert back. i know dealing with pakistan can be problematic at times, but if they have a huge internal problem our hopes of having a residual influence is going to disappear after we leave. i caught the publisher -- once it goes to print, it's hard to get it stopped. if you take the word out as you have to put one and it has to have the same number of letters and that's tricky. [laughter] that the government has called on ukraine and he started his covert action program. it is literally out of the textbook of 48. it's not that we intended that it's just the plausible denial. they are out of body leaving. it doesn't mean believable. but a lot of the world doesn't believe they are. it's going to be a political site and psychological battle and we have to up the ante on the sanctions. i hope they are calling the cia through a lot of covert action. but i guarantee there is not in doubt in my mind that he has a huge covert action program. on iraq i did have a discussion in 2000. i better not fail the name too closely. it was one of the top people and i said when we leave it is going to fall apart. if this is the time when you have it and i'm hopeful that we did what i never felt that this wasn't going to end anything other than bad news. there is a story in "the wall street journal" that called the cia solution that says we are leaving and we better have the infrastructure. i hope i have not fixed the words tod
VietnamRepublic-ofHaitiNew-yorkUnited-statesGermanyAfghanistanIranChinaFloridaColombiaRussian-embassy we are retired general richard clark and robert grener all weigh in. >> also, the other crisis in ukraine. i will talk to germany's defense minister about punishing putin. does europe have the stomach for more pressure? then how a persuasive president who loves politics got an extremely controversial piece of legislation fast. the 50th anniversary of the signing of the civil rights act. a milestone in american history. >> now in this summer of 1964 the civil rights bill is the law of the land. >> finally, how to crown a king when you're pinching pennies. spain showed us the way this week. first, here's my take. to answer the question, what should america do in iraq, we should try first to understand what's going on in the region through a broader presence. if you would look to the middle east 15 years ago you would have seen a stream of strikingly similar regimes across the reasonable gone from libya and tunisia in the west to syria and iraq in the east. they were all repressive dictatorships. they were all secular in the sense they did not derive their legitimacy from the outside powers. it meant that the rulers were more about pleasing patrons abroad rather than incurring favor at home and they had secure uncontested borders. today across the region that structure of authority has collapsed from libya to syria and people are reaching for their deeper, older identity, shia, suny, distrusting that they would be safe under anyone else's rule. in iraq and elsewhere, no amount of american military power can undo this tidal trend and put hu hu humpty dumpty back together. this rested on super power patronage and then one super power collapsed and the others support dictators started waivering. the countries with significant sectarian divide and in which minority groups ruled, iraq and syria, became the most vulnerable. the iraq war was the crucial trigger and the american occupation needlessly exacerbated sectarian identities rather than building national identities. but let's be honest, iraq's psy a, like the suniis protested dictators. it would be hard to sign up for power with their former tore mentors. maliki's terror has certainly ensured that the sunnis will never trust him and they are likely never to trust the parties that they represent to rule over them. as washington supports the baghdad government, it will have to be extremely careful to not be seen as taking sides in a sectarian conflict and the press for political reform and inclusiveness even as it offers baghdad military support. washington should recognize that national harmony in iraq, everyone singing coombaya, is highly unlikely. it needs a plan b. call it an enclave strategy. the world might have to accept that iraq is turning into a country of enclaves and work to ensure that these regions are stable, terror free and as open as possible. the kurdish area is a stable success story. it will be possible to work with countries like saudi arabia and jordan to influence the sunni groups in the middle of the country and personal them of terrorists and empower sunnis. there will be enclaves where isis and similar groups gains strength. in these areas washington will have to use drones and special forces strikes just as it does in afghanistan, pakistan and so he moll yeah. much of europe, eastern europe, went from being multi-ethnic to monoethic. 1/3 of poland was nonpolish before world war ii. 1/4 of czechoslovakia was minorities. then there was the great sorting out. the middle east has been going through its own version of this process. america can't stop a trend like this. what it can do is try to limit the fallout, support those who believe in reconciliation and protect itself and its friends. for more go to cnn.com/fareed and read my washington post column this week. let's get started. let's get caught up on the latest from iraq. four towns between the syrian border and baghdad fell to isis. that is the sunni militant group. one of the towns it took yesterday is 62 miles from the iraqi capital. in baghdad yesterday the rifle shia sect held a show of force of its own. it was organized by a cleric made infamous by his actions during the most recent u.s. war with iraq battling u.s. forces. nic robertson is in baghdad and joins me live. nic, it feels like on the ground washington may be talking about supporting an iraqi government, they're talking about national unity, but it sounds to me on the ground out there, this has turned into a sectarian war. is that your impression? >> reporter: the gun feels loaded for it at the moment, fareed. it's very hard to see as somebody stopping the momentum towards pulling the trigger, if you will. a few years ago when u.s. forces were here the city was happier with u.s. diplomats. they can hold more sway and hold the sides apart than looking at that against the militia and the city of baz ra in the south and many other shia militias that have been activated. it's very clear that the potential for a sectarian war is there. what we're seeing, a taking of territory by the -- essentially by the sunnis backed by isis or prompted by isis is another dimension of that, fareed. >> nic, does it feel like in this context american military advisors or even strikes could make a difference? >> it's going to have to be a long-term strategy and certainly isis is based and where they're taking some of their weapons, where they have safe haven and sanctuary is across the border in syria in the same way the taliban can hide across the border in pakistan. any effort to take out isis inside iraq to weaken them to help, if you will, strengthen the u.s. army reclaim territory will have to necessarily include a component that strikes an isis invasive inside syria. it cannot succeed if that happens. you're looking at a long-term strategy. it's hard to see how they can provide enough intelligence and deconflict the situation on the ground that provides the weight of airstrikes. yesterday after three days of fighting a whole brigade of iraqi troops collapsed and were overrun at the border. that gave isis and their supporters free run all the way to the outskirts of baghdad. what airstrike could stop them? what airstrike could pick them up along the way and have an immediate strong impact? it's not clear, fareed. >> fascinating reporting as always, nic. stay safe. up next, will the united states be seen as taking sides in this sectarian war? is there a way to do this right? an all-star panel weighs in. stay with us. >> announcer: sfa read zakaria gps brought to you by charles schwab. own your tomorrow. kid: do you pay him? dad: of course. kid: how much? dad: i don't know exactly. kid: what if you're not happy? does he have to pay you back? dad: nope. kid: why not? dad: it doesn't work that way. kid: why not? vo: are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is managed? wealth management at charles schwab. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] if you can't stand the heat, get off the test track. get the mercedes-benz you've been burning for at the summer event, going on now at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. hurry, before this opportunity cools off. ♪ that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve. at humana, we believe if healthcare changes, if it becomes simpler... if frustration and paperwork decrease... if grandparents get to live at home instead of in a home... the gap begins to close. so let's simplify things. let's close the gap between people and care. ♪ let's dig teeper into what the united states is doing in iraq, what it should be doing. i have a terrific panel with me. retired general anthony zinney is the commander of the u.s. central command. he oversaw all u.s. troops in the greater middle east. richard clark spent 30 years working in national security at the highest levels of government including ten years at the national security council under both presidents bush and president clinton. he is also the author of the new thriller "sting of the drone." and robert grenier was the cia's iraq mission manager from 2002 to 2004 and director of the cia's counter terrorism center from 2004 to 2006. gentlemen, welcome. richard clark, when we think about these things we often think about them in sort of technical terms, will this make the army stronger, will it make it more effective? but my experience is that it's read on the ground in political terms. the united states is supporting the shia dominated government, we are not supporting the sunnis or we are taking sides. do you worry that this is going to be read in a sectarian way, this support? >> i do. after all, the united states refused to get involved in syria, refused to help the sunnis who were being attacked by the government in syria so it appeared we were on the side of iran and the shiias there. now if we support the government in baghdad it will be seen in some parts of the middle east that we're supporting the iranians and the shia in iraq as well at the expense of the su i sunni. we have to remember the goal here is not military, the goal is political, and it's to have a national reconciliation process between the sunni and the shia and of course the kurds. the u.s. military should do something to prevent an al qaeda takeover of baghdad, but we have to limit what we do so that we keep our eye on the ball of the ultimate political solution that we have to try to achieve. >> mr. grenier, when you listen to mr. clark, is that doable? is it possible for the united states to kind of stay somewhat removed and as i see what he's saying, as i interpret what he's saying, occasionally get involved, really zap the bad guys when they seem to be building a terrorist training camp or doing something that could affect u.s. interests? >> yes, i think that we can have an influence there. i actually agree with dick, that the key issue is a political one. the u.s. has to be in the mix. i think that far short of having combat troops, we can and enhance our way with the sunni tribes with the way we've had dealings in the past. i don't think we will serve our interests or the interests of any of the concerned parties with a large conventional military force on the ground, combat troops, no. but the real weakness of the iraqi army as i see it, i defer to the expertise of general zinny here, the real weakness is a tactical weakness. they have bad tactical training. managing and keeping them there at the battalion level i don't think there be enough. >> general zinny, how do you interpret the collapse of the iraqi army so far? it seems as though a lot of it is sunni troops that did not want to fight fellow sunni troops or disaffected by what they see as shia generals. in other words, again, it seems like it's not a matter of effectiveness but it's a political issue. the army doesn't want to fight for this government or those units in the army. can that be remedied? >> i think it's important to understand what dick said. we cannot valley dade this as a religious war. should we partner with iran and accept maliki not changing and continuing the same sort of isolation of the sunnis that he has, we will do that. we will clearly be seen on one side and lose our allies in the gulf and the region. i think what has to happen is, first, stay clear of the iranians. insist anything more than the immediate emergency support we're supplying military formal lick can for maliki is clear. we have to go to our allies in the region, especially those countries that have sunni leadership, kurds, jordan, the gulf states and solicit their help. they're going to want these guarantees on a maliki change and see that we are distancing our selves from iran. we're going to need their help in the long term to convince the sunnis that whatever reforms maliki puts in place will be enforced, will be supported by us and we'll bring them back into a holistic iraq. if not, then we're going to see three rump states which will be destabilizing for the region. >> dick clark, is it possible to imagine that we can pull off this very delicate balancing act? because what we're saying is, i think there is this general consensus, you have to do something to support this government against isis, against the al qaeda terrorist group which means you are supporting a shia dominated government that has been very tough on the sunnis. yet they're going to say we are not supporting the shia and we're not supporting this in sectarian ways. you know, what i'm wondering is that requires a level of nuance that we may not be able to do but more importantly may not be read that way in the region no matter what we do. >> well, the president has to call the leadership of the sunni countries. he has to call the saudis, the jordanians, the amaratis and make clear we're not getting in bed with iran and not making war on sunnis, we're making war on isis, al qaeda. he has to find a way and maybe the saudis can do this for us or the jordanians to open channels to the sunnis who are not part of al qaeda. the goal here has to be the split off the reasonable sunnis and politically otherwise by the maliki government and others to say to them we don't support maliki per se, we support a government of national unity. our problem is with al qaeda, daesh, and not with you. that's going to be difficult but it's not beyond the capabilities of the united states if we cooperate with our allies here in the gulf. >> robert, you've dealt with these people. is it possible for the sunnis of iraq to trust the maliki government even if he did make some concessions, even if he did make some outreach? if you were a sunni leader in iraq, you've watched what maliki has done for the last four or five years, are you going to buy it? are you going to be willing to get in bed with him? it just feels to me like the prospect of national reconciliation at this point is remote. >> i agree with that. i think it's going to be very, very important for a replacement to be found for nouri al-maliki. i disagree with general zinni. i think it's not okay to speak with the iranians. jim jeffries has a nice phrase for this. he says the iranian interest in iraq is to keep the sunnis down, the kurds in and the americans out. right now nouri al-maliki isn't serving any of their agenda items. i think this man needs to be replaced. i think we have to have a substantial presence on the ground to give us the influence we need to work indirectly in conjunction with the iranians who share some interests with us to make sure there's an interest. >> it's not in our interests. i don't see how you cut and split apart support or work with iran and then in another case oppose them. i just don't see the deftness in diplomacy that we've been lacking that will pull this off. >> richard clarke, would you agree, talk with them? >> i don't think so much. we have to be seen to have our advisors standing next to the iranian advisors on the ground. the major thing is it's not america's job to fix the middle east, it's america's job to worry about our own interests. we have to be guided by two principles. one, we want to stop al qaeda and prevent a sanctuary and, two, we want to minimize iranian influence because it is fundamentally antiamerican and it is seeking throughout the middle east to make trouble for the united states. those are two things we should go after and not worry about trying to make democracies or trying to make functioning states where that's nearly impossible. >> gentlemen, fascinating discussions. this issue won't go away so i hope we can rely on you again. >> next, the imf says it must raise its minimum wage. i have a better idea to help the working poor and it has serious bipartisan support. i will tell you about it when we come back. with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. are the largest targets in the world, for every hacker, crook and nuisance in the world. but systems policed by hp's cyber security team are constantly monitored for threats. outside and in. that's why hp reports and helps neutralize more intrusions than anyone... in the world. if hp security solutions can help keep the world's largest organizations safe, they can keep yours safe, too. make it matter. but we're not in the business of naming names. the volkswagen passat is heads above the competition, the fact is, it comes standard with an engine that's been called the benchmark of its class. really, guys, i thought... it also has more rear legroom than other midsize sedans. and the volkswagen passat has a lower starting price than... much better. vo: hurry in and lease the 2014 passat s for $199 a month. visit vwdealer.com today. c'mon, you want heartburn? when your favorite food starts a fight, fight back fast, with tums. heartburn relief that neutralizes acid on contact. and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum... tums! now for our "what in the world" segment. the economic buzz word is inequality. it's the center piece of president obama's agenda now. it's even inspired an unlikely best seller. people watch the growing inequality around the world and in the united states and despair about what to do. one of the most popular fixes is raising the minimum wage, and that's not just on the left. germany's chancellor angela merkel has recently supported a new wage increase as has brittain's chancellor, conservative george osborne. in the united states president obama proposed boosting the federal minimum wage to $10.10 in the beginning of the year. that's a 39% increase over the current minimum wage of $7.25. republicans have, of course, made it clear that they will never pass this in congress. this week the international monetary fund weighed in and urged the u.s. to raise the wage floor saying it is low by both historical and international standards. the federal minimum wage in america was about 38% of the median wage in 2011, which is one of the lowest percentages among the rich countries of the world. a group of more than 600 economists signed a letter imploring the president and congress to pass a wage hike which they contend would, quote, have a small stimulative effect on the economy, end quote. truth be told, small is the operative word. it's not clear what kind of effect raising the wage would have on the u.s. economy. the billionaire investor warren buffet has made very clear his positions on most economic issues but not this one. buffet said this on cnn in april. >> i thought about it for 50 years and i don't know the answer on it. >> there is in fact a better way to help the working poor. what's more, it's something that has some bipartisan support and something that the vast majority of economists agree will make people better off. what could it be? drumroll please. buy need to raise the standings of the earned income tax. you don't know what i'm talking about in in way, it still sounds boring. let me explain and you might be interested, too. the earned income tax credit, eitc, is a credit for people that earn under a certain threshold. if you earn under $51,567 you automatically get an extra refund check from uncle sam. so the average worker got anywhere from $2,000 to $6,000 back in 2012 depending on how much you made, whether she's married, how many kids she has. what i'm suggesting, along with many others, is that more people should get more money back through the eitc. here's why the earned income tax credit is a more effective way of attacking poverty. the congressional budget office found that if the federal wage were increased to $10.10 as obama has proposed, 19% of the gains in income would go to workers below the poverty line. it's the intention to help them. they say 29% of the income gains would go to households that make three times the poverty level. so raising the minimum wage is a blunt tool. it helps some working poor but also helps others and, thus, is inefficient. meanwhile, the earned income tax credit ensures that money almost entirely gets to the poorest workers, to those who need it the most. it is by far the most effective way to fight poverty and reward hard work. here's the problem. it's less palatable to politicians because they can't pass off the costs to employers. they have to pay for it themselves directly through the federal government. that shouldn't matter because it's a much more effective measure. in march they proposed an expansion to cover more substantially more americans. some republicans have gotten on board. it would be funded by closing corporate tax loopholes which would be a good thing to do anyway. the earned income tax credit is an anti-poverty tool that works. if it didn't exist, 3.1 million more children would have lived in poverty in 2011. it's a fundamentally conservative idea supported by milton friedman that eats away at inequality by investing more in working americans. can washington get over its polarization enough to say yes to a good bipartisan idea? next on "gps" the other crisis, ukraine. will germany support tougher measures against vladimir putin? i'll ask the german defense minister when we come back. ♪ (train horn) vo: wherever our trains go, the economy comes to life. norfolk southern. one line, infinite possibilities. the last four hours have seen... one child fail to get to the air sickness bag in time. another left his shoes on the plane... his shoes! and a third simply doesn't want to be here. ♪ until now... until right booking now. ♪ planet earth's number one accomodation site booking.com booking.yeah! ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] if you can't stand the heat, get off the test track. get the mercedes-benz you've been burning for at the summer event, going on now at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. hurry, before this opportunity cools off. ♪ this week all eyes were on iraq, but let's not forget about ukraine. the question in that crisis has been the same from the start, how to get vladimir putin to behave. how to deter russia from being more aggressive. in my view, the only way to do that is solidarity. the united states and europe speaking from one mouth. to talk about all of this and more joining me is ursula vander lynn, the german defense minister. she is the first woman to hold that office and is often talked about as a possible successor to chancellor angela merkel. welcome, madam minister. >> hello. good to talk to you. >> do you believe that vladimir putin has been deterred? that russia is now content with the situation in ukraine as it is? what is your best information from the russian/ukrainian boarder. >> well, the annexation of crimea out of the blue, but it seemed to have been a long-term strategic plan. all of a sudden it seems so forgotten, that putin trampled on international laws and ignored the sovereignty of ukraine so we should not forget about that. something happened that putin did not count on. all of a sudden there was a growing solidarity and unity in the west and nato, europe, and america stopped him by the means we choose that are economic sanctions. i think this is the right way to go. >> you know, the whole region isn't over. i know in finland there is this great debate about whether finland should try to be part of the nato because, you know, there have been leaks about russians talking about how if finland were to try to dare to join nato it would starred world war 3. do you think that the baltic states, finland could be defended, in the event of a russian attack? >> the answer is yes and because the kremlin does know that. he would certainly not even dare to think about it. >> madam minister, we've learned from the snowden revelations that the nsa had a very active -- has a very active presence in germany, has about a dozen collection sites around the country. there's this large building in visbarden where it collects data. as an aftermath of all these revelations, is germany still going to cooperate with u.s. intelligence services in data collection or are you rethinking that? >> well, nsa is a difficult topic and let me put it in the right frame. i'm absolutely convinced that we -- europe specifically, germany and the united states, we have a strong bond -- trans atlantic bond and alliance because we share the same values and we defend the same values. over and over again we have to make sure that we never forget that because we should not take it for granted, this very specific friendship. it's something very freprecious but within this friendship, yes, there has been quite a disappointment that the nsa was acting as it did in germany specifically with regard of, you know, going into listening with phone call conversations of high representatives in germany if i may put it in these terms. we've learned two things out of that. first of all, it's also matter of being dependent in germany from certain technologies, but there is also a discussion that has to be led between our countries and i think there's a debate in the united states, too, that poses the question whether the government is allowed to do anything that is possible. so the rules by which we are playing specifically with the services are concerned have to be redefined, the balance between individual rights and of course security matters that are important for a government. and within that i think the most important thing is the transatlantic trust and confidence and friendship. we are caring for and i'm sure we're going to solve the daily problems a friendship does have, like the one you just mentioned. >> very diplomatically put. madam minister, thank you very much. pleasure to have you on. >> it was an honor. thank you. next on "gps" we'll recall a time in america when a major transformative piece of legislation and a very controversial one actually passed through congress thanks to the persuasiveness of a president. it's a tale with resonance today when we come back. but i don't want my breathing problems to get in the way of hosting my book club. that's why i asked my doctor about b-r-e-o. once-daily breo ellipta helps increase airflow from the lungs for a full 24 hours. and breo helps reduce symptom flare-ups that last several days and require oral steroids, antibiotics, or hospital stay. breo is not for asthma. breo contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. it is not known if this risk is increased in copd. breo won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden copd symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. breo may increase your risk of pneumonia, thrush, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking breo. ask your doctor about b-r-e-o for copd. first prescription free at mybreo.com we've always been on the forefront of innovation. when the world called for speed... ♪ ...when the world called for stealth... ♪ ...intelligence... endurance... affordability... adaptability... and when the world asked for the future. staying ahead in a constantly evolving world. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman. that's the value of performance. could help your business didavoid hours of delaynd test caused by slow internet from the phone company? that's enough time to record a memo. idea for sales giveaway. return a call. sign a contract. pick a tie. take a break with mr. duck. practice up for the business trip. fly to florida. win an award. close a deal. hire an intern. and still have time to spare. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business. built for business. ten days from now the united states will launch the 50th anniversary of the signing of the civil rights act of 1964. to me it remains one of the great puzzles and achievements of american history. the achievement part is obvious. the puzzle part is twofold. first, why did it take so long? it passed 101 years after president lincoln's emancipation proclamation. and, second, how did it finally get passed? to get the answers let's step back 50 years. it's hard for young people today to imagine, but back then there were restaurants and stores and cabs, mostly in the south, where black people were not served. there were separate water fountains for the two races. and as rosa parks made infamous, separate sections of buses just to name a few. it was legal in 1964 to refuse to hire somebody because of the color of the skin or their gender. a year earlier president john f. kennedy had addressed the nation to urge action on civil rights. >> it ought to be possible, in short, for every american to enjoy the privileges of being american without regard to his race or his color, but this is not the case. >> but then kennedy was assassinated. surprisingly his successor, lyndon baines johnson, a staunch southerner, took up the cause, a cause that looked hopeless. why? here's american historian and johnson biographer, robert carroll. >> civil rights had always died in the center because of the filibuster, but this bill wasn't even in the senate. it wasn't even on the house floor. it was in the house rules committee, which was chaired by this racist from virginia, judge howard w. smith, and he wasn't letting it out. >> american political parties were very different back then. smith was a democrat and caro says smith's southern democrats were conservative and racist and powerful. >> the southerners controlled congress, and there was -- the civil rights was boiling up on the streets of the south, there were so many heroes there. 1964 is the summer when cheney and goodman and schwerner were killed. it's the summer where all the fire hoses were being turned on the little children. they're rolling that little girl down the street. it was horrible. but the civil rights bill was a movement. the civil rights democrats didn't care what the national sentiment was. in their state, if it was a senator, the voters didn't care for that. they liked their stand against civil rights. >> johnson had a secret weapon he would wield called a discharge petition. if a majority of house members signed it, the floundering civil rights act would have to be released from the rules committee to be voted on by the full house. first johnson had to figure out a way to get one crucial vote, charles hallack of indiana, the house republican leader who had said that anybody who signed the discharge petition would be kicked out of the republican party. how did johnson change his mind? here's caro again. >> johnson has him to his office and with hallack, he feels that what hallack really wants is nasa grants for purdue university, which is the biggest employer in his congressional district. while hallack is sitting there he picks up the phone and calls james webb and says, i'm sending charles hallack over to you. >> i'm made to do anything i can for charlie hallack. isn't there something you can do? >> i'll do every everything i can. i hope when he comes back to you -- >> he's not satisfied and he comes back to me, well then i'm going to be talking to you again. >> yes, sir. >> okay. thank you, sir. >> hallack is satisfied and "the new york times" reports the next day all during this republican caucus members are walking out to take calls from leaders ab the republicans start to sign the discharge petition and the civil rights bill starts to get movement. >> once passed the house, it was in the senate. there was arguably a bigger hurdle there. seven years earlier strom thur mond had filibustered on civil rights for 24:18. still the longest for the longest filibuster in history. >> the senate, the central drama it seems to me is between johnson and his greatest mentor, richard russell. and i've now -- because of your book i've listened to the tape and the tapes are fascinating because you see johnson seducing russell telling him, you're the most important person in my life. you're like my father. you've got to come to dinner. >> it's not up to me to tell you how smart you are, the son to tell the father. >> take care of yourself, i love ya, be good. >> clearly what i know from the book is the strategy and the plot is to totally undermine him and outmaneuver him and pass this bill despite russell's opposition. >> you're exactly right. you summarized it better than i could, but russell knows what he's dealing with. he tells a friend, he says, you know, we could have beaten john kennedy in the civil rights. we can't beat lyndononson. he says, he's a man who understands power and how to use it. he'll tear your arm off at the shoulder and beat you over the head with it, but he'll get your votes. we're going to lose to lyndon johnson. >> and lose is exactly what russell did. on june 10th, 1964, the senate voted to end the filibuster and soon after passed the bill. on july 2nd lyndon johnson, that unlikely shepherd of civil rights in america, spoke to the nation before signing the bill and ended his address with a powerful message. >> let us close the springs of racial poison. let us pray for a wise and understanding hearts. let us lay aside the irrelevant differences and make our nation whole. >> with that, he signed the bill. when he signed the civil rights bill he does recognize and actually says, i have handed the south over to the republican party. >> yes, for 40 years he says, i've turned it over to the republican party. >> so he knew he was paying a terrible political price for doing what he thought was the right thing. >> yes, a terrible political price. >> thanks to the great robert caro. for more don't miss cnn's series, the 60s, a great episode on the civil rights act airs this thursday at 9:00 p.m. eastern for viewers in north america. but airlines running hp end-to-end solutions are always calm during a storm. so if your business deals with the unexpected, hp big data and cloud solutions make sure you always know what's coming - and are ready for it. make it matter. i got more advice than i knew what to do with. what i needed was information i could trust on how to take care of me and my baby. luckily, unitedhealthcare has a simple program that helps moms stay on track with their doctors and get the right care and guidance-before and after the baby is born. simple is good right now. (anncr vo) innovations that work for you. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. c'mon, you want heartburn? when your favorite food starts a fight, fight back fast, with tums. heartburn relief that neutralizes acid on contact. and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum... tums! when folks think about wthey think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america. a new report analyzing u.n. data shows the global trade and small arms and light weapons almost doubled between 2001 and 2011. it brings me to my question, which nation leads the world in both the import and export of small arms? is it germany, russia, the united states or china? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. this week's book of the week is jack devine's "good hunting." devine, a 32-year veteran of covert operations of the cia gives a well written insider's view of work around the world. a fascinating read. now for the last look. this year prince phillippe became king of spain. prince phillippe opted for a more muted ceremony. it felt kind of like a second marriage rather than the big first wedding ceremony. there was a military procession and a simple proclamation. there were no horse drawn carriages. the royals arrived by car although that is a nice car. there were no foreign royals or heads of state in attendance. king juan carlos himself didn't even attend the ceremony. instead of a seated banquet guests were served toppers while standing. the crown was displayed next to phillippe but he didn't wear it. ardent royalists criticized the austere event as a missed opportunity to project a positive image of spain to the world, but the occasion was reflective of spain's economic situation and mood. still recovering from the recession, the country's unemployment rate is roughly 26%. for youth, that number is north of 50%. that didn't stop others from adding pomp to the event, commemorative souvenirs reminiscent of a royal wedding are being sold all around the country. that could be a nice stimulus that the spanish economy needs. the correct answer of our gps challenge was c, the united states as some of you may have predicted, it has 100 million of exports and imports of small arms annually. china and russia join the u.s. as the list of top exporters. germany was the only other to join the u.s. on both lists. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. good morning. i'm aaron mcpike. they're gaining in their battle against iraqi troops. they are isis controls 70% of the province. secretary of state john kerry, who's in egypt today, heads to jordan tonight to discuss the iraq crisis with regional leaders. in his strongest language yet pope francis is telling members of the italian mafia they are excommunicated from the catholic church. he warns them, quote, hell awaits you if you continue on this road. some prosecutors are now worried the mafia might target the pope. at the world cup there's a huge game for team u.s.a. coming up in just a few hours. they go up against portugal, and if they win they are guaranteed a spot in the next round after beating ghana. they'll have to do it without one of their star players, josie altador who's injured. reinaldo is expected to play with a knee injury. "reliable sources" starts right now. good morning and welcome to "reliable sources." this morning we have a big question to answer. who are the reliable sources on the crisis in iraq? there has been a roar in recent days. i heard it all over my twitter feed from viewers who want to know who the so-called architect are now inhabiting tv studios once again giving advice about what to do this time. the truth is they never really left. the backlash was very visible as dick cheney, paul bremer and wolfwicz criticized. we saw media critics pounce saying they were discredited by iraq's decisions a decade ago.
PassatOdes-ka-oblastUkraineAlaskaUnited-statesChinaPortugalSyriaSlovak-republicRussiaWashingtonDistrict-of-columbia