Latest Breaking News On - Patrick james - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
and 100-200000 could die. hello everyone, i'm dana perino and this is the daily briefing. the president telling fox news this morning that the worst thing the u.s. could do is relax restrictions too early. and all of a sudden, the virus comes back. the president says he hopes to get some businesses back up and running by easter, just two weeks from now but meantime, cdc >> dana: this just in, is telling folks in new york, new jersey and connecticut not congresswoman media velasquez to travel in the next 14 days says she has a presumed positive unless absently necessary. case of coronavirus. she said she started feeling we begin with a chief white house correspondent sick yesterday morning with body john roberts was live on the north lawn as we start another aches, a fever and an upset stomach. she said she lost her sense of week. smell and taste but her symptoms >> good afternoon. the white house message coming are mild. she said she is isolating now yesterday, today and again tomorrow is that we have to get but worth noting ohmic noting used to living with the new she was on the house floor normal for a while. friday speaking about the tomorrow the president is coronavirus rescue package. expected to unveil new guidelines that continue with the policy of social distancing dagen mcdowell is still with me because she is my and increased hygiene through partner in crime. april 30th at the earliest. president had hoped that the symbolic date of easter sunday it we need you desperately. tell me a little bit about could be the beginning of one people got back to work but now student loans and how, if you people advise that the peak of the infection he had around that have a student loan and then you've been laid off and you are time. here he is on "fox & friends" trying to make your payments, this morning. what happens in this bill for >> president trump: we are them? doing a lot of things and we don't want to do it too soon but >> christina lynn was tweeting we are thinking around easter is the show when we were on earlier going to be or spike. that's going to be the highest and this stimulus, this rescue point, we think, that it will law, it's going to bring relief start coming down from there. to most of the 43 million that will be a day of americans who oh one and a half celebration. we just want to do it right, so trillion dollars in federal student loan debt. we picked the end of april, the last day of april 30th as a day the law allows most borrowers to where we can see some real stop making monthly payments progress. we expect to see that. through september 30th with no financial penalties. >> the extension applies to the this was in 15 days that to slow the virus "the wall street journal" today, each borrower's balance is going guideline. to actually freeze the account border and travel restrictions are running on separate and it will remain in good timelines and within a couple of standing and in fact if you are weeks the president will have to one of these public service loan decide whether to extend the travel ban from the e.u. forgiveness programs you have to nations. i'm told that no change in that make 120 monthly payments before status is expected in the the balances are forgiven. restriction of the borders between the u.s., mexico and canada come up for renewal on the six months that you are not paying actually count toward that 120 months of payment so the 22nd of april. there's a little more upside. dr. anthony fauci warning, and you mentioned this at the top, even with the guidelines in >> dana: so i know you read place the united states could "the wall street journal" and there was that piece today, it eventually seen 100-200000 was a long one, saying this week deaths from coronavirus which would be two or three times is a long one. worse than the very bad flu year people across america will have to make some tough decisions, of 2017-218161000 people died what bill to pay and what not to pay. from the flu. i noticed the market is up about but don't forget a total of 515 points today so that looks 45 million were infected. dr. deborah birx thing without the guidelines as many as encouraging. what might people think about how to make those decisions this week and how will that affect 2.2 million people could die. the economy in the long run? president trump is saying this morning that the nation needs to go through more hardship in order to come out on the other >> it's going to be critical, side of the national crisis. i'm such a nerd, i feel like >> president trump: it will be karl rove but i took notes from that article this morning about gone hopefully sooner rather 5:00 in the morning. than later and hopefully we will this is about just paying rent keep the deficit down to the absolute minimum number. there is tremendous death, but if you are an employer. cheesecake factory for example has furloughed much of its we will keep them down to the minimum number. you know, if we didn't do well workforce and is not paying its april rent on any of its stores. the numbers would be many times what they would be in the way we are doing it. there are $20 billion in monthly >> one of the significant things that happened in the last couple retail loans due early this week days is the fda has approved the but there are 50,000 stores, use of chloroquine and major retail's chains that have hydroxychloroquine for people a closed closed. who are seriously ill from the restaurants have lost 25 billion coronavirus of the in sales alone just since the administration is distributing millions of doses across the beginning of march. but a lot of what is going on with the federal reserve is country. we don't know yet if it works, we should start to get that data going to be critical. they've open for larger companies, they have new novel in soon but, one thing that's doing, because for every action loan facilities in place buying corporate bonds and buying bonds there is an equal and opposite reaction is people who take that in the secondary market, that's drug for additions like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus her having a hard time getting going to be critical. in this law you have more than the drug. the administration thinks right $450 billion that will go to the now the focus has to be on slowing the spread of the treasury to backstop, $1 and coronavirus and to cut down the treasury support equals $10 in number of deaths. so everyone will be in hardship loans. for a while. >> so we have resources. >> dana: john roberts, we proceed through support. dagen mcdowell, thanks for helping us out, we appreciate thank you so much, take care. it. thanks for joining us, i'm speak to we've delivered thousands of them and we've dana perino. don't forget, story time at delivered them to a lot of people. 3:30 p.m. eastern. there's a whole question about i will be reading for kids who that, i think new york should be fine based on the numbers that aren't able to go to school right now and for their parents we see they should have been who may just need a moment. more than enough. i'm hearing stories that they are not used or they are not >> dana: fox news alert on monday afternoon. used right, but we find anywhere hello everyone, i hope the from 2-4000 that have been sent and are not used. weekend was comfortable. i'm bill hemmer here in new york, awaiting an update >> dana: president trump accusing some doctors and from governor gavin newsom in hospitals of hoarding ventilators but new york california. we are being warned her that we could be weeks away from a peak governor andrew cuomo said health officials are stockpiling so he is beginning and sacrament ventilators to prepare for the out and we will take you there peak that is yet to come. live as we get headlines in that as health workers are california. putting themselves in harm's way all across the country. they say they don't have enough first however, the epidemic protection and supplies to fight topic more than a thousand the virus. let's bring in dr. sarah lynn deaths. this is mar, the medical advisor to the department of health and human services. on this question about the ventilators. i understand what the governor is saying, that they are preparing and that they are then prepared to move them on to other states if they need. is that the right way to go about all of this? >> yes dana, i think it is. when people go on a ventilator that means you're an emergent critical since the situation. what this is doing is helping to prepare for what is coming. we know that estates at various phases of this pandemic, and they will be a sharing of resources, but we are in a critical situation in new york. >> dana: take a listen to governor cuomo on this very point just a few minutes ago. >> the curve goes like this. you are over here, prepare for the high curv a point of the cu, and do it now. are you waiting for the night before? what am i going to tell the hospital's one they say we just had an influx of 50% more people and we need more equipment and we need more ventilators. sorry? so the whole stockpile concept is to prepare for the future. >> dana: dr. marc, i wanted to have you address this question of the peak and when it will hit. dr. burks last night with the president at the white house talking about what's to come and she was on "the today show" this morning and had this to say, and i'll get your reaction afterwards. >> and the flu models the worst-case scenario is between 1.62.2 million deaths. that's a projection if you do nothing. so we have never really done all of these things that we are doing. we put them into a model and we looked at the italy data with their self isolation and that is where we come up with, if we do things together well, almost perfectly, we could get in the range of 100000-200000 fatalities. we don't even want to see that. >> dana: dr. mark, i wonder what you think about that. the peak apparently is to hit in a couple of weeks. >> when we talk about the peak we talk about different regions and different parts of the country. we remember that each state is at a different phase. when you look at the epicenter right now we are experiencing an increase number of patients who are presenting to hospitals and more and more people are being admitted and hopefully with social distancing we are hitting that spread. what's concerning is this isn't just one point in time, it can be ongoing or on various parts of the country. every state needs to be thinking about preparedness which of course they are doing. as governor cuomo stated you can't do it last minute. you have to be prepared as you go into a critical situation. time is definitely of the essence. these numbers are very sobering. >> dana: i wanted to play one more sound bite from 60 minutes last night. as president trump and even governor cuomo today reminding everybody that the people on the front lines are those health care workers, and we have to think about them. take a listen to dr. zadie last night on "60 minutes." >> we are all scared. i'm scared but i have to lock those fears away in a box because once i set foot into the hospital is all about the patient. the flux already is so much that if this continues there is no resources in the world that will be enough to deal with this and contain this. >> dana: dr. mark, what's the best way that those of us that are healthy now can help support our health care workers? >> thank you so much for that question, and it's heartbreaking to hear this. my colleagues and i have talked about it, when you become a doctor you take the risk of putting her life on the line but the public and help you as well. social distancing can help our hospitals work for everyone. the other is if you have supply and supplies, don't hoard them. if you have ppe or masks, get them to our facilities. in each individual has a responsibility. our best defense is our immune system. try to get rest, activity and nutrition. if you smoke, please stop now. there are a lot of steps we can also take to help each other as a community and individually. >> dana: all right, great advice, thank you so much. we appreciate your time. the cdc issuing a travel advisory for new york, new jersey and connecticut. so what does that actually mean? and are restriction like that effective? we asked jonathan serrie who is live from atlanta to answer those questions. because i'm here in new jersey, what does that mean for me? >> is a great question. look back, the first clusters of local transmission took place in washington state, many of them surrounding a nursing home just outside of seattle. but officials there say that strict social distancing effort are beginning to show signs that the spread is slowing and that is preventing busy hospitals in the area from becoming overwhelmed. >> we know the only way to really protect those frontline health care workers and first responders is to flatten the rise of the virus. flatten the curve as you've heard everyone saying. the only thing we can do to do that is great distance between ourselves. >> in new york the relief group the samaritan's purse built a temporary field hospital and several park to relieve overcrowding at the city's beleaguered medical centers. but even in the new epicenter of u.s. outbreak, consistent declines in the rate of new cases reported in recent days suggest that social distancing efforts are beginning to take effect there as well. so, what about cities and states where the numbers of reported cases are low? federal health officials say the virus can spread so easily and create a spike in illness so quickly everyone needs to take precautions. >> this could happen anywhere and that's one of the issues we are concerned about and why we were so reluctant to pull back at a time when we need to put our foot on the gas as opposed to on the break. >> so the idea that we could just focus social distancing efforts on places like new york or washington state or california and then have life go on as usual in areas where there are not yet reported cases, that's just simply not going to happen because of how easily this virus spreads, regardless of where you live in this country. it looks like we are all in this together for the next month, at least. >> dana: we are. in the social distancing is working so keep at it, everyone. jonathan serrie, thank you so much. new travel restrictions impacting new orleans and the rest of louisiana amid a rapid increase in the number of coronavirus cases and deaths. plus howie kurtz breaks down the effectiveness of president trump's in your daily covid-19 press briefings, next. with their va streamline refi, there's no income verification or home appraisal. and this refi costs you absolutely nothing out of pocket. it's the quickest and easiest refi newday has ever offered. one call can save you $2000. wyourbut as you get older,thing. it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. who stood up. who stood strong. who demanded to be seen. to be heard. to be counted. learning about their courage and grit... ...inspires us to pass it on... ...to the women who are next. ♪ find your family's connection to this moment in history. at ancestry. avoid sick people... and touching your face. there are everyday actions to help prevent the spread of respiratory diseases. visit cdc.gov/covid19. brought to you by the national association of broadcasters and this station. >> dana: the governor of texas expanding the quarantine of people traveling into the state from coronavirus hot spots and travelers from louisiana now joining a growing list of those lists must self for 14 days when they enter texas. casey stegall is live from dallas with the latest. i noticed governor cuomo was trying to sound a warning to other governors, this is coming your way. >> that's right, dana. as we've been hearing from health officials, just because cases may appear low for now and some of these areas, not to get at all comfortable because cases as we know can skyrocket very quickly which is why the city of dallas among others remain ready to turn the giant convention center behind me in downtown dallas where it's pouring rain right now, they are poised to turn this into an overflow medical facility should that be necessary. capable of housing about 1400 beds, a full-scale medical facility. the same also happening over in louisiana where the situation frankly is far more dire. a 1,000 bed field hospital being put up at the convention center in new orleans as covid-19 is rapidly spreading there, becoming one of the nation's hot spots with more than 4,000 cases now and 185 deaths. those city leaders across the region say they've had trouble getting folks to comply with social distancing practices, adding that the state could run out of ventilators by april 4th. >> we work very hard to try to get in front of this virus because we are playing catch up. there is no doubt about that. it moves fast and it can be deadly as we know. >> in the meantime, the stay-at-home orders appear to be working for most parts of the lone star state. texas has recorded a little more than 2800 cases statewide and 38 deaths. texas governor greg abbott hoping to keep those numbers low and also of course announcing that any airline passengers or other travelers coming in from miami, atlanta, detroit, new york, california or washington come a long list, have to self quarantine now here in texas for at least 14 days. >> dana: all right casey, stay dry, it looks a little wet down there. president trump and the white house coronavirus task force by holding your daily press briefings and they are watched by millions of americans. so are they helpful in providing pertinent information or do they risk sending mixed messages? let's bring in fox news media analyst howard kurtz, a host of media buzz. i get a good cop, bad cop, totally get that. i know right now everyone is hanging on th the presidents everywhere to come and how he says eight syllable, what he looks like when he says eight, the tone with which he says it. what do you think? >> of the president was bragging about the ratings for these daily briefings but they are absolutely necessary at a time during such nationall national . the problem is the phrase he you used, the mixed messages sometimes between the president's reassuring approach and the warning of his top medical experts which leads to confusion and generate stories about division in the administration. but that changed yesterday when the president seemed sobered by the warnings he got from anthony fauci and dr. deborah birx. so if all the restrictions were relaxed as many as 2 million people could die and that president repeated that figure 16 times at yesterday's presser. >> dana: he was really trying to drive that home for people. i also wonder about the offhand to spitball income of the brainstorming, like maybe we will do this or maybe we will do that, like the idea of the shut down a new york, connecticut and new jersey. it turned out not to be the case but people are listening to every single word that he said. >> you know, and i thought maybe i have to get out, and i can't go visit family elsewhere, and that sort of thing. folks felt blindsided because they had just talked that day and then in the end the president didn't do it so that underscores your point about how worried about we are in this environment. howie kurtz, thank you so much. >> good to see you. >> dana: up next, the latest on the conditions and the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in the united states. and as the city of wuhan opens up for the first time in two months, can the world really trust china's covid-19 numbers? we will talk about that, next. wow! that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. and one gram of sugar. i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. by the enrock and roll!tour i'll turn you [ screaming ] zombies. if we're gonna save the world we need to unite all the trolls. like country. the country trolls look friendly. get em'. [ screaming ] hip hop. ♪ tiny diamond is my name peace and love tiny and daddy out. and techno. -get ready for the drop. wait for it. come on man! ♪ one more time yeah. >> dana: new york ramping up its coronavirus response and medical facilities are popping up across manhattan to relieve the city's hospitals that are overwhelmed by sick patients. david lee miller is live in central park where one of those temporary treatment centers is being built. david lee? >> literally in the shadow of mount sinai hospital, a tent field hospital in new york central park is under construction. what you see behind me is going to house as many as 68 beds and come with the staff of 60 including doctors and nurses. construction got underway only on sunday and authority say that by tomorrow morning it is going to be operational. take a look for yourself, you can see state officials brought together by a charity group to make this hospital a reality. dr. elliott ten penny who is in charge of the facility says it can treat the most serious case. >> we have ten icu beds and those will be equipped with ventilators and everything you would find at a normal hospital so we can take care of the sickest of the sick patients in those beds. the rest will be equipped with oxygen, equipped with a bed that can get iv fluids and medications and take care of the patients that are not as sick. >> at his regular daily briefing governor andrew cuomo address president trump's concern that ppe equipment is being warehoused in nearby edison, new jersey, by new york state. cuomo told reporters that the presidents criticism is a fundamental blunder to prepare only for today in the state is preparing for the apex of the pandemic. and as the number of people testing positive and deaths continuing to search, officials are praying for it worst-case scenario. the city's hospital now has a refrigeration truck parked outside to serve as a temporary morgue. mayor bill de blasio now says new york has enough ppe for the moment but he does add that hospitals are reusing what they safely can in order to stretch supplies. and lastly some good news, on sunday a plane from china touched down at jfk airport and on board were masks, gloves and gowns. the supplies were brought here as a part the white house led initiative called a project air bridge. this is the first of 50 some flights in the supplies will be distributed by fema to the new york city area and other locations where it is badly needed. back to you. >> dana: i think is so much. speaking of the chinese, officials lifted the two month lockdown on wuhan and there is suspicion of china's coronavirus reporting. photos show a funeral home receiving a shipment of 5,000 earns. despite china reporting just over 3,300 deaths from the virus. joining me now is marc thiessen, fox news contributor and aei fellow. you've been talking about this a a lot and i listen to your podcast which i encourage everyone to do but these numbers out of china should not be trusted. what about us getting shipments of supplies from them at the same time? >> first of all come shipments of supplies, the chinese have been nationalizing and seizing the supplies from the companies that were producing them for american businesses and keeping them for themselves so that is an entirely other issue about our reliance. we rely on them for drugs like heparin and antidepressants and drugs for parkinson's and all these sorts of things. the supply lines have been disrupted because of china's, basically seizing all these drug supplies. we should rethink our dependence on china. >> dana: and tell me a little bit about how we should think about these numbers. would you dismiss them out of hand? >> i think china has been a line from the very beginning. they are saying only 2500 people died in wuhan. radio free asia has a report that the seven funeral homes and wuhan are handing out 3500 urns per day. so it seems a little bit more extreme, but let's look at the history of it. they knew in wuhan, doctors knew in december that the virus was capable of human to human transitiotransmission because ml workers were getting sick. on january 14 china told the world health organization that they had no evidence of human to human transition. if it happened three weeks earlier a study showed that 95% of the cases would not have happened and we would not be in a global pandemic. the country has lied to us from the very beginning. >> dana: can i play for you some sound last night from 60 minutes about this devastating situation and china being at fault? watch. >> as china tries to rewrite history and claim it was transparenctransparent all alonl nail in the coffin. just two weeks ago the head of emergency at wuhan hospital also went public saying authorities had stopped her and her colleagues from warning the world. she has now disappeared, whereabouts unknown. >> dana: it's of the president of the united states is in a tough position. he has to work with china on some things, he tweeted that they had a call and were working much better in some respects but i have to imagine that underlying that is some real frustration and anger, disgust. i will give you the final word. >> i'm with the american people on this. we just passed a $2 trillion package to pay for the salaries and revenue of businesses that have been shut down by this. 3.28 people lost their jobs last weekend here in america and that is directly because of the lies of of the chinese regime. when this crisis is over, we have to get transitioned out of the lockdown, but once that's done, congress ought to pass a law stripping china of sovereign immunity. everyone who has been stopped by this can sue the chinese government and get that money back. >> dana: you can find "the road map to recovery, by your colleague scott gottlieb. we will be right back. >> i don't know what the numbers are going to be this quarter but what i do know is we are going to kill the virus, we are going to reopen the economy and we will see the economy bounce back with very large gdp numbers and low unemployment back to where we were before hand. >> dana: that was treasury secretary steven mnuchin on "fox news sunday" on when he believes that economy will return to where it was before the coronavirus pandemic. so will the $2 trillion stimulus package that the president signed on friday, help? joining me now is fox business correspondent and, the marks group cpa and small business consultant gene marks. let me give you a chance before we take some of these viewer questions. degen, we will start with you. to steven mnuchin's point, that's very possible that we could get back to where we were but it's going to be tough. >> it will be very tough to bounce back like that when you could be looking at an economic contraction at least maybe in the second quarter, a negative 20 or even 30%. but i want to point this out. we've had three stimulus bills, not just one out of congress, in three weeks which is unprecedented. so it's roughly -- well over $2 trillion. i suspect we could get a fourth one. it might be a month or it might be six weeks but i think that ultimately you need in addition to this rescue, this is not a stimulus, the $2 trillion you do need a stimulus on the other side of this. expect that to happen out of congress. >> dana: it can i go to this question from twitter? i think a lot of people are worried about this. he says, retired so no worries about paying bills and no mortgage but i am concerned for others and when do you think the economy will get cranked up and can certain businesses start earlier? and i did want to ask you this other one which was about, paying for your mortgage and the worries about that, if you could address that. >> so that's a very common question. about 60% of the mortgages that get originated in this country ultimately go to the fhfa which is the federal housing finance agency, had to look at down to make sure i didn't mess that up. so jenny mae and freddie mac are part of that. there's a forbearance going on, which means you not that you don't owe the money but that you can defer payment for 180 days. so there will be a respite. my advice for anyone viewing, contact your lender. because you may not know that it's part of the fhfa program and find out what the arrangements are and differently speak to the bank that is the loan servicer before you stop making payments. >> dana: thank you so much. and this is from patrick james. they had twins born on january 3rd and so the twins aren't on last years tax returns and they are asking within this rescue bill that the president signed, will they get the $500 for them or, maybe not? >> unfortunately most likely not. the government is using your 2019 tax returns to determine what kind of stimulus payment you are going to get. if you haven't filed your 2019 tax returns, because a lot of people haven't and they've extent of the date now to july 15, they will use 2018 tax returns. unfortunately if you had twins were born in 2,020 that won't be part of the calculation and you won't get that dependent care payment. and i have twins, so you also have lots of happiness. >> assuming this couple qualifies based on the income threshold a cut off which again are $75,000 for the individual, and this is where the phaseout starts, $150,000 for married couples. so in terms of the children, assuming you qualify based on your 2020 income, you will get $500 added to your tax refund or subtracted from your income tax bill when you file your 2020 tax returns next year. that's my research. >> dana: so it's a form of a tax credit. >> you could get it but it would take a while. >> that is correct. >> dana: all right, you guys are going to stay here. thanks so much, we will be right back like you, my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option. turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at factsonhand.com today. dropping to near record lows, my team at newday usa like you, my hands have a lot more to do. is helping more veterans refinance than ever. the newday va streamline refi is the reason why. it lets you shortcut the loan process and refinance with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $2000 every year. call my team at newday usa right now. >> we will show you the trend we are seeing in american cities. we will see you in a few minut minutes. >> dana: it back with me now to answer more of my questions as my panel of experts, and i have some viewer questions. let's give to this one to you, jean. this is from amy kelley. she said she hasn't file taxes for 2019 and in 2018 they had a 17-year-old daughter and claimed her. it looks like they are eligible to get the $2400 plus 500 based on last year but they are asking come up with the daughter also got her own check now that she's a working adult? these are situations that families across the country have been trying to figure out. >> it's real life numbers. there's no double dipping so if the daughter is being claimed as a dependent on the appearance tax return then that's a reimbursement they will get. if daughter is over the age of 17 and filing her own tax return then she will get her own stimulus check. so again, it's either one or the other. >> can i add one thing? i was just going to say that applies to the plan generally, it excludes anyone who isn't a child and who can be claimed as someone else's dependent so that would also include some disabled people, elderly people who are claimed as dependents and it is roughly about 21 million americans. so they will not get money if claimed as a dependent if they are an adult. >> dana: and this question was from facebook. if the bank account you had for 2018 filing has closed and you haven't yet filed 2019, how will the treasury department even find your banking information? how will they get the check to you? >> that's a common question. the answer is if they can't send you a direct deposit credit into your checking account or if it bounces back, they will mail you a check. they are most likely will be a form available because the irs loves forms to go out and claim those if you end up not getting one and we know everyone needs the money now, all of this will be settled on people's 2020 tax returns. so if, for some reason, you don't get it you will basically have a credit against any taxes due in 2020. >> dana: try to be patient. degen, let me end this with you. would anything positive come out of this difficult time for the economy? >> there is a lot of hardship that we are staring out right now for literally millions of americans who have lost their jobs and are losing their jobs. macy's today said it was going to furlough the majority of its 130,000 employees and they will keep paying their health insurance premiums and give them health insurance through may but again, this is devastating. i think to focus on the short term and not to look at the negative, and the long run we have a government that is willing to do anything to rescue this economy and i think certainly we will have a better health care system down the road, private industry will develop treatment for this virus, ultimately a vaccine for this virus and it will bring us together as a nation and teach us how to work together rather than fight with one another. >> dana: and jean marx, how would you handle that? >> my clients are primarily small business owners and the ones that do make it out of this are going to survive and be more strong than they were before. they will know the value of having enough cash reserves on an account and investing in technology and investing in their people and being a little bit more conservative with how they run their businesses. there are always ups and downs, but i do think when they emerge from this they will be stronger. >> dana: dana, i wanted to point out, i tell people in the streets, my friends and neighbors of course from 6 feet away, the small business, and this is getting underway right now. these loans will be made through any fdic bank starting this friday and we are talking about loans that can get done in one day. it will be retroactive back to february 15th. you can borrow up to two and a half times your payroll based on their very 15th, up to $10 million, get that money if you are a small business. >> dana: we will definitely have you back because the three of you have been very helpful. you may be somebody that has never asked the government for anything before. do not be shy, do not be embarrassed, ask for the help. this help is being provided to you and we want you to take advantage of it because it will help the economy in the long run. dagen mcdowell, rich and jean marx. more than 100,000 workers at a bookstore in oregon are starting a new chapter. they are going back to work after layoffs. it turns out that coronavirus had forced powell's books in portland to close doors and lay off hundreds of employees but one store's sales are still spiking, their online store. the ceo announced on twitter, thanks to your orders on powells.com we know have over 100 folks working at powell's again, all full-time with benefits. that was good news indeed. some americans still have to go to work during this pandemic to put food on the rest of our tables. coming up we will talk to the co-owner of a wisconsin sausage company about what they are doing to make sure grocery stores are stocked while keeping their workers safe. ♪ ok everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo-hoo! great tasting ensure with 9 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals, and nutrients to support immune health. ♪ ♪ ♪ vby refinancing your va loan atl today's incredibly low rates ♪ at newday usa. newday's va streamline refi is the quickest and easiest refi they've ever offered. you can lower your payments by this time next month without having to verify your income, without getting your home appraised, and there's no money out of pocket. one call to start saving $2000 a year. every year. one call. then, sit back, relax and think about what you'll do with the savings. call newday right now. 450-degree oven, to box, to you, know that from our éqg'@kow6tqpvía'y)@0 it's our policy that your pizza is never touched
New-yorkUnited-statesLouisianaTexasChinaCaliforniaWisconsinTogoOregonWashingtonSeattleConnecticut >> thank you so much. "mother jones" has been huge part of this. i'm really flattered and honored. thank you so much. thank everyone for coming. i'll stick around and would love to meet everyone, so if you have time to talk, i will be here. [applause] >> and no booktv, patrick james expense international relations using themes found in the book "lord of the rings." this is about half an hour. >> and welcome to the scholars circle. the "lord of the rings" trilogy and its prequel the hobbit have collectively grossed billions of dollars in sales, and now companies are planning to exploit it for think parks, video games, slot machines, other properties. but in the "lord of the rings" actually act as a means to understand complex politics and international relations? our guest with us today says that it can, and he's recently written a book to just show that. patrick james is a professor at university of southern california. and a director for the center for international studies. this book is like a cold "the international relations of middle-earth: learning from 'the lord of the rings'" it's great to have you. so before we get into the actual politics of middle earth, why the "lord of the rings" rather than another narrative to try to explain the series of internationalism? >> the short answer is, it's extraordinary completeness and complexity as a world. if you took all of jr tolkien's writings and put them together, hyou have the most completely specified fantasy world that has ever been great to for example, full language that one can speak, details so accurate that you can chart faces of the men at different points in the storyline and they're absolutely correct. so the reason i say that is that the complexity of the story is enough to rival human history itself. >> so now the "lord of the rings" had i think he wrote in the book 49 which is. how many different species and story lines and themes? >> oh, the answer is depending upon how one would measure such things. literally thousands, within the movies, right, which collectively and extended versions which are something like 11 hours long, major significant interest in characters and plot lines are literally not even mention at all. it would probably go on as a series for several years. >> let's talk about those things. justice and order, that's a pretty big theme in international relations. our these are simplified in the "lord of the rings"? >> it is a constant struggle between the two. often the more of when you have, the more orderly thing you get, the more unjust and vice versa. and look at particular story lines and situations in the earth to see how those things trade off. because a person reading the book if you will come anyone picking this up and saying i'd like to get a sense of what international relations is about, the very kinds of conventions and trade us, can give examples if you like, that we struggle within middle earth, the characters do, are right there for you and me in the real world. >> for example? >> let's get in a time machine, it's making it for. you are william jefferson clinton. you are extremely popular yourself, but you're in trouble with the public and congress is in the process of falling to the republicans. you do the right thing to rwanda or to sell and -- which is sending a force to shut down the genocide or do you forego justice and preserve your own political position by instancing out of rwanda and remembering that the public is still pretty mad about the debacle in somalia. that question answers itself. justice and order trading off against each other. >> anand what about and about? >> in the book we see an extraordinary and very black and white struggle. this is not a book for people who like shades of gray. there are very villainous villains and very virtuous heroes, but at the same time there are flaws. and while there is an ultimate struggle between good and evil in this book, there are really interesting characters who act lists and turns in them. and if we want to concentrate on someone, probably the right place to start is gollum, arguably the most interesting and master character in the book. >> okay. so first of all let's address the black and white issue. i think it is unfit, scholars like me, we want to get our audiences to think about things in great. does this black and white i do do that? >> it's a wonderful throwback, maria, to a world, and much of this was written in the first half of 20 century. iis in some ways an assault on moral relativism. you will see that the characters are often tormented, who wants to preserve the safety of his people in the land, but is also struggling with doing that. in his case, for instance, finally gives in to his darker nature. he pays with his life. he endangers the entire mission, if you will, of the so-called fellowship of the ring. and there we see giving and if you will to evil resulting in a very bad outcome. spent so you mentioned column and using the example of eyes -- >> the example of eyes within i think human nature that there is no absolute determinism. that all of us have the potential for good or evil. and column by the way of course is, most of our viewers or listeners will have a sense of who gollum is, that he is this extraordinary high-tech character who has a jekyll and hyde personality. snowbowl is we once was a ritual. he is akin to the delightful hobbit creatures who are among the most important protective. he also has a darker side of the column who is obsessed with a very evil ring of power, jeopardizes the safety of the entire world. and often throughout the story, osha developments go back and forth in terms of whether the other part can see strong enough to assist the fellowship members, a character we can talk to, or whether regrettably the darker side of gollum takes over and threatens the world. >> okay. so now you've also written a book about a gollum represents a certain paradigm or model in international relations. it's the imperialist model. how is that so? >> yes, that's right. and the storyline very briefly, calling the murders another character who is a friend when you're phishing. he finds the ring. the first act as evil the ring causes because of its own inherent evil is the murder of them. what does that have to do with colonialism? simple creatures who live by the river, like to fish. we never heard anyone. yet when this high-tech device arguably in a fantasy world of middle earth, the wing is a wmd. the weapon of mass destruction. as soon as it is injected into the simple location of the river folks, what happens? he murders his friend to he is obsessed with the ring. the use of his magical powers to disappear and he becomes cannibalistic, arranges, and ultimately over 500 years of financial extended life due to the fact that he has the ring, commits many heinous acts. this can be seen if he will a comparison to the effect of very high technologies going into the parts of the world that were innocent and christine and causing terrible things about the some people have read the book that way. >> so now that is one of the many ways of looking at international relations, and just characters representing the other models. realism for example, the liberalism. odc as representing realism? >> realism, a particular form of it that is the aggressive called offense of realism, its a sense that people live for again of our relative to others that they want to expand if you will that they are naturally quite imperialistic. an example, a storyline example involving two wizards, one has gone up to the dark side india starting to help the dark lords. he has been overtaken if you will versus gandalf. have a terrible competition and the jargon, a concept such as bandwagoning plays a key role as an it is appropriate for me to bandwagon, that is, roll down the hill and join the site that is winning. saruman mates a plea to gandalf. and we should join saruman, he will just when anyone. this communicate the very old concept and one with a lot of staying power of international relations that we see bandwagon. for example, smaller states that joined in with hitler's germany during its early days of successful conquests, certain parties join in with hitler rather than balance against them. saruman, the wizard has gone up to the dark side, bandwagons with the evil an incredibly powerful saruman. where gandalf speaks to another realism. it's about how you choose to play your power. saruman says let's gave in and divide up the spoils. gandalf says very unwise but let's balance against it because he does not share power speak you said that gandalf in the book was actually a representative of what we call in political science rational choice. and yet rational choice on the side that is winning. >> the answer is that if you calculate properly, the correct answer is no interestingly enough. because they also can look ahead rather than being myopic and say, what gandalf did, as in it might simply to be on the so-called winning team, but this is very much like winston churchill's comparison can we go back to hitler, siding with someone like hitler that is bandwagoning with saruman in a fantasy world is a lot like feeding a crocodile hoping u.s. the rational thing to do is to actually doing the weaker side and try to balance because american revolutionaries said, you must hang together, or hang separately. >> my favorite model is constructivism. how can we see the international relations theory of constructivism in the "lord of the rings"? >> the answer is we see in so many places because to do this anyway that is accessible as we do now, we actually try to avoid sort of technical jargon -esque kind of discussions. and saying in a way, it's not just guns and tanks or nuclear weapons that matter. is the power of ideas. if we look at the story of the "lord of the rings," here's one example of this. that actors, the actress, i've complex story so bear with me as i bring in more of them, if you look at a character like the ring bearer, he is looking at will notice we can introduce multiple trees with a single character. he has to come up with, if you will, an idea about what this world is all about. it's about black and white, good and evil? he must, in other words, and as a group if you will in throwback to early modern, very passionate place called the shire. everybody farms. he must reconstruct his view because here's his initial view until he begins to have his adventures. and gets involved in the "lord of the rings" story. it doesn't concerns but many to construct a more liberal, cooperative worldview as in i must join in with the fellowship because even the hobbits, little we creatures who live in our sample area would like to stay it isn't realistic anymore. so he learns and he discovers and changes in worldview. companions of his. we can pull their storylines and they involved in the same with. there's a famous line, i think one that people really like from the two towers movie. >> do not try to pretend, especially under conditions of globalization, that there are little airtight compartments in this world, that we can stay in one and keep the rest of them out. >> let me just remind listeners that we are speaking with patrick james, and this is the scholar's circle, and i'm maria. there are other models. you actually have found a character for almost every one of them. the critical theory, how do you find critical theory in the lord critical theory, to give you a basic sense of what it's all about, is not, say, in the subpoenas of newton or -- in the instead it's looking attics r in terms of what is right and wrong. wrote all of this material before anybody even used the words "krill call theory." so by definition what's so fascinating is you will find theories that have been created very recently that, amazingly enough, storylines represent a great character to talk about here is someone who doesn't make it into the movies. a cantankerous cousin, if you will, to the creatures who ultimately, by the way, do join the good guys. old man willow is quite nasty and mean, and in the storyline that's left out, right? we see him trying to devour the little hobbits early in their time. they're still quite ignorant of the outside world. they tend to be innocent. they might lie down near the roots of the tree and, unfortunately, because they are not aware of such things, they risk being devoured and gnarled to death, if you will. okay. well, then where does critical theory come in? to old man willow, intruders in his domain called the old forest always mean trouble. what do they do? they burn the trees, they chop them down. this, of course, is critical theory expressed in terms of environmentalism. he? he's trying to devour these hobbits. but now we transport ourselves to his domain, what is happening to him? people are coming into his territory, even right next to his doorstep, and they're pulling out axes and cutting him the book does as is a sentient creature. so it encourages us from a critical theory standpoint to step out of the idea that trees are just wood waiting to happen for our fireplace. maybe, for example, we might want to rethink what we're doing with the amazon. >> and then also it brings in the issues of justice and the entire system and how the system works to be either just or injust and feeds into conflict. >> you are absolutely right. and the book is also a wonderful and my wonderful collaborator who i like so much. maria is actually, i think, acquainted with abigail. she's a very fine scholar. and she was at usc at one point of her career, and she is more devoted to critical theory whereas i am much more on the things. she's more interested in justice, i'm more interested in order. not to the exclusion of the other. so the book is written, in a sense, while it's not an explicit debate, it always encourages the reader to say now that you've been thinking about order, maybe we ought to think about the implications for justice and vice versa. >> i assume it was your co-author that actually integrated feminism. >> yes. i am more known as an exend of economic models where as abby, as she's nicknamed, is quite expert on critical theory and gender-based analysis. we're, obviously, as different as we can get in our approaches. so each one serves as a natural critic to the other, completely confident to say you just went too far there. so the book, in other words, tends to have -- in my humble opinion -- a very pragmatic and as in we do not obsess over justice to the point where we worry that even always has the same things all of the time. and at the same time we're not so callous that we want order as we know in world, maria, is where is that appropriate balance in any given context in. >> and do you have the sense that the lord of the rings allows that debate to come through? >> precisely was if you look at -- because if you look at the hire around ri can have power, you have different races, call them ethnicities. you have the humans, you have the elves who are very long-lived, extremely intellectual, very distant and also, i'm afraid, they have flaws such as being condescending and somewhat self-absorbed. at the other end of things, powerful creatures like humans and elves, you have the hobbits who are physically not very strong and generally not very knowledgeable with a few exceptions about the outside world. and then much more fantastic creatures with greater kinds of strengths and weaknesses. dwarves, for instance, or who are short but actually physically quite powerful, incredible engineers, but here's their flaw, they are obsessed with wealth. notice the problem here, that that they might not care much about justice as long as they have a lot. and then you have characters that go over the edge into evil, the so-called, ork, and here we come back to the question of relativism, are, in fact, completely evil. and that, of course, is a very extreme kind of character to have. they are perverted creations from tormented, if you will, per eventerred elves. >> -- perverted elves. >> and orks you described as part of the earlyist -- realist model prototype. how are they? >> there's a character who has a very exciting confrontation in the movie version with one of the most heroic characters we haven't mentioned. he is the king in waiting, the leader of the free peoples, eventually the king of gondorf if the good side wins. he has a confrontation with a particular ork, capable of traveling in daylight. these rather miserable creatures abhor the sun, and the particular type of ork does not. and the leader epitomizes realism in that he goes on a murderous rampage. all he cares about, if you will, is offensively destroying his enemies. in other words, he's monomaniacal. he wants power, he wants to destroy things, and he does not have concerns for justice. for him, his race dominates. >> he almost sounds like he belongs in another mold, like in the traditional imperialist model. >> yes, which is a historical type of version of offensive realism. realism in the 19th century, the great powers of europe sailed the seas, took over what they in a kind of bad reading of charles darwin saw as extremely inferior people, colonized them. they didn't understand the places they were colonizing, and did. but you can look at a sort of neocolonial type of assessment through these rampages, in particular going to places and undies turned. another storyline, maria, that is not in the movies is called the scouring of the shire, if you read the lord of the rings. what happens, sadly enough for the hobbits -- and this would have roomed the movie, by the way, so they didn't put it in. people know the spoiler, yes, of course, the good guys have to wane. when the hobbits go back home to shire, it is not like it is in the movie. in the book it has been taken over by a decrepit, pathetic, reduce canned version of the his minions have now -- and get this point closely -- of industrial waste. there's smoke everywhere. in a sense what this is pointing out also about war and its consequences is there is no victory without also loss. that the shire when they p come back, they have to fight another rear guard battle to destroy the occupying force of evil men, and they do. the hobbits are now, because of their battle-hardened experience -- are able to come back, they lead a hobbit rebellion. things are repaired, but some hobbits have died, and some beautiful things in particular if you recall the bridge between the hobbit and the lord of the called the party tree. it's a big, beautiful tree. it has been destroyed and turned into firewood. >> now, i know you said your co-author wrote the feminist chant kerr, but i wonder -- chapter, but i wonder, you know, the horde of the rings didn't have much presence of women at all. and i wonder if that is part of the feminist critique of international relation theory as well. >> well, sad, in fact, give the women even a smidgen of air time. they actually have to change the storylines in the book. there's a memorable rescue scene where the partner, ultimately, for the king, she's an elf, and she does not rescue frodo from the dark riders, these minions, when he's been stabbed. he's going to turn into, if you will, a sort of ghastly zombie--like creature. he needs desperately to get to where the elves have their sanctuary and their powerful medicine. he's rescued by a beautiful elf in the movie, but a male elf actually rescues him in the book version. the female character is really pushed up in the movie -- pumped up in the movies compared to the books. and other character, the few female characters that matter -- arguably the most powerful single entity in middle earth. she's an elf, and an ancient one. unless he can get that ring we've been talking about. if he gets it, all of the world powerful, very wise, has some elements of mind-reading powers as well. that's implied. she's powerful and important. the leading feminist character in the book is actually quite fascinating to think of how long ago this book was written. and she is, if you will, as close as you could get to being, if you will, a sort of i've -- fight. she actually has to disguise herself and assume the identity of a phony knight. she becomes a warrior from her kingdom rohan, being allied with gondor, the principal kingdom that we've been talking about. the rohan people are riders. they're very no, sir. they remind you, if you will, of people who would live in a viking-type of environment, and they're great horsemen, and she actually has to disguise herself. and she plays a crucial role in a very late battle scene in the movie. if she isn't there, there's a saying about these horrible black riders that were pursuing frodo at one point, the leader of them cannot be killed by a man. he is ultimately slain by the female and a small hobbit who was not going to be allowed to fight either. and they, in other words, the feminist critique is there are women who can do things that men can do. now here's where some of my feminist friends would get annoyed and say you left out something. this is called, maria, liberal feminism. the idea is that you and i should have equal opportunities as should everyone, and you might try to excel in the ways i might try to excel. different variants actually object to this, say no women actually are different and hoar we get into another storyline if that's all right that's not in the movies and the books, those large, fantastic-looking trees. they're all guys. they're all masculine pause the wives left. -- because the wives left. they found the ents and their obsession with trees annoying. notice the environmentalism again, but notice also although toll key yen could not have anticipated this, one strand of feminism argues that the liberal model where everybody should have an equal opportunity and try to excel say in a democratic capitalist type of society, that's one kind of feminism. but another one would say we want to be different. actually, we don't want to obsess over what you historically have obsessed over. we have different goals. even those nuances can be found, and i return to my first point, how many novels out there have this degree of internal m complexity where we can get into subvariants of explanations, and we find entire characters or races that help us with them. >> and speaking of complexity, the other aspect of this book -- and i should remind people that it's called "the international relations of the middle earth." patrick james is with us, and the book just fell down, and this is the scholar's circle, and i'm your host, maria. but then levels of looking at, you call them levels of analysis, kind of a scholarly term, but just how to really understand conflict. you said in "the lord of the rings" just like in world war i you can look at it from these various for spectives. you can look at the big system, like what are the systemic reasons why world war i happened? you can look at it from the structural elements like the state. i mean, you can look at it from the individual. like, you know, the young man who decided to shoot the archduke. >> that's right. and what's so fascinating, just one historical comparison. if you look at things that are true to all three of the or wars that we choose to look at, they're very well known cases. obviously, the war of the ring from the fantasy world, why did it happen, and then the causes as well of the world war i that you just mentioned, but also the war in iraq which is more recent in our times. one of the things that is in the lord of the rings as well as bad leaders, quote-unquote, who showed poor judgment. world war i, we have a come but nation of decrepit empires and monarchical systems where it wasn't the best and the brightest. it was old, decrepit monarchs like the kaiser, for instance, in germany, the czar in russia. who pause they are there only through privilege and not through we are -- competence are not skilled in diplomacy, not able to prevent the outbreak of world war i of after that assassination. now, iraq, not a partisan statement, but i think it has been said fairly that george bush 43 was not an experienced foreign policy present. he tended to listen arguably to people who really wanted to precipitate the war, perhaps he moved impetuously regarding wmds. and inexperienced leadership as in later on the intelligence was proven not to have been there. now, here's the fun part, if you're trying to get these ideas and compare them, the lord of the rings has its own decrepe tuesday to talk about as well. remember gandolf? actually, he has no official position. other leaders won't listen to him. the two monarchs from the kingdom i have referenced, they have in one -- by an agent. another wizard who i had mentioned. beganful to is fighting furiously. he's pursuing the get these leaders to listen to him. we're going to be really in a deep, dark place if we do not prepare properly for the war that's coming, and for various kinds of complex reasons, the incompetence weakens the people and makes them more prone to a war they will lose. notice the comparison with iraq and 1914 is really quite apt. you've got weak leadership and incompetence, and war ensues. now, one might say, hay, tolkien cheated. if he was still ahive, he would get quite cranky with us for saying this, but how about that? iraq. iraq. it happened 30 years after he was gone. >> now, i'd like to end with what you began the book with, which is in this most recent election in iran that when there was considerable consternation about how the election went that the state aired the lord of the rings in an effort to pacify people, but it didn't have that effect. what happened? >> the tremendous irony is that while the state, right, the ahmadinejad regime says, well, let's throw the people a bone, they don't get many western movies, these movies are hotter than the sun. even's watching this years after they come out in the west. this is 2009. here's the irony, the state puts the movies out there, but they should have had some of their own people watch them very the movies are about human or personal freedom. they argue in favor of democracy a combination of order and justice. they would hardly be something you would show people to try to calm them down. and what happens, of course, is a boomerang effect. people look at these movies, and they see messages within them as in we ought to resist, you know? we shouldn't be pacified by this. yes, we're entertained. of course, it's a sword and sorcery fantasy movie. arguably, it's the best long movie ever made, the return of the king won best picture. yes, they were right to entertain, but i think they would have been better off showing top gun if they wanted to shut people down. [laughter] >> well, thank you so much, patrick james, for being with us. the book is called the international relations of the mulled l earth: learning from the lord of the rings. this has been the scholar's circumstance lt. i'm maria armoudian, and we'll see you next week. >> thank you so much. >> on the go? "after words" is available via pod christmas. visit booktv of.org and click podcast on the upper left side of the page. select which podcast you'd like to download and listen to "of after words" while you travel. >> the best day to be a planner in america was july 9, 2004, when dick jackson, howie frumpkin and lawrence frank came out with a book called "urban sprawl and public health." and what that book finally did was put some it -- technical, epidemiological meat on the sociological bones that we planners have been arguing about and said the suburbs are killing us, and here's why, and cities can save us, and here's why. by far is greatest aspect of that epidemic, or i should say of our health challenges in america is the obesity epidemic. it's not that obesity itself is the problem, of course, but all the illsts that obesity leads to, principal among them diabetes. diabetes now consumes 2% of our gross national product. a child born after 2000 has a 1 in 3 chance in measuring of becoming a diabetic. we are now looking at the first generation of americans who are going to live shorter lives than their parents. that's probably not a huge surprise to you. we've all been talking now for a long time about the wonders of the american corner run- corn syrup-based diet but only recently have the studies been done comparing diet and physical inactivity. one of them in england was called gluttony versus sloth. [laughter] another doctor at the mayo clinic put patients in electronic underwear and measured every motion, set a certain dietetic regime, studied their weight, started pumping calories in, and then some people got fat and other people didn't. and expecting some sort of met boll you can factor or a genetic dna factor at work, they found the only thing that changed was the amount of daily activity. then you look at these books like the blue zones, have any of you seen the -- buttener, i forget his first name, dan buttener and the blue zones, you go to places where people live the longest, you see what they do including red wine, you put it in a book, and you sell millions. the number one rule? move naturally. don't run marathons and triathlons, don't ask people to exercise, they will stop. find a way to build normal motion into your everyday life as part of a work routine. who's going to change their work routine so they all of a sudden go from being an accountant to a lumberjack? that's not going to happen. they say, well, you know, bike to work, walk to the store. and the one thing that book forgets to mention is in half of america you can't bike to work, and you can't walk to the store because you live off of a highway that the store is off of. so it's fundamentally about how we build our communities in the long run. but in the short run it's about where you choose to live, and that's nowhere more obvious that in the other big discussion which is car crashes. and car crashes are funny because on the one hand we naturalize it. we're like, oh, that's just a part of living that there's a 1 in 200 chance that i'll die in a car crash, a 1 in 3 chance that i'll be injured in a car crash, nothing i can do about it. or alternatively we feel like we're in charge of our fate on the road. you know, we're good drivers. 85% of people who are in a hospital recovering from accidents that they themselves had caused rated themselves as better than average drives. so all this' going on. but the fact is that it's not the same all over the world, and it's not the same all over america. so we have a rate where 14 americans out of 100 are dying ever -- sorry, 14 americans out of 100,000 are dying every year in car crashes. in london, in england it's 5 out of 100,000. no one has half the crashes we do. in new york city it's 3 out of 100,000. new york city has saved more lives many traffic than were lost since september 11th than were lost on september 11th. and, in fact, if our entire country were to share new york city's accident rate, we would save 24,000 lives a year. there's a big difference between urban living and suburban or rural living in terms of that aspect of our lives. and, again, in the short term we can build -- in the long term, we can build places to be safer n. the short term we can decide to live in more urban environments. a wonderful study, you know, dick jackson famously asked the question in what sort of city are you most likely to wake -- most likely the to die in a pool of blood. that's how he puts it to his audiences. [laughter] and they compared murder by strangers, crime, to car crashes and added the two together and looked at portland, vancouver and seattle. you were 15% safer in the grittiest inner city that the leafy, wealthy suburbs. and we move to the suburbs for the safety of our children, right? so, and then finally asthma. who talks about asthma? fourteen americans die every day from asthma. okay, that doesn't sound like a huge amount. it's three times the rate of the '90s, and the it's entirely due to automotive exhaust. 90 whatever percent. you know, pollution isn't what it used to be. the sickest places in america are those places which are the most car dependent. and, you know, in phoenix you have got four months out of the year that you -- healthy peoplee not supposed to leave their houses because of the amount of driving that's going on. what's the solution? the city. finally, the most interesting discussion maybe is the environmental discussion which has turned 180 degrees in the last ten years. you know, if you look at the -- even within the global warming discussion, you talk about car won footprint -- carbon foot print, you know, red is bad, green is good. you look at the united states, and it looks like the night map, it like looks like the satellite night map of the united states, hottest around the cities, coolest out in the country, right? but that measures co2 per square mile. in 2001 scott bernstein at the center for neighborhood technology in chicago said what happens if instead of measuring co2 per mile we start measuring per person or per household? because there are only a certain number of us, and we can choose to live in places where we pollute more or less. if you look per household, the red and the green just flip. absolutely change places. and by far the healthiest place you can live is in the city. man that the tan -- manhattanites burn a third of the fossil fuels of people in dallas, they use a thid of the electricity. why? well, they're heating and cooling their neighbors, right? their apartments are touching. but even more importantly than that, the less driving they're doing. transportation is the greatest single contributor to most civilians' greenhouse gas. in our daily lives the biggest choice we can make, you know, when i built my house in washington, d.c., i made sure i cleaned the shelves on the sustainability stores. i got the solar panels, i got the superinsulation, i got the bamboo flooring. i have a wood-burning stove that supposedly a log burning in my wood-burning stowe -- stove contributes less to the co2. and, of course, i have the energy saver lightbulbs. that saves as much electricity in a -- i should say saves as much carbon in a year as moving to a walkable neighborhood saves in a week. so the whole gizmo-green-gadget discussion, what can i buy to make myself more sustainable is the wrong discussion. it should be where can i live and how can i live to contribute less, and the answer, again, is the city. this is fundamentally the opposite of the american ethos, you know? from jefferson on. cities are pestilential to the morals, the health and the freedom of man. if we continue to pile upon ourselves in cities as they do in europe, we shall take to eating one another as they do there. [laughter] that was jefferson. and that just continued and continued, and it made sense back in the, you know, 1700s when we had the whole country to spread out on, and the biggest by-product of transportation was fertilizer. but that's not the case now. so it's a longer discussion. all three of these are a longer discussion. but they're all national crises. we have an international crisis which is only going to get tougher, we have a national health crisis which is bankrupting us, and as sandy proved all too clear a couple weeks ago, global warming is beginning to affect us dramatically, and now we're not talking about stopping it, we're talking about mitigating it, but, obviously, the less we have, the better off we are. and the more we can become an urban society, the more we can do to solvese
New-yorkUnited-statesGermanyIranVancouverBritish-columbiaCanadaRwandaCaliforniaRussiaWashingtonDistrict-of-columbia weak leadershileadershi p and incompetence and warren susan might say tolkien cheated. he was making this all up about world war i. if he were still alive he would get quite cranky with us for saying it but how about that? you can't say anything about iraq. he never saw iraq. it happened 30 years after he was gone. >> now i would like to add with what you began the book with which is in this most recent election in iran that when there was considerable consternation about how the election went, the state aired the lord of the rings in an effort to pacify people but he didn't have that effect. what happened to? >> the tremendous irony is that while the state, the ahmadinejad regime says they don't get many western movies. these movies are hotter than the sun and everybody is watching them. of course years after they came out of the west, they came out in early 2000 it was 2009, here is the irony. the seikh pokes the movies out there that they should have had some of their own people watch them very carefully. what the movies do, when the movies are about ursula freedom they argue in favor of democracy and on as practices and fair treatment as in a combination of injustice, they would hardly be something you would show people to try to calm them down. what happens of course is a boomerang effect. people look at these movies and they see messages within them as in we ought to resist. we shouldn't be pacified by this. yes we are entertained and it's a sorcery fantasy movie and arguably the best long movie returned it became one of those pictures was a great action movie and yes they were right to would be better off showing top gun or something out of schwarzenegger if they wanted to shut them down. >> thank you so much patrick james for being with us and again the book is called "the international relations of middle-earth" learning from 'lord of the rings'". it's -- this has been the scholar circle and i maria. see you next week. >> thank you so much. up next on booktv samuel gregg argues that our elected leaders don't find the courage to reform the economy and government spending soon, the u.s. could find itself in the same terrible economic situation as many european countries do today. this is just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you john for your very kind introduction and the invitation to speak at the heritage foundation today. it's a great privilege to be here. i have always been a great admirer of heritage and the council and in many cases the friendship of many people here at heritage for a very long time i have also admired the way that heritage works across policy areas so that you really do here and integrated message. not least among which i think is the intention of the heritage foundation to the power of culture, by which i mean people believe ideas, habits and expectations in the way that these achieve some form of institutional expression. this issue of culture and how it relates to the economy is at the heart of my book, "becoming europe" because at one level becoming europe is certainly about what has happened in europe and why it is now regarded as the sick man of the global economy. my book is also about how some of these cultural and economic trends are starting to manifest themselves in the united states, particularly over the past five years. and in some respects i think it's rather ironic that america is seemingly drifting in this direction of economic europeanization. because whether the colossal level is dead the increasingly unaffordable welfare state, struggling banking systems, soaring levels of unemployment, stagnation or low economic growth, double and even triple dip recessions, violence and riots etc. etc., there is a widespread sense i see that what europe is experience king is more of a recession. instead i think there's a sense that western europe present economic crisis reflects some deeper traumas. and not terminally because of external pressures but rather the inherent contradictions and his functionalities encouraged by what i call european economic culture overlong period of time. all of that is to say that if america's economic culture as i call it continues to drift in the same direction, i think we can assume faithfully that over time some trends that you see in europe will start to manifest themselves in the united states and that i think is what america means when they use phrases like europeanization or we are becoming like europe. today i want to do three things. the first thing i want to do is explain what i mean by the phrase becoming europe. the second thing i want to do is to sketch out where some similar trends are manifesting themselves in the united states and since i'm at the heritage foundation and in the spirit of optimism, i want to suggest how america might be able to avoid going down the same path. now a good place to think to start in explaining european economic culture is with david cameron's recent speech about britain's future and the european union. now the speech was about many things, but i think the speech mattered in as much as it represented yet another missed opportunity by a major european politician to address unequivocally a problem that perhaps is even more fundamentally dangerous for britain and much of the rest of europe than taming the e.u.'s superstate tendencies. this is the problem of attitudes and how the institutional expression in the economy. because as i illustrate in "becoming europe" the prevailing conviction across most of europe is that the state is the primary way in which we address common problems and meet our responsibilities and obligations to our fellow citizens. that such obligations might be realized outside the realm of politics doesn't apparently occurred to large numbers of european political leaders including i have to say a considerable number of the center-right european politicians. so in this regard i have often wondered what -- would think if he read a particularly important book that was written 180 years ago by one of his compatriots. because although it's about the new world, democracy in america was sent written for an american audience. alexis de tocqueville's intended audience was europe. so i think you would be astonished to learn how the americans observed by de tocqueville dealt with problems that were beyond an individual's capacity to address but also resolvable by things like trade and commoners. 19th century american -- address these types of problems that the habit of free association instead of simply expecting government officials. for de tocqueville the contrast with his native france was simply astounding. he said this. whoever is ahead of some new undertaking you see the government in france, in the united states you will be sure to find the free association. now, as no less than adam smith heard, there are certain things that can finally be done by the government. but the constant equivalence of the value of what many europeans called solidarity and the equivalence of solidarity with spending issues, government programs and public sector agents is surely one of europe's biggest long-term headaches. if only because such expectations on the part of the state justified through regulatory and welfare state constant and endless expansion despite the fiscally untenable burden of breach which should now be obvious to even the most submissive of brussels -- unfortunately, it's not just most of europe's political class who think this way. millions of ordinary europeans share this mindset. take for example mr. cameron's own backyard. scotland is currently dominated by two political parties who are more socially democratic but labour labor and scottish nationalist don't control scottish politics because scotland conservatives are rather adept. they are after all elected to parliament by people who apparently want social democratic policies regard was of the long-term economic and moral cost. now five years ago, a former white house chief of staff famously reminded us quote, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste, unquote. this is something that europe leaders have declined to take. because very few of them seem interested in using their country's severe economic challenges as a type of circuit breaker to articulate a grand vision of why the economy and society needs to be liberated from almighty government. instead what you find is most european politicians when they are presenting things like austerity measures, they generally present these changes as necessary evils, embarked upon with considerable reluctance so that we can get back to the way things used to be. now one reason for this i think is that many of european politicians know, they know that appeals to greater economic liberty and smaller government simply don't resonate enough western europeans. and in recent decades, economists such as douglas north and -- had illustrated the economic significance of a point made by de tocqueville that while morals and policies matter, they come over time to reflect what the majority of people in its hypocrisy value, for better or for worse. now, like many other people edmund phillips concluded a long time ago that contemporary european economy are generally less productive than america because of institutional banks, things like large welfare state, heavy labor market regulations, large public-sector bureaucracies etc. etc., but this can't explain everything. european countries to use his phrase were not a bunch of banner republics nor did they lag behind the united states when it came to classic predictors of growth such as the existence of the rule of law. his intuition was that the differences had to come down to america's economy being influenced by a culture which valued things like freedom and risk-taking and they started to drill down on some of the date of the surveyed american and european attitudes towards these things. what he found was that when it came to things like change, competition and notions of freedom more generally, he found that americans were much more favorably inclined to want these things than most europeans. i came away with the impression that the differences across countries with respect to certain well-defined institutions work not as important as prevailing differences in economic culture. he then speculated that economic cultures can become so entrenched, those people who actually lived within them ,-com,-com ma their minds become closed to any other type of alternative possibilities. this brings me to the second part of my burn marks today, which is how european attitudes are starting to gain ground in america. study after study after study after study outside show in my book shows a marked shift of americans away from favorable views of free enterprise and markets towards what you might call more social democratic positions. to give you one example, in 2011, one international polling firm a very respected firm released the results of surveys and the different countries attitudes towards the modern economy. .. >> expressed favorable views of commerce in the free market. by 2010 that figure had fallen at a 44%. with young americans the trend is more market. no doubt these apparent chefs of opinion are owed to the 2008 financial crisis. but as i remind readers it has always been since the progressive list era of a strain of skepticism of free enterprise and markets among political and intellectual elite. not to mention a considerable body of opinion that primarily associates concern for other people with collective state action. judging from the second inaugural address, the mindset of perpetual security seems to be shared from the white house occupants not to mention millions of americans who voted during 2012. this goes to a deeper, existential problems that european nations have failed to master, which america is struggling with the crisis that flows from the unhealthy nexus of democracy on one hand and the fact we live in a culture where people assume as a matter of right they are entitled to certain things from the government about too many questions asked how to pay for it. it is proving toxic for much of europe but it constitutes a danger to america is economic future. there is a purely economic dimension. with government constantly spending more than they raised through taxation, borrowing money is how they make up the difference. in european countries the debt burden affects the government's ability to meet their financial obligations. thing sub regional governments are trying to skip payments they owe to businesses. but americans should consider through 2013 america's public debt was insane at the 16 point* $4 trillion. the real figure is probably higher once you have the unfunded future liabilities like social security in the existing obligation of bankrupt states like california and illinois. but there are more subtle and cultural forces in western europe serves as exhibit a. with the contemporary modern warfare states origen's origen's, some of the biggest expansions occurred after 1945. giving a the yearning of economic security and world wars and depression year earnings through security should not surprise us. but what was surprising is how quickly european politicians recognizing the state's ability to provide social programs and subsidies as a way to build reliable constituencies. the left and the right realized they could attract support to make promises like subsidies, unemployment benefits, regulations and government jobs. sound familiar? this is by increased taxation and when that did not cover it debt was a means that the shortfall was covered. one justification for democracy provides ways to hold governments accountable when they do not accord with our wishes. but what happens when a citizen tuesday's mechanisms to encourage and officials to use the state to provide citizens with whatever they want? >> when elected officials provide then demanded security we use it as a tool for constituencies to be relied upon. the end result should not surprise us. with welfare and regulation with the expanding number of beneficiaries until things get so bad there is no alternative. but there is a political problem that people see this day as the primary provider of economic security, restraint of spending is politically difficult. why? anyone who promises to use intervention in real terms it is at a severe electoral disadvantage. as famously limited 2007 womack we know what we have to do but we don't know how to get reelected once we have done it quote. if people with security through the state to have the desire if 51 percent of the population is to resist electoral rejection or rioters running amok in the streets of athens. it is very tempting to see this as a western european problem as it is a continent where any center-right government's are a specially -- essentially social democratic intervention is seen as normal across the political spectrum. can anyone seriously denied politicians including conservatives also play the game or americans have developed inflated expectations of what the government owes them? and not just those that regard any streamlining of social security as a human rights violation but those american businesses who pervert to pursue corporate welfare instead of competing in the marketplace. now i have thoroughly depressed you i will move on to the third part of my remarks. how can america break this nexus? it is essential to make long overdue decisions about government spending that recently we have avoided managed to make. at the elemental level surely what we need is significant attitude change somehow government and legislators have to stop public finances as the tracking tool they will not do that unless to things the american people to not want to head down the path of european in general but if enough americans are willing to embrace what that means at the level of specifics, even self-described limited government when it comes to reducing subsidies and regulations that specifically benefit their industry their town or state. in that sense the bigger challenge for ordinary americans that we need to accept our participation cannot vote for whoever promises to give up the most stuff. if we are unwilling to use our democratic freedoms responsibly americans seriously risk what one german academics -- expressed the prevailing of mr. -- western europe. what he meant the citizens' vote for those politicians that used a power to give the supporters what they want other people's expense. that translates into tax increases and growing welfare state corporate welfare and a colossal burden to our children. welcome to greece in the state of california and the state of illinois. what is interesting long-term is americans understood these challenges and went beyond period economics. thomas jefferson for example, there is no model of personal financial rectitude. he understood the threat of excessive public debt jefferson wrote '' map we must not let our rulers lotus with perpetual that. we must make between economy and liberty and servitude ''. much of congress seems unable and unwilling to choose economy and the liberty. but perhaps the most serious question is whether enough american citizens are willing to choose non serfdom were fair happy to continue to drift toward the failed project otherwise known as european social model or social democracy. at present the jury is out. here i conclude how is america avoid going down the path of europe? it is a question of incentives i am not a philosophical materialist i do believe there is free will but if incentives are in line with the direction it is harder to persuade people not to follow them. the more america moves in a covert social direction the harder it is to persuade one negative americans it is not tenable it points to policies that embody economic incentives for people to be creative or competitive and not demand a subsidies and tariffs. that said policy is important but it is not enough. those who want america to become western europe those who want this are much better they have the vision theme. to aspire for certain policies matter how counterproductive for destructive such policies turned out to be. by many conservatives and free marketers are good at policy. some by difficult to move beyond efficiency arguments it can rival the appeal to corrupted social justice. it is powerful and western europe but has made considerable inroads the american public opinion. there are such sayings as known economic incentives in terms of financial reward but it could also be seen as a good person to be one way other than another it is the moral choice. it means as seen by a good person by your peers by the large welfare state then they would vote for a large welfare state despite the fact it may not be in their best interest. likewise if it argues people should be taking care of their cells it would be at advocate of government power much, much lower. issue radically you we on negative reshape the way or reverse europe utilization changing the rules of that game to alter incentives but both institutions and believe systems must challenge successful -- excess of reform because the actors will shape the choices. his convictions are so strong that attitudes and values is favorable enough they will have institutional restraints sofa does come back to attitudes and expectations they be need to buy more than shift economic incentives and the moral case for a free economy is far above the supply and demand. in the chapter i try to sketch out with the agenda might look like best economic culture the clear of those choices to avoid economic european nation. they must prioritize wealth creation over wealth redistribution and transparency and accountability. rule of law over rule of men and property rights, a top down hope over fear and priority to openness rather than defensiveness. >> i tried to explain how they affect the institution's in these sort characteristics highlighted as prominent features of the america he visited in the 1830's. but tokyo noticed something else "in new york the gatherings in the evening's one would run shoulders with men who had spent the day in the office or a bank, lawyers, businessmen, bankers the pleasures of society came at the end of the day where they waged a fierce battle for profit''. such a state of affairs shock to tokyo because he was dominated by men who held government captains of industry and merchants and the entrepreneur is were absent that tells us something about the disdain 1830's europe regarded business. but also something about america it was not as materialistic as many supposed -- times areas as many europeans supposed. a the pursuit of prosperity detoqueville found was not all consuming despite the fact the commercial republic was there. achieving economic success give americans the time and material resources to pursue of knowledge, a children's education, a charity, cultivation of the arts, appreciation of beauty and prayer with the ultimate reality professor this is a vision that is at odds with the rough a andretti frontier if imagery we associate 19th century america but if a source consistent with lives and aspirations of america's founders the most successful half founder of them all of charles carroll exemplifies. as you know, he inherited great wealth as a successful businessman he multiplied his holdings several times over and drought america he would identify things and take notes what coach would be suitable and invested in private projects to promote public works. yet many of these interests for vented carol from cultivating other scholar the interests nor did they inhibit him from long-term involvement of public affairs whether as a representative and legislature, a political commentator, a discussion of the emerging framework and religious liberty. signing the declaration of independence and comment charles carroll put far more at risk economically speaking than any other side here he was the richest man in america at the time but his willingness to risk all this stuff for freedom demonstrates something else, his conviction that with written stuff off dispute was more than just taxes and some things are more important than money. denies for conservatives to embrace the argument that the end game is not the endless acquisition of wealth wealth is the means but the goal is human flourishing. but its injured roll into the founding and the aspirations contained in the phrase life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. part of the happiness is to be found in pursuit of the wide-ranging and an economic interest of thomas jefferson and benjamin franklin but it can occur through the pursuit of the means to enable us to engage these interest of the moral and practical habits that are so crucial for success in business and trade and market economies. in much of western europe it is characteristic of a culture that if people are to live fulfilling lives as is consistent to encourage wealth creation people need to be provided with things that goes into the european social model but there is little evidence of makes people happy many on long-term welfare are generally less happy than those who earn the same income but not zero welfare payment but there have been studies done on this behalf to be careful not to read too much because correlation is not causality but they do suggest economic cultures which prioritize institutions focused on redistribution from the top down in the effort to realize ever greater equality and stability are much less successful in helping people to flourish as they ought to. franklin wrote never made a man happy but never will it but how one achieves wealth or gains in income does seem when we think of something and materialistic as human floor -- flourishing but those values associated with equalization tend to have materialistic use a collectivist systems are an extreme example but the american founders knew when they associated the word liberty with the phrase pursuit of happiness. it is in the exercise of freedom including economic freedom where much of the happiness making seems to ochre the down side might be less economic security but while it is important it is not all important and certainly not enough with happiness and flourishing. the americans want to resist the european is asian they have to do more than just engage in policy. the fight to take back america's economy to realize the dream / nightmare i would argue over the past 100 years has to be more of an argument markets verses' mixed economies for command is not lived by deficiency alone more than maximizing utility no one will go to the barricades for efficiency. and tear gas to consciously cut off economic culture and as i demonstrated in the book the roots are european over 230 years through american experience is that not even politicians savvy as roosevelt could pull them out completely. there is no guarantee there like plants they tend to die quickly. treating the values that promote cultures let alone the aestheticians is extremely difficult in history is elicited with failure to do so. the founders said as a sacred trust their heritage of which is grounded deeply what we should call your ps civilization but americans can no whatever happens to europe if we choose to make the right decisions something of western civilization is not only saved but transformed by new. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will take of you questions as he will take copies if we will sign those if you would like to talk further. >> i will start with one. your quote from jefferson do talk about perpetual debt says i am not among those who fear the people are running clear you telling us we might be fearing the of people? >> jefferson of course, had tremendous faith in americans of the time but like winston churchill america will do the right thing after they tried everything else. but it divvying said schiff such talk about at length with the free markets and not as favorable as they used to be is disturbing when it comes to young people to preferred models and institutions compared to america's heritage. that is disturbing long-term it tells me those in favor of free markets are not doing a good job to exclude -- they tend to want to be inspired by have an idea if they opt for the european is asian model that creates enormous long-term problems that democracy we reflected people want in here is what we will get. >> fade you for your perceptive understanding of the issues that confront us. the 19th century german influence with the great tradition of human flourishing is there the educational program? we're big on this issue but would you point* to those that are positive? >> let me say something about the negative side first. mark stein said i think conservatives need to understand three weeks of rebel calls before the election is no substitute for eight or 10 years indoctrination of most educational systems wide free trade doesn't work work, business is bad and dehumanizing and, etc., etc.. if you think he will stop them with the rowboat called year after year to pick up the newspaper to see this a message. even among the of peers the messages are reinforced over and over so you must baa nasty materialist but that is a long-term prospect much better than we are but there are many programs out there for young americans may hear not persuaded yet of the free market yet but there are programs out there ferric is a big job to explain people where these things come from and reading great books to explain to people this is our heritage and why it is important not just making economic arguments that think it is important to. the witherspoon institute, a james madison program and princeton do a good job to retrieve that makes the idea real to apply them to different segments of foreign policy. there are fine scholars to do this type of work and their places here in washington d.c. spending time doing this. other our students you're interested in these things and what is the established orthodoxy today. there are plenty of opportunities thank there are plenty of opportunities thanks to heritage federal are available to find out where they are, how you apply and starting to work and starting to work and politics are policy with the institutional problems that i talk about. >> i am curious germany was the origin of social welfare that they have a strong economy. do you have any insight? >> i talk about that because germany is the allied air the modern welfare state as we know it the great lover of freedom he set up the welfare state because urban industrial workers were voting for the social democratic party. he thought how we deal with it? we show them we can take care of their needs it wasn't noble but how to buy a short circuit the growing support of large numbers of people that were a political party that did more market oriented thinking perhaps the biggest changes 1948 those two were in charge of the economy aided by a people who were passionate imposed a market system got rid of currency controls and price controls and that the market system work that resulted in germany experiencing 30 years of prosperity by the '70s and '80s it was clear germany moved back and by the '90s it made the economies stagnate. in the early 2000 the germany government decided they couldn't keep going this way so they had selective liberalization of the economy and it paid off but the political prize is they were thrown out of office to prove the point* so with serious economic reform you should more or less expect to be thrown out of office but with their own economic history they have a certain tradition of market oriented thinking of those whose struggle to do so it is in memory of the way things used to be like the way germans in general don't like inflation and they're very nervous. why? they saw what it did to germany and austria in the eyes of the political consequences of that. i think that helps to explain why it has more or less managed to resist the european is asian but there are some attitudes and beliefs that enable a germans to go back to say this is part of our tradition it is non-american but as germans out economic culture really matters. >> i am german myself. i have a greater idea how you can as a matter of communicating to show european paychecks that would be a nice wake-up call. but with unemployment seven point* 8% isn't that critical because people who are unemployed right now can create things over a generation so with the crisis of 2008 leads to something that persist for a longer time with the landscape of the country. >> right. seven point* 9% official unemployment rate that real rates is higher many have just got to looking for work so the security that falls from unemployment that politicians react in certain ways to provide security through this state as heritage says once you set it up it is difficult due dismantle because they develop their own interest and agenda that has nothing to do with people they try to help but once these are in place politically it is harder over time not just to dismantle the question than national health service in britain and i can tell you from personal experience nationalized is terrible by any objective standard of quality of health care, speed of delivery is terrible. people will say free the service we get is bad, everyone to serious operation reid go to the united states or germany. if you ask british people do think we should move towards a liberalization to let more market forces work? no. you simply cannot do that. one very nice young lady lady, idealistic said the national health service is part of a jewel of britain's crown. >> but it is bankrupt and it doesn't work. [laughter] but the reaction is we care enough that we're willing to exception these things to help people but you're not helping people. that is an example of how a programmer institution become so embedded that rooting out is almost impossible you cannot get conservative politicians to criticize the national service tried to reform on the edges but it does not work to say it is not doing what it should be doing that israel quick way of electoral rejection but once they are in place they can stay around for a long time. >> with the fertility rate their weaker now than 100 years ago they seem to be stronger but what impact with the economics and politics if you eliminate the to the being institutions all that is left is the individual or state. >> i talk a lot about both of these issues i do get into the married issue as a consequence. believes single european country is below the placement rate crease is one point* three the only country that meets the replacement rate britain is not too far but ireland is replacing the population. why? it has to do with falling mortality rates and babies are born aid donor dies quickly so people like choosing not to have more children and the availability of contraception and abortion have contributed but there is also a welfare state once upon a time when it was minimalist it once it comes then it takes away into generational bonds thicket replaced by the state so people would have the economic motive for having more children because there are some children around to take care of them in their old age. is called the old age a motive for you -- fertility but it breaks the links. sow to reflect my responsibility they have a huge problem that people say they may not articulate but i need to have children because i will be taking care of by the welfare state so somebody else's children pay for you as well as their own. this creates incentives for non fertility. it is a materialistic explanation and it is more complicated with other factors that it is a real factor. doesn't have any effect in the united states? yes. california is europe. rarely is every measurable effect would also attitudes and beliefs and expectations have made their choice it is not a coincidence not just leaving the state budget having fewer and fewer children. a good example how the state can crowd out other institutions of the long term challenges for those that they try to help. >> to mention several times with those costs in the long-term effects. >> there are economic cost of social democracy, less productivity increased regulation, etc., etc. but with the right sense of responsibility of themselves before their families. the state takes care of that, right? the other is a moral cost of expectations that i am entitled to certain things as a matter of right without any explanation or they come from even the language of moral discourse becomes corroded, and breaks down wear writes the are the trump card because that violates -- violates my rights those with political discourse also expecting other people who you don't know also to bests -- basically paid for your. i should be responsible for myself and my family to break down. it leads to a human flourishing being doled i am natalie transforming work but myself. to give you an example, not to be upon the french, i like them but studies were done of french university students who had studied at the elite institutions that train political business and i asked people who are graduating what they wanted to do with their lives. 70 percent said they wanted to be a civil servant. why? you don't have to work very hard, paid pretty well, a great vacation, a general pension, all of this is to say that cost is a lack of dynamism or alack to take risk. life is about taking risks if you just opt for stability or the status quo you will not flourish as a person but be stagnant as the economy around you. have to understand person, the nature of the world but there is not much doubt social democracy has a deadening effect on the capacity to become what we want to be. [applause] >> in 2002 iran working with us secretly with the afghan situation will go up one morning to find out they were part of the axis of evil. there were quite puzzled having fought a war with iraq and had nothing to do with north korea, why were they part of the access of evil? had to do with the u.s. and iranian relationship that was undermined with the speech we've been going to and fro over this was 2003 and the iraq war one of the two on winnable wars to ring gauge in the past decade. obama unfortunately comes in with very little background of foreign policy, never paid much attention, served in washington only two years. i was a very enthusiastic supporter of obama and remain but we new national security could be a problem. and appointed as secretary of state and secretary of defense and a retired marine general for domestic reasons and he lasted one year and putting in leon panetta and know he is your neighbor in california but captured by the mentality of the cia. this was an extremely weak national security team. obama also was ruled by the military that is how you got the surge of forces. i think he realizes he was had and that is important and why i am optimistic about the second term this is a wiser man with foreign policy but he has ended the war in iraq meandering to ending the war in afghanistan and allowing the pentagon with the motor skills of a dinosaur such as a timetable for withdrawal all obama has to do i look at the gorbachev experience, and came in 1985, gave a secret speech 1986 faugh denouncing afghanistan, had told shultz we are getting out with one year to turn around and then announced a timetable then we were gone in 89. we need to do something similar. we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in the 11 years. look at the book if the generals that is not of war where we can be successful. there is no military that is ever successful with a counterinsurgency and they have been ally in pakistan that makes the picture confusing to disengage from a situation where you are supporting perfectly integrated enterprise called the car's side government. but refined doorway with the resolution of crisis but i don't know how many years this will take. >> my optimism that team john kerry and chuck hegel are good a pate -- appointments i wonder why obama wasted time with susan rice when we have somebody like john kerry who was devoted to the position of secretary of state chuck hegel is so wonderful nomination and the criticism of him frankly is silly. people throw that around so loosely it is embarrassing. if you go back to the book but the israeli lobby is jewish i don't understand the debate i think it will slither away because it doesn't make sense he is a sound man. was very disappointed when obama made the trade is the director barry he took care of that himself and gave adultery a bad name but what was a bomb the thinking taking active duty for four-star general was strong policy vision that there would have to grapple with? it cannot think of a better scenario for intelligence and pretorius at the ncaa. he did not want to put that in the hands of policy makers they were created to challenge military intelligence when they have done job correctly that is what they have done with arms control. >> host: why did rewrite to this book? the first book was king's in central america. >> guest: i get into the themes of segregation from
New-yorkUnited-statesTokyoJapanGermanyIranAfghanistanIllinoisPrincetonDevonUnited-kingdomCalifornia dangerous convictions is to give you a sense of wire rope. someone has said that you write to scratch an itch or to deal with something that is bothering you, that is certainly the case with this book. and i would say, first of all, there is -- this may come as no surprise to you -- a real frustration with how the media, the mainstream media and the partisan media covers what politicians do in congress. a lot of frustration that we simply cannot say completely what you want to say, even about what the problems are or what you are trying to do. and the second thing is that there is, as in my case, considerable confusion about our republican colleagues. and so the confusion about what they were really thinking. so i spent the better part of four years thinking and writing about revising this book. i do, as he said, work for the association of american publishers. i have to say, being an advocate for the publishing industry for the publishers and authors and all the people who are involved in it to my being an author has given me another -- an inside look at that industry, and i have to say how grateful i am dr. university press, it's incredible team of people who helped make this book better than when i delivered it to them so let me -- and going to read a few selections from the group and then watch it through the chapters, a few of them, not into much detail, and then i want to conclude by some comments on the presidential election. i'm going to begin, first of all, -- of get this right -- by expanding the title. if his only worked. that one. well. i can do it either. if there is some way to a make it work for later on, that would be good. the title, "dangerous convictions," comes from a statement by a philosopher who wrote, convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth that lies. no, we all want people elected to a the people of conviction, right? don't we? the trouble is that sometimes people hold convictions that are not supported by the weight of evidence or expertise, and when that happens, let's just say, life gets very, very complicated and so here is how i began. this is from the interaction. i will read a little bit here and then jump ahead slightly. to these guys believe what they're saying? sitting in that chamber the u.s. house of representatives, listening to a heated debate, we asked that question about our republican colleagues. we usually thought the answer was no, but if so, they were phenomenally good actors. their arguments made no sense to us. such well-known phrases as tax cuts paid for themselves. we will be welcomed as liberators. climate change is improving and government-run health care does not work. repeated over and over again. republican arguments along these lines seem incomprehensible to democrats, just as ours seemed misguided to them. the evidence that medical tests made no difference to them. free-market principles that they took as given conflicted with the information that we took every day from our constituents, and the economists that we consulted. news media preoccupation with lack of stability makes -- missed the point. i traveled of republican members of congress to the middle east and enjoy their company. we worked out together in the house gym. still, more time socializing with each other would not have closed the chasm between our competing views of the world and the role of government. it is those world views and the lack of comprehension on both sides that cripple the capacity of congress to make a bipartisan , strategic, public policy decisions. this i came to see is our greatest institutional weakness, and it defies simplistic yours. congress today is deeply divided because, to each side the opinions of the other make no sense. and therefore, they cannot be honestly held. interscope politics is still with us, unprecedented amounts of money, but it is over tweeted and dominated by what i can only call world view politics, a clash of values and convictions much steeper than the competition of interest groups in washington. we need a new perspective to visualize congressional polarization. the media and political commentators typically ride the gap in views between all right and left. but republicans and democrats speak past each other, not because they are too far apart, but because they operate on different planes, higher and lower, from the ground by evidence and expertise, and that, i would say, is something that has changed significantly in the last 20 years. when i came to congress in 1996, the phrase kept hearing from the other side was family values. you can -- we all had assessed that probably what that meant. you don't hear that phrase anymore. what you hear in its place is republican principles. and it turns out that there is really one fundamentally important republican principle, and that is smaller government, lower taxes. i think it is one, not to. it is really one, and that turns out to be much more difficult to deal with than the more vague notion of family values. but i have tried to do in this book is pick topics to consider the matter not those that where it -- that are like abortion, gay marriage, even immigration. those things are so deeply buried in our fundamental attitudes toward world that, you know, you would expect them to be very, very difficult. so what i did was, i tried to pick for topics, for substantive topics where in the past we used to be will to compromise differences across the aisle. not always easily. don't get me wrong, and that was the federal budget, health care, and climate change. so, what i would like to do now is to of run through the first of those sectors. i served on the budget committee for four years, the last four years i was in congress. paul ryan was on the committee then. we invited economists to comment, and there was this seamless vista our conversations all the time. the republicans would repeat over and over again, tax cuts pay for themselves, or if they step back from that of little bit they would say tax cuts paid for themselves. or at least, you don't have to really think too hard about the reduction in revenue. and yet at the same time we all read about the first bush tax cuts which were designed to be over one half trillion. the reason it was described as the tax cut was because it reduced revenues or was expected to. and so listening to people talking about tax cuts paid for themselves and pick up the paper were looked at materials and the congressional budget office and they would say, well, this tax cut is going to reduce federal revenues over ten years. these views made no sense. these two kinds of statements put side-by-side made no sense. it's crazy for those of us. but for the republicans, most of them, that did not believe the cbo numbers are right because there were most surprised by that form of economic theory where the assumption is that if you reduce tax cuts it will stimulate the economy so much that it will actually come close to, if not actually increase federal revenue. but when we heard that it made no sense. now, here is where it really gets, i think, in some ways, even worse. i have to say, mitch mcconnell does provide me with a lot of material. [laughter] in 2010 the two big tax cuts were all won in 03. in 2010 at a time when, you know, it was pretty clear that that first decade would yield the revenue reductions on the scales somewhere between two and $3 trillion over the first ten years, mitch mcconnell, july 2010, he confirmed the next day that what senator john kyl had set a few days earlier was accurate. he said, there is no evidence whatsoever that the bush tax cuts actually diminish revenue. the increased revenue because of the vibrancy of the tax cuts and the economy. i think what the senator was expressing was the view of virtually every republican on that subject. and i was, this is no kind word that you can say in response to that. they're making this up. they have to be making the sub. to they believe it? a thing to do. the truth is, i think they do. i think one of the things in the last two chapters that i have spent some time with is a lot of the recent research about how we think or don't think about religion and politics and how so many of the views that we believe, all of us, carefully reasoned and fought out, grounded in some deeper attitudes and deeper values and deeper life experiences, what i call world use that really shape or more specific beliefs, both in religion and in politics. so, not going to do too much of this, but i want to show you one of the charts. i don't try in this book to make an elaborate case where every single thing that i say, what i am trying to do is paint a broad landscape of what is wrong with in this country the walleye the population and congress's polarized and why that leads to congressional gridlock. let me do this first. this chart has been called the essentials chart for understanding, you know, the consequences that our budget conundrum are causing. what it shows is as of may 2011, this is done by the center for budget policy and priority based on cbo numbers. this shows the price of the annual deficit due to the board -- wars, the bush-era tax cuts to recovery measures. that means primarily the bush stimulus and the obama's stimulus program. troubled asset relief program, fannie, freddie, and the economic downturn. you can still make this out, and you can see from where we are today in 2013, the time this was put together, the single biggest factor in the annual deficits that we will experience of the next several years was not from the economic slowdown, but it was because of the revenues that were taken away by the bush tax cuts. now, we all know now because of the legislation that was just passed, some portion of that tax revenue that has been shown on this chart is being lost will be recovered because at least for upper-income taxpayers they're going to go back to clinton-era tax rates. but the point in trying to make with this one chart, this is the real world. the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is not the real world. when one side believes one thing in one side believes the other, there is not much room for consequence. i will come back to white, and they should be part of how you think about this. why is it that the two sides believe such different things? why do one depend on evidence and the other on broad principles about the size of government, individual liberty, and so forth and so on. so let me -- i can do this. of want to go back to that. let me move on to the experience . i am sure -- you all understand, and i think most people agree that the signature issue for the bush of illustration, the ones that had the most consequence and the ones that will shape the bush administration's place in history, that tax cut and the invasion. so you can imagine how difficult these decisions were and with respect before going in a committing all those troops and hundreds of billions of dollars, you can imagine that it took a lot of meetings to decide whether or not to make that decision and if so how you doing because as a way that it is. you could imagine those meetings. the national security council and bush's inner circle, the war council. you can imagine those meetings, but there was not a single meeting held by the national security council, bush's top people about whether or not to invade. not one. not one. but, what that tells you is the evidence, the detail, the circumstances, what would happen, what the consequences would be of putting in 150,000 american troops. they're should have been more. that was not taken into account. the second thing that is interesting, donald rumsfeld believed, you go in, take over baghdad and pullout because, in this came out in a report written four years later. it came out because donald rumsfeld gave a speech in february just before the invasion saying we have to go in and pull our troops out and leave the iraqis to their own devices essentially because otherwise we will create a dependency among the iraqi people. think about this phrase. culture of dependency. we all know it came up in the whole debate during the clinton administration with welfare reform, but it is -- to understand where republicans are coming, at least some republicans in congress these days, it is very important to understand how real, how important it is that their view, that government infringes on personal liberty almost a matter what it does and that it fosters dependency among the population. but those convictions, those views were an obstacle, even to having a conversation between the secretary of state, the secretary of defense. a real conversation about whether or not the invasion should take place or the country should do more by way of sanctions and other forms of pressure. the interesting thing to me about what happened coming here is something i got completely wrong. when the president in december of those six basically asked if he had lost control of congress to decide to do a search. people like me but, well, this is stupid. they're going really badly, really, really badly. this is an effort to delay the day of reckoning. we have a different strategy. but i did not know and love a lot of people did not know is the surge was not just an increase in the number of troops. it was a different strategy. what is fascinating about this. it was -- see the book called the gamble if you want to learn more about it. three people a retired general to the general, in baghdad, and the number two person in the military hierarchy and david patraeus basically decided that the strategy of protecting american troops in these large, you know, not punkers, large compounds was not working at all, and they had to be out among the people. they had to defend the civilian population. and so the search involved that transformation. and the truth is that it -- if it wasn't the whole reason we were gaining ground later and the 2007, it was an important part of it. it was in evidence-based strategy. was in evidence-based strategy, and that they can i describe it here why it was so different from the original strategy. what they cooked up was a real counterinsurgency strategy, like what patraeus had done before and i think that is why -- that is one of the reasons why it got turned around. let me step more quickly to health care. the interesting thing, to me, about this issue -- well, there are several interesting things. let's talk about obamacare. incredibly controversial. incredibly controversial. passed without one single democratic vote in the house and senate. what were its origins? lots of people. well, but romney did something like that in massachusetts. but you can go back to 1989, stuart butler at the heritage foundation came up with something called the heritage plan. and what to the heritage plan include? included regulated exchanges in which private insurance company would compete for beneficiary. and it included an individual mandate. it was actually for more than a decade, primarily a republican idea about how you could do close to universal health care. but the mid part of the up, 2005, the democrats really more interested. republicans are falling away. and i think, that is the republican universal health care plan. by the time it came out obama was for it and no republicans were for it, and even a libya's know and i made a real effort to work on a compromise position, eventually bailed, i think in part, because of the pressure to conform being so great. and, you remember, repeal and replace. repeal of the place. that was the mantra after it passed on the republican side. why didn't we ever see a plan to replace? really because it involved a government action on a scale that republicans could not accept. and this gets back to what i was saying before, a little bit earlier. for many of them this is not about trying to figure out how to serve, you know, how to expand health care. what they're primarily worried about is the feeling that government infringes on personal liberty and creates dependency among the populations. therefore, almost anything we do in some of these areas is going to be resisted. and that is -- i come back to it. that is why the capacity to track across the aisle is so difficult because we are basically talking about individual, very different world views. no, i want to the go to a chapter five, which is climate change, denial of public policy. here is one of the clearest places because scientific evidence for the earth. the earth is warming, the carbon emissions and other man-made emissions that are the proud mary koss. and that we are facing some catastrophic consequences and expenses down the road if we don't deal with it. so why do we have such trouble even admitting. and i would say coming here is just the basic background. basic background, this risk -- the red light migrate up to the right hand side, the late 1950's . in hawaii they have been taking atmospheric measurements of carbon dioxide concentration and it goes up and down every year based on the seasons, but that trend line never changes course. it just goes up and up and up and up and up. a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of that carbon dioxide is getting of store by the russian. and what about -- about one-third of his billions or by the ocean. when it gets into the ocean it turns into carbonic acid. and so the russians today are becoming more acidic at a rate faster than any time in the last 50-100 year -- 50-100000000 years. and that low or line, that green line, that bounces up and down, but that is a measurement of the ph at the station called aloha, which is near my lot in hawaii. this is one of the greatest threats to the planet that comes from from the change because the more acidic the ocean water the more likely it is to destroy, i mean destroyed or prevent even from growing, tiny, tiny organisms at the bottom of the food chain in the ocean. and if you kill off the bottom of the food chain, consequences are incredibly in want -- alarming. one of the things i did was to develop the bill and that emphasized during much more research on certification. i did not quite have the support republicans and democrats got on board, but it was a new program with new money. so by the time it gets to the leaders it died and tell we offer it and the 2008 and obama took office and put that part of that program into the stimulus package. and so now we are finally trying to get information on how -- the consequences, and there is always a lot that we don't know. no, the last two chapters on this book, it was thick. really about -- mentioned before briefly, we think about politics as if we were reasoning at all times. but, in truth, there is this huge gap in the way people think about politics and how they form their political and religious views. and let me just read a couple of paragraphs here that i think should go, should help summarize. democrats see republicans as an attentive to evidence and expertise, unconcerned about americans struggling to it by command opposed government action to deal with our collective challenges. on the other hand, republicans see democrats as the party of a government that routinely infringes on personal freedom, has created some of the culture of dependency among people who should stand on their own. promoting the change from traditional values that will leave as weaker than before. these different perspectives drive congressional debates far more than the immediate subject before the house on any given day. above all, the dividing class between the view of government as a vehicle for the common good and the view of government as an obstacle to progress of personal freedom has close -- become close to the center of our ideological grid lock which is why i believe that congress is best characterized as a form for interest group politics to mull over led by world view politics, and it is the latter struggle that contributes more to the dysfunctional nature of the institution. >> okay. a couple more comments, and then on going to say just a few words about the -- to brief reading some and then i am going to turn to the 2012 collection, which is not in the book because the book was written before that. despite the 24-7 coverage of congress, most reporting and commentary mrs. the conflict and world views that beneath the surface of our debate shapes our positions and intensified polarization. as a result, the diagnosis is often incivility, which is a symptom, not disease. the remedy usually proposed can track past and present, high-level we have lost and suggested we try to recapture the past. for example, in an earlier era, members of congress tended to live in washington with their families and go across party lines. the ability of president reagan in speaker tip o'neill to enjoy each other's company is often seen as an example of how to make the divided federal government work. more senior members of congress or retiring often lament that the days are gone, but we are not going back. members are expected to spend more time talking with constituents. their spouses and children and children are less willing to be uprooted from their jobs, schools, and france to move to washington. the strong personal relationships help members work together. they cannot realistically be fostering a return to the living in treating patterns of an earlier peril, revising greater mutual understanding which has to be in liberal undertaking by those willing to reach out. now, i am going to -- and said to someone before this began. i said, you know what the hardest part of this contract to figure out, writing the last chapter, trying to explain where we go from here. but in my work working through the issues that confronted them there were four areas where i think -- and these are just ideas and attitudes, but there are four areas where we are deficient. especially deficient in these areas and the way the media covers politics and we are also deficient, from what i have called the radical individual, and that is what some republicans believe has taken over -- i have to go back to this. i have to go back to as quickly. this -- this is part of the conversation. this is an illuminating study. a group of people at george washington and george mason and yale give a study called six americans. and unlike the conventional poll, they basically segmented the population based on how they felt about climate change and what other activities they did, basically have an gates they were. and so the groups that they chose, the varying amounts of people who were most concerned most concerned, the next most-active, the costs to disengage. the measure of wage of these groups are most engaged in political activity. take a look. this is the picture of polarization in america. on the left-hand side, the lawyers make up in the survey 18 percent of the population. 95 percent of them say in response to a question, there is no way they're going to change their views of private change as a major you put those together. 18 percent. they are the next big active group in the community. they, 90 percent of those people will say there is no way that they are going to change their view. climate change is a hope. it is no long-term problem. but never causes a problem as part of the natural cycle of things, and the truth is that it would be almost impossible simply by providing scientific evidence to persuade them what they believe is not true because they are so determined in their beliefs because the consequence of believing the alternative means government would have to do -- take a much larger role, certainly with leaders and certainly in other respects as well corporal we regulatory. to deal with this problem. the vast -- that deeper reason why it is so hard for some people to believe that climate change is a serious problem because if they admit that then the whole view of government is and what it means to our individual self-reliance vanishes. so, i have talked, coming back no. this is where -- this is what i think is wrong. the way the media covers our politics and with the way we think about politics. how often have you heard reporter say, what is your evidence for that? let me tell you? not nearly enough. not nearly enough. i remember when i was in congress getting calls from reporters. it would drive me crazy. reporter would call up and say, i have a question for you. even as the question, and after one answer he would say, well, i guess that's all i have. and i knew he had the story entirely written except for one blank which said ." he put it in and was gone. is that kind of coverage that i think is -- we now have vehemently partisan media and mainstream media, but the mainstream media, except for public television, i think when public radio is not give enough time to a lot of these topics to really inform. there are few exemptions. the ambiguity. here is -- here is an example that struck me during the campaign, the 2012 campaign. you remember rick perry? rick perry came on, he was looking like a good candidate for the republican side. and then he stood up and was asked, three federal agencies that he wants to eliminate. and then he could not remember one of them and he wound up saying, groups. and that was in the news for weeks. you remember? 24-7. what is this going to do with the campaign? oh, my gosh. he doesn't know he's talking about. well, nobody, at least the ones i heard, had never heard anybody say, well, suppose you eliminate no, 4-$5 billion is no which basically provides all of our weather information, virtually all of it, has satellites up in the sky. they're tracking was going on. what you do with that $45 billion? no that because of the work we do in the book publishing industry, the apartment of commerce is over there in china trying to make sure that the chinese government understands that what we sell books, when we bring books to china that they're going to do -- they're going to do at least everything they can to make sure they're not being stolen, pirated, copied. the department of energy, that was one of the three. the department of energy regulates oil and gas. so if you eliminate that department what happens? the department of education funds about 12% of u.s., the u.s. -- kate as 12 additional. you eliminate education. what happens? those were the questions that should have been asked of rick perry because those are the questions that might break through the difference is the people have as to whether or not the local of the federal government is too big. receptacle eliminated department and those assembly of a role to play in education. but it is that data, that evidence that is, i think, really, really quite important. now, with that said -- obama let me go back one second. caring about consequences. what i mean there is really, that's more about health care than anything else. is 50 million people, and i'm sure close to 50 million uninsured cannot talk about the plan to deal with it seems to me just to become a you know, an unbelievable acceptance of a condition that once you understand what it means for people in this society not have health care and to risk getting sicker going -- if they get sick to go bankrupt and had a drop of -- to drop out of college. once you understand that you really need to do something about the particular problem. a commitment to the common good. james madison was putting this constitution together, what he was trying to do was, he was trying to figure out how to set up a set of institutions that would encourage people not just to act in their own individual -- in their own individual interest, but what he called deployment in aggregate in the community, the common good. and that is really hard to achieve, but if we don't even try to figure out how to share, come to a shared conception of the common good, we are really, i think, in trouble. so, no of going to wrap. with the election. how many of you saw the president's second inaugural? heard it, whenever? most of you. i was fascinated by the reaction of some of the commentators and a couple of columnists on the wash and post to said, hey, it is a pedestrian speech. was flat. note soaring vision. and i thought it was great. you know, you know where i'm coming from. and then, david brooks, david brooks column in the new york times was fascinated. they believe, as i think you can gather from now that i think american politics is about me and we. is about self-reliance and cooperation, individualism and community, and those parts of the american psyche which ought to be in dollars have been static device but apart, and we have a war on our most fundamental values, war between two tribes, each claiming one part. and a half. one half of the american psyche. what david did was to say, that was one of the best inaugurals in the last 50 years. he explained why. and then explain why it fell short because it did not mention wall street, stay st., menlo park, you know, all those places where they created ingenuity of americans has burst forth in a way it could not in other countries. and it was all about. [indiscernible] and i think, i believe that what we need in this society at this moment time is to understand, whatever camp we're in, we need to understand the deeper reasons why for some americans self-reliance, individualism, fear of dependency is such -- it so real they can touch and feel it. you have to understand that when the aside. and if you're in that camp and would ask and hope that more people would say to themselves, this is the 21st century, not the 19th. the challenges we face is so complicated, and they're not even national challenges. climate changes a global challenge. help of the population has a lot to do with the health of our economy. inequality in american society has a lot to do with our capacity for future economic growth. we have to get this right. and what i hope for this book is that our road, a democratic congress. a perspective about the ideas that separate us and balance that brings us back together. and so i ask that you give some thought to that in your own lives. now have other books to recommend if any of you like. i am going to stop and to say thank you. appreciate the chance to be here. >> let's take about ten or 15 minutes of questions. if you have a question please raise your hand. it will send a microphone over to you. please wait until the microphones in front of you. first question. >> right here. >> thank you for your thoughts to a congressman. i'm curious, your perspective. why is it we complain about congress but so many congressman get reelected. the second thing of curious, more of your personal perspective, you have been there in the inner sanctum. you have been in the holy grail of our political system. now that you're on the outside, what is one thing that we, the people, the public, don't really get for your side of being a political, like the official. >> well, first, the question is how the members of congress get reelected when the place is such a mess if i can re-enter persuader saying. i have told many people that during those years i was in congress i am relatively certain that i should more hands of the 6,750,000 people in my district in any of the human being. and you get to know people, and if you listen to them and it's an overwhelming job. first of all, a 24 / seven job. the job i have no does not require most saturdays in those sundays all day. and that one often did. and i think that you just get to know so many people. to the extent you're listening and trying to at least appreciate what they're going through, that personal connection will carry you along with no matter which side of the aisle you're on. and so i think that's the primary reason. i think from the inside what i would say is, i believe that members of congress on both sides of the aisle basically come to congress with a vision of what they want to accomplish. they all assess the. they're all frustrated. i don't care which side of the aisle because it is so hard to realize your dreams for what you would like to accomplish when you would like to accomplish, when those groups coming you know, the constant battling. it so difficult to get anything done. those of you are old enough to remember the comic strips will remember, we have met the enemy and he is us. and i think, to a large extent the public has to man's one congressman that are incompatible. the most fundamental of which is this. and i was first elected to the city council. i went to the city manager. i talked to him about a variety of things. said, well, we have the capitol improvements plan. we -- the things we have to do over the next ten years would cost $70 million. and he said, here's the problem. the public collectively is now willing to pay for what the public collectively wants. kendis it is so true. it's even true in congress. we -- the expectation is that there can be current or more services delivered in an efficient, professional way. and the math does not work. you know, you can do more with less once in awhile, but year after year after year you simply can't. and i think that is the most difficult thing for people to understand. and that is why, you know, you look at that captain i put up there about the weapons for the bush tax cut. now, some of it is gone back, but only some of that because by and large the american people do not want any more money spent on taxes. the price that is being paid for that is not so much an individual price. it's more a price that involves the overall health of the population in the overall education level and our kids. those sorts of things. but that is bigger and broader than any individual can easily take into account. >> over here. >> what hope do you see when one political party actually wants to go back the government? there is a book called the wrecking crew that builds on that team. i don't see any possibility of compromise and more. >> well, the great thing about the political system is that there are elections. and i have -- i believe, the republican party is a historic and important role in the society. if it did not exist there would have to be creators. has to be a party that is more pro-business than democrats have been the past. pros some business and not so much others commander has to be a party that is skeptical about what government can do. that's why i love david brooks so much because he has both of these attitudes, i think, more or less right in balance. but because there are elections. right now the republican party is going through very difficult time because they got shellacked in an election year when they expected to win, even at the last moment they expected to win the presidency. and they also expected to win control of the u.s. senate. and both of those evaporated. they lost seats in the house. i believe that, though it will be a difficult process, sorry. another rounder to of alexa's like that. the republican party will start to up wind its way back into the middle. and that's not easy -- easy given some of its constituents. is because is not easy for democrats today, you know, we really have to tweet both medicare and social security. we have to. we simply cannot continue on this trend line. if you do it the right way, both of those areas, social security is a lot easier than medicare. you can make minor changes in benefits to minor changes, more minor in social security and medicare in, you know, revenues. and you can make some progress. but it is hard for a democrat to accept that, but it is -- the challenge is much more difficult for republicans because they have -- they have said this tagger, this anti-government tiger for so long that it is hard to get off that back when the principal primary challenges are likely to be people who are saying, you compromise to much. and that cannot so that dynamic, one of those interesting things about the 2012 election is democrats were terrified at the amount of money that call wrote and could raise. and as it turned out, that money did weigh more damage to the republican power than it did to the democratic. and so i think that all these controls. that's what happened. someone over here. >> today in the georgia general assembly, the appropriations committee held its third day of consideration of budget matters. a lot of the department heads were testifying, such as the community health commissions and such. and governor deal has proposed that that department reduce by 3% this year and 5% in 2014, their budget. that includes medicaid coverage in such. and one thing that i noticed, no where during the discussion was tobacco use, which is the number one preventable cause of disease, disability, death in america responsible for 19 percent of deaths each year and that 33 percent of medicaid recipients are smokers. that was not mentioned whatsoever. this is a great burden upon our health care system in such that it was not mentioned one time. the only time it was mentioned was in the public health department discussion, and that was transferring money from the tobacco funds to their own hearts or, you know, funding needs. so i would like to know your views on tobacco issues, if it should be one of the things brought up at these discussions because it is such a drain upon the united states. about $200 billion worth each year. thank you. >> thank you. you know, the tobacco litigation produced product of a $7 billion. >> of butter and 45 billion. >> of another 45 billion. in the theory was to levy a deal was that the states were to use that pot of money for anti-smoking advertising. my state of maine was one of the champions of doing that for quite a long time, but we have a new government now and we're not doing nearly as well. but it absolutely -- the example that you give is a classic example of how hard it is for legislative bodies responding to constituents to do any sort of long-term strategic, smart long-term strategic thinking in these areas. so all is a short term. because they are immediate, they basically get the attention. and those long term cost savings somehow get lost. so it is not just tobacco. i mean, that is a classic case. tragedy is that there was a very large pot of money that if it had been used by every state that got some of it to reduce tobacco use we would be in a better place today, by far. >> thank you. >> what part do you think the gerrymandering and redrawing drastic -- district lines has to do with all this for politicians just have to cater to the far ends of their party? did not have to really appeal to moderates and more. >> i think that redistricting is a problem. i think it is not the major problem. and the reason is this. i think that -- well, first of all, redistricting is accompanied by something else. the american people are no and have been for some amount of time sorting themselves by world view, self-reliance, community. they have been moving, they have more or less views. they moved to wednesday because there was a different set of use move to boost its if they're going. they even picked out communities where they feel comfortable. this is kind of what we are doing. and so the gerrymandering, the redistricting drives me crazy. i mean, it drives me crazy. when california finally, you know, adopted this bipartisan commission to do it i cheered. my democrats from california was very upset. but at the end of the day you do get more competitive elections. i think it is useful. these deeper cultural and political trends and deeper conflict within the american psyche, it is more responsible than gerrymandering. the reason i say that is you get pretty much the same kind of politics in the u.s. senate we cannot gerrymander the district. two per state, and in governor's races. governors represent the entire state. it is not about distance, but in congressional races and in state legislative races it can be a factor. and both parties have become very sophisticated choosing there voters instead of having the voters choose them. and so i believe generally bipartisan commissions. but like to see it all run by separate commissions with judicial review rather than have it be done by state legislature. and have it done only once in a decade. we have already talked in virginia about doing what taxes did under tom delay a few years back. that is just poisonous. transparent, if you do if it won such as census comes in and then you get a different majority in the legislature and try to go in and redistricting again, it's pretty clear that that is simply partisan purposes. they don't really go beyond the bounds of what is fair in a democracy like ours. >> okay. it seems that the polarization of which she spoke, you testified it accelerated after the 2000 presidential election. it seems, to some extent, that there was a perception that may be the bush folks stole the 2000 election because of the situation in florida. do you think that had some role in the intensification of the rhetoric that we're now seeing? >> i think there are a whole series of events that led up to it. if you look at the book by tom mann and warned steen, hopefully entitled it's even worse than it looks, not so hopefully. they are two of the most respected observers of congress in the country. one works through the american enterprise institute, a republican. tom mann works with bookings, the democrat. they have been collaborating for 40 years. and what, you know, they basically say a lot changed when you gingrich came to congress in 1978. and that he was part of the group along with dick cheney and others who came to congress, both republicans and democrats and both had started, just started a project, interviewing incoming freshmen, a selected group. there were going to follow them through. and they both right in this latest book that gingrich was the only one who had a coherent plan. a first-year member of congress, and that plan was essentially that the republicans had to take back control the house by basically attacking the house itself as a corrupt institution, and that would be the only way the republicans to get control. so you have that sort of measure. you have, frankly, things that before 19904, 1994 when the republicans took control, those latter years, the democrats were basically doing some things in terms of procedure on the house floor that they would tell you know are over the edge. basically they were pushing, making a minority really not have the voice that it had in the past and that, of course, when gingrich kamen and the republicans, particularly in 94 you have, you know, an intensification of the context. that is when the environment really became a partisan issue. that is when because that is when the business started lining up more business that it not want to run on the regulation wind up with republicans and then the environmental groups lined up with democrats, and that became much more than it had been the past. so there was the clinton impeachment. you can go on both sides. you can see how there is this back-and-forth, but i argue in the book. like gerrymandering, you know, you did this to me. i'm going to get you, but it is not as deep or is important as this inability in the 21st century for us to keep in balance these two parts of the american psyche, and i think, although i don't try to deal with them. i do believe that the anxiety that comes, especially for a man , along about of stagnation for the middle-class has a lot to do with why people are ineffective to an argument, makers and takers here. and there are people who are basically taking things from the government that they don't deserve. and in the 2012 election what happened was that was the most explicit contrast between self-reliance and brought it together which was one thing i was going to say. the obama's beach. if you look at that speech, that is absolutely a continuation of the campaign theme. this is a complicated world. we're better together. we have big challenges, but we have got to stick together. whereas you go back, go back and read. go back and read george bush's inaugural in 2005, which was liberty and freedom-terrorism sprinkled through the whole page. and one of which he said he wanted an ownership. both in congress at the time said, what you're really offering is in on their own society. this kind of playback. and then barack obama's first inaugural, which i think is kind of fuzzy, you know, broad, general, sweeping. and then you look at this one. this one is -- this is what our challenges are. and i think that that -- the difference between bush and 05 and obama in 2013 is astonishing .. >> and they got it all done? >> with no success whatsoever and one of the things that they repeatedly stated, which obama actually said was, we have got to raise the level of public debate in this country and let it be our legacy that we are raising the level of debate. do you feel, looking at the next four years, do you feel hopeful? do you feel like we are fighting fighting -- i mean wrestling with 15 years ago and they are having the same discussion about it that we are now having this week. >> well, some issues but the reason why i wrote the chapter on gun control is because that is so essential to some people's image of what it is to be an american, is that it depends on where you are. my wife and i diana who is here tonight, we have this old farmhouse that my parents bought and it's up in rural maine. maine has lots of guns and a very low murder rate. so try to persuade anybody there that gun control works. i think it's wholly different thing in a big city and the inability to understand across the aisle and it's although slippery slope arguments on both sides, slippery slope arguments i hate because it suggests that you know nothing can ever be done. but i do have some hope and the reason i have some hope is i they think that by and large, no trend continues forever and i think this election was a more important election in terms of the future than the first election because this one is a more clearly sorting out of these two competing views of what the 21st century is all about. and i think that we are going to make some progress, not as much as he wants, and i think we will make more if we figure out how to talk across the island we have a real conversation about individuals in the community so we understand each other better, and then maybe, just maybe we will wind up with a more pragmatic politics with a greater commitment to the common good. and those are the last two words in the book. it doesn't give away the ending really. thank you very much. a. [applause] >> that this day to be a planner in america was july 9, 2004, when jackson and how we frumkin and lawrence frank came up with a book called urban sprawl and public health. what the book finally did was put some technical epidemiological means on the sociological bones that the planners have been arguing about instead in no uncertain terms the suburbs are killing us in here is why. the city is going to save us in here is why. by far the greatest aspect of that epidemic or i should say of our health challenges in america's obesity epidemic. it's not that obesity itself is the problem but all the illnesses that it leads to. principle among them diabetes. diabetes now consumes 2% of our gross national product. a child born after 2000 has a one in three chance in america becoming a diabetic. we are now looking at the first generation of americans who are going to live shorter lives than their parents. that is probably not a huge surprise to you. we have all been talking now for a long time about the wonders of the american corn syrup in the diet and the 40-ounce sodas that people are drinking but only recently has the argument -- have the studies been done comparing diet and physical activity. one of them is called gluttony versus loss. another doctor at the mayo clinic put patients in electronic underwear and measured every motion, set a certain dietetic regime and started pumping calories in and then some people got and other people didn't and expecting some sort of metabolic factor at work or genetic dna factor at work, the only change was the amount of daily activity. daily activity. eniko step further and you look at these books like the blue zone. have you ever seen that? euchner ,-com,-com ma dan buettner and the blue zones and where in the world of people live the longest? you see what they do and i drink red wine and he put in a book and sell millions. that one number one rule? loose naturally. don't run marathons and triathlons and don't ask people to exercise. find a way to build normal motion into your everyday life. who is going to change and all of a sudden go from being an accountant to being a lumberjack that's not going to happen. they say well bikes to work or walk to the store. the one thing the book forgets to mention is that half of america you cannot like to work and you certainly can't walk to the store because you live in a cul-de-sac off of a highway. so it's fundamentally about how we build our communities in the long run but in the short run it's about where you choose to live and that is choice you can make. that is nowhere more obvious than the other discussion which is car crashes. car crashes are funny because on the one hand we nationalize it. that is just a part of living. there is a one in 200 chance that i will die in a car chance in a one in three chance that i will be seriously injured. that's part of life and there's nothing i can do about it or alternatively we feel like we are in charge of our fate on the road. we are good drivers and we can avoid the accidents. 85% of people recovering from accidents view themselves as better than average drivers. the fact is that it's not the same all over the world and it's not the same all over america so we have a great -- 14 americans out of 100 are dying -- 14 americans out of 100,000 are dying in car crashes. in england it five out of 100,000 ended fact no one has half the crashes. in new york city it's three out of 100,000. new york city has saved more lives in traffic than were lost since september 11 ,-com,-com ma then were lost on septembeseptembe r 11th and our entire if our entire country were to share new york city's accident rate we would save that doesn't sound like a huge amount. it's three times the rate of the 90s and entirely due to automotive exhaust. i mean 90 whatever%. pollution isn't what it used to be. the sickest places in america are those places which are the most car dependent and you know in phoenix you have got four months out of the year that healthy people are not supposed to leave their houses because of the amount of driving going on so again what's the solution and? finally, the most interesting discussion may be is the environmental discussion which has turned 180 degrees in the last 10 years. if you look at even within the global warming discussion, you talk about the carbon footprint and the project which maps where government footprints are. red is bad and green is good and you look at the united states and it looks like the satellite night sky at the united states. cooler in the suburbs and coolest in the country. but that measure of co2 per square mile. in 2001 scott arnstein at the center for neighborhood technology said what happens if instead of measuring co2 per mile we measure co2 per person or co2 per household bags we can choose to live in places where if you look at co2 per household a grad in the green just flip. absolutely change places and by far the healthieshealthies t place to lives in the city. manhattan burn one third of the fossil fuels of people in dallas for example and use 130 the electricity. why? they are heating and cooling their neighbors and their apartments or touching but even more importantly than that, most of it is the last driving they are doing. transportation is the greatest single country vitter two most civilians greenhouse gas. in our daily life the biggest choice we can make -- when i built my house in washington d.c. i made sure i cleaned the sustainability story prayer at the gosztola panels -- solar panels and super insulation and that the wood burning stove that supposedly contributes less eot to the environment benefit our composed enough for us naturally but of course i have the energy saver lightbulbs. the energy saver lightbulbs will change an entire house, saves as much electricity or i should say saves as much carbon in a year as moving to a walkable neighborhood so the whole gizmo green gadget discussion, what could i buy to make myself more sustainable, is the wrong discussion. it should be where can i live than how can i live and contribute less and the answer again is the city. it's fundamentally opposite of the american ethos, from jefferson on. cities are the moral of the health and freedom of man. if we continue to pile upon ourselves to in the cities like they do in europe we shall -- one another as they do their. and that made sense back in the 1700's when we have the whole country spread out and the biggest byproduct was fertilizer. so it's a longer discussion. all three of these are longer discussions, but they are all national crises. the national economic crisis, which is only going to get tougher and we have a national health crisis which is bankrupting us and a sandy proved all too clear a couple of weeks ago global warming is beginning to affect us dramatically and now we are not talking about stopping it. obviously the less of it have the better we will be and the more we can do to solve these problems. that is the center of our challenge as a nation. >> now on booktv patrick james explains international relations using themes found in the book "lord of the rings." this is about half an hour. >> hello unwelcome to the scholar circle. the "lord of the rings" trilogy and its recent prequel the hobbit have collectively grossed billions of dollars and now companies are planning to explore this. video games, slot machines, but can the lord of the rings actually act as a means to understand complex politics and international relations? our guest with us today says that it he can't and he has recently written a book to show that. patrick james is a professor at the university of southern california, professor and
New-yorkUnited-statesFloridaChinaCaliforniaVirginiaGeorgiaRussiaWashingtonDistrict-of-columbiaMaineIraq your book 14 languages. how many different species and story lines? >> the answer is, depending upon how would measure such things, literally thousands within the movies which collectively in their expanded versions were something like 11 hours long, major significant characters and plot lines that are literally not even mentioned that off. it would probably go on as a series for several years. >> lets talk about those things, justice and orders a very big thing in international relations how are these exemplified in "lord of the rings"? >> at constant struggle maria between the two. up in the more of when you have come in a more orderly things you have the more unjust than vice versa and we look at reducing storylines in situations to see if you will how those things trade off because the person reading the book, anyone picking us up and saying i would like to get a sense of what international relations are about, various trade-offs and i can give you examples if you would like, we struggle with in middle-earth. the characters are right there for you and me in the real world. let's get the time machine and your family popular yourself that you are in trouble with the public and the congress is in the process of falling to the republicans. do you do the right thing in rawanda's to send in a relatively small and cheap forced to shut down the genocidal alternative we do you forego justice and preserve your own political position by instead staying out of her wand and remembering that the public was still pretty mad about the debacle in somalia and that question answers itself. >> what about in the book? >> in the book we see an extraordinary and very black-and-white struggle. this is not a book for people who like shades of gray in that there are various villains and very virtuous heroes but at the same time there are flaws and while there is an ultimate struggle between the evil in this book, the there are interesting characters who have twists and turns in them and if you want to concentrate on someone the right places to start is arguably the most interesting and messed up character in the book. >> first of all let's address the black-and-white issue. isn't it the case were scholars especially political scholars like me, we want to get our audiences to think about things in the gray. does this black-and-white idea do that? >> is a wonderful throwback maria to a world and remember much of this was written in the first half of the 20th century this in some ways is good assault for moral relativism. if you look at the store and those of you who know it will know exactly what i mean, you will see the characters are often tormented. who wants to preserve the safety of his people but is also struggling with the means for doing that. in his case for instance he finally gives in to his darker nature and he pays with his life he endangers the entire mission of the so-called fellowship of the ring and there we see getting in if you will to evil resulting in a very bad outcome. >> so you mentioned, andy's said he exemplifies. >> he exemplifies within i think human nature that there is no absolute determinism and all of us have the potential for good or evil and he has been marketed for most of our listeners so viewers will have a sense of who column is, he's this extraordinary high-tech character who has the jekyll and hyde personality. he is akin to the delightful hobbit creatures who were among the the most important were taken asante also has a darker side who is obsessed with the very evil ring of power that jeopardizes the safety of the entire world and often throughout the story, crucial developments go back and forth in terms of whether this needle part can stay strong enough to assist the fellowships members and the character we can talk about or whether regrettably a darker side golam takes over and threatens the world. >> so now you have also written a book about how golam represents a certain paradigm or a model in international relations. it's the imperialist model. >> that's right. and the storyline very briefly golam murders another character with a friend and eagle finds the ring the first act of evil that the ring causes because of its own hand here and evil. what does that have to do with that? the river folk are simple creatures who live by the river and lake to fish and would never heard anyone yet when this high-tech device arguably into fantasy world and away is that wmd, the weapon of mass destruction, as soon as it's injected into the simple location of the river folk, golam is obsessed with the ring and he uses his magical powers to disappear and becomes cannibalistic and ultimately over 500 years of unnatural extended life due to the fact that he has the ring and commits many heinous acts. this is seen if you will as a comparison to the effects of high technologies going into parts of the world that were innocent and pristine and causing terrible things to happen. some people have read the book that way. >> so now that is one of the many ways of looking at international relations and you have characters representing the other models. for example the liberalism. who do you see as representing realism? >> realism, the regular format that is very aggressive called offense of realism. it's a sense that people live for the gain of power relative to others and they want to expand if you will and they are naturally quite imperialistic. a storyline example involving the two wizards who went over to the dark side and is starting to help help the dark lord and scheme with him. he has been overtaken if you will by the rising power. the unofficial leader of the free peoples have a terrible confrontation and the jargon and the people who are encountered are often turned off but the concept such as bandwagon plays a key role in offense of realism. it is appropriate for me to bandwagon, that is rolled down the hill and joined the site that is winning and if you see the movie makes a long impassioned plea which is really extremely dishonest and sneaky of course and says we should join him. he's going to win anyway. let's do that. this communicates some old concepts and a lot of staying power international relations that we see bandwagoning. for example smaller states that joined in with hitler's germany during its early days of successful conquest. certain parties joined in with hitler rather than balancing against him and salomon the wizard who has gone over to the dark side bandwagons with the evil and incredibly powerful cell run whereas gandalf speaks for another realism called balancing. it's about how you choose to employ your power. sarah mond says let's divide up this oils and salomon -- gun gun.says let's balance against him because he does not share power. >> you said gandalf in the book was a representative of what we call in political science rational choice and wouldn't take rational choice be for the side that's winning? >> the answer is that if they calculate properly, the correct answer is no interestingly enough, because they have also been looking ahead rather than being myopic and saying it might sound great to be on the is very much like winston . like hitler who is bandwagoning or in a fantasy world is a lot like will lasso the rational thing to do is to actually join the weaker side and try to balance. as one of the american revolutionary said, you must hang together or hang separately. >> my favorite model is constructivism. how did we see the international relations of constructivism and the lord of the rings? >> the answer is answers we see it in so many places because to do this in a way that is accessible as we do in the book, we have to try to avoid kind of discussions. constructivism is about studying ideas. saying do you know what? it's not just the weapons that matter. it's the power of ideas and if we look at the story of the "lord of the rings", here is one example of this, that actors, key actors and i mentioned a few, and it's a big complex story so bear with me as i bring in more of them, if you look at a character like frodo who was the ring bearer, he is looking at the world around him and you'll notice we can introduce multiple theories with a single character. he has to come up with if you will an idea of what the world is it about black and white? in other words to construct the world and as the world and izzy grew up in this idealistic throwback to early modern england in a pastoral place called the shire. everyone farms and there's no ugly machinery or industry. he must reconstruct his view because here is his initial view that he chose to have his adventures and given bald in the "lord of the rings" story. who cares about the other side of the world? many would call that if construction of -- whereas he begins to construct a more liberal cooperative worldview as in i must join in with this fellowship because even though we hobbits, we are little weak creatures who live in our simple shire would like to stay there and we would like to be left alone, that isn't realistic anymore so he learns and discovers and he changes his worldview and so to do with their companions of his. we can follow their storylines and they'll fall for the the same way. there's a famous line for a pink one that people really like from the two towers movie and book, where one of frodo's hobbit companions is speaking to this living tree type creature and they are trying desperately to helpful to free peoples to they are not sure that this character says you are part of this world. and it causes them to look back at themselvethemselve s as if they had allowed themselves to to -- they had constructed a shell around themselves but here's the problem. it doesn't always hold true. the shells but down in the forest burns. >> it's all interconnected. >> is interconnected and interdependent as the so-called liberal who tell us do not try to pretend especially under conditions of globalization that there are airtight compartments in this world and we can stay in one and keep the rest of them out. >> let me remind listeners as we are speaking with patrick james in the book is called "the international relations of middle-earth" learning from 'lord of the rings'" and assist callers ercolano and maria. are there other models that you actually have found in character for almost every one of them. the critical theory. how do you find critical theory gives you a basic sense of what it's all about. it does not say in the sense of galileo explaining in natural science but instead look at ir in terms of what is right and wrong. so how is this fantasy world and bear in mind tolkien told kind anybody could use the word critical theory so bite definition what is so fascinating about the fantasy world as you will find areas that have been created recently long after his death in the mid-1970s, that amazingly the great character to talk about here, someone who doesn't make it into movies and his name he is kind of a cantankerous cousin if you will to these large mobile treelike creatures who ultimately got away to join the good guys and help out. old man willow was actually nasty and mean and the storyline is left out. we see him trying to devour the little hobbits and early in their time away from the shire they are ignorant of the outside world. they might lie down and resist the tree and unfortunately because they are not aware of such things, they risk being devoured and gnarled to death if you will. where does the critical theory,, and? to two old man willow intruders in his domain called the old forest always mean trouble. what do they do? that burned the trees. they chopped them down. this of course is critical theory expressed in terms of seems like a villain. he's trying to devour these hobbits but now we transport ourselves to his domain. what is happening to him? people are coming into his territory, even right next to his doorstep and pulling out axes and cutting him or his relatives down if you will. already caught on, old man willow is essentially a creature so it encourages us from a critical theory standpoint to step out of the ikea. the trees are just what would waiting to happen for fireplace and maybe for example we might want to rethink what we are doing with the amazon. >> then also it brings in the issues of justice and the entire system and how the system works, either just or in just and beats into conflict. >> you are absolutely right in the book is a wonderful struggle between myself and my wonderful collaborator who i like so much, and maria as i think a quite it was abigail wayne. she is a very fine scholar and she was at usc at one point in more devoted to critical theory whereas i am much more on the call it if you will natural science side of things. she is more interested in justice. i'm more interested in order not to the exclusion of the other so the book is written in a sense an explicit debate encourages the reader to say people have been thinking about order for the five pages and now people have to think about the applications for justice and vice versa. >> isamu widger co-author who integrated feminism? >> yes. i am actually more known as an exponent of what is called rational choice theory with the application of economic models abbey as she is nicknamed is quite expert on critical theory, in particular gender-based analysis where obviously as different as you can get in our approaches in this field. each one serves as a naturally and we feel confident to say you just went too far there. the book in other words tends to have in my humble opinion a very pragmatic balance sense between not obsess over justice to the point where we worry that things all the time. at the same time we are not so callous that we want order badly enough that we don't care that one person has everything. the tricking thing is we know where is that a perfect balance in any given context? >> and you have the sense that the "lord of the rings" allows that debate to come through. >> precisely because if you look the hierarchy of power you have different races, called more ethnicities. you have the humans and you have the elves that are long-lived, extremely intellectual erudite, very distant but also i'm afraid they have flaws such as being condescending and somewhat self-absorbed. at the other end of things powerful creatures, can can you have the hobbits who are pint-size, physically not very strong or generally not very knowledgeable with a few exceptions about the outside world and then much more fantastic creatures with strengths and weaknesses, dwarves are short is physically quite powerful, incredible engineers but here's their flaw. they are obsessed as well. notice the problem here, that they might not care much about justice. as long as they have a lot of many of characters that go over the edge into evil, the so-called forks and here we come back to the question of moral relativism. they have no redeeming characteristics and that of course is the very extreme kind of character to have. they are the creations ford tormented if you will, elves. >> and marks you describe as part of the realist model prototype. >> there is a memorably evil character has a very exciting congregation in the movie version with one of the most heroic characters. he is the king in waiting, the leader of the free peoples and eventually the king. he has a confrontation with the leader of a type of hybrid that powerful stronger than normal larger and capable of traveling in daylight. he is rather miserable and an abominable creature. the leader epitomizes realism and that he goes on a murderous rampage. all he cares about is offensively destroying his enemies. and otherwise he is monomaniacal he wants power and he wants to destroy things and he does not have if you will and the concerns for justice. to him the order is they dominate and the free peoples don't. >> he almost sounds like he belongs in another model, like you know in the peerless model. >> yes which is essentially a historical type of version of realism and in the 19th century the great powers of europe sailed the seas, took kind of bad reading of charles darwin caused is extremely inferior people, colonize them. and the neocolonial type of assessment through these places and savaging them that had previously been undisturbed. episode of a climactic part of the film called the scouring of the shire if you read the "lord of the rings." what happens sadly enough for the hobbits and and this would bring the movie so i didn't put it in. when the hobbits go back home to their idea what shire, it's not like it is in the movie. in the book it has been taken over by a decrepit pathetic reduced version of the evil ceremony who i mentioned a few get this point closely, they have created an ugly industrial shire, it's filthy and polluted and its trees and meadows are full of industrial waste. there is smoke everywhereverywher e. in a sense what this is pointing out also about war and its consequences is there is no victory without also loss. the shire when they come back they have to fight another rearguard battle and destroy his occupying force of evil man and the hobbits are now because of their battle-hardened experience they will come back and return to the shire. they come back and they lead a hobbit rebellion. some hobbits at died and some beautiful things, in particular if you would call the bridge between the hobbit and the "lord of the rings" -- make their something called the party tree big beautiful tree that has been destroyed and turned into fire with. >> now i know you said you're co-author wrote the feminine chapter but i wonder, you have an entire chapter 4 so little in another. the lord of the rings didn't have much -- of women at all and i wonder if that is part of the feminist critique of international relations theory as well? >> well said. in fact he gives the women even a smidgen of their time. they actually have to change the storylines. in the book for instance there is a memorable rescue scene where the character, if you will the partner ultimately for the she isn't elves and she does not frodo from the minions when he has been stabbed. he is going to turn into if you will a sort of ghastly zombielike creature. he needs desperately to get to where the elves the elves have the sanctuary and their powerful medicine. he is rescued by the beautiful darwin in the movie but the character, a male elf rescues frodo in the book version. our wind's character is pumped up in the movie is compared as compared to what she would be in the book. other characters, the few female characters that really matter is not exaggerated. we haven't mentioned her yet. she is arguably the most powerful single and subtlety of middle-earth and she isn't often an ancient one. unless they can get the rank we are talking about, he gets it in all the world follows -- falls to him. wise and has some elements of mind reading powers as well. that is implied. she is powerful and important. the leading feminist character in the book and it's fascinating when you think about how long ago this book was written. she is if you will as close as you can get to being a sort of female ivanhoe knifelike character. she wants to fight alongside the men and she is vigorous and capable of doing so but they won't let her. she actually has to disguise herself and assume the identity of the phonyite called stern helm. she becomes a warrior for her kingdom. row upon being allied with gone gun door the principle kingdom. they are very norse. they remind you of the people who lived in a viking type environment and they are great horseman. she actually has to disguise herself and she plays a crucial role in a very late battle scene in the movie. if she isn't there, there's a saying about these horrible black writers pursuing frodo at one point. the leader of them cannot killed by a man. he is ultimately slain by a small hobbit who is not going to be allowed to fight either. in other words the feminist critique is there are women who can do things but that man can do and now here's where of some i've feminist fans would get annoyed. this is called liberal feminism. the idea is that you and i should have equal opportunities as should everyone and you might then try to excel in the ways that i try to excel. different variants were strands of feminism reject this saying no women actually are different and here we get into another storyline that is not in the movie but in the books. remember i mentioned those large fantastic living trees? they are all guys. they are all masculine. the wives left. they found the up session with trees annoying. annoying. the wife stopped at the gardens were more exciting. notice the environmentalism but notice also that toll keen possibly anticipated this. one strand of feminism argues that the liberal model where everybody should have an equal opportunity and try to excel in a democratic capitalistic society is one kind of feminism but another one, we say we want to be different and make sure we don't want to assess what you have historically have obsessed over. even those nuances can be found and i returned to my first , how many novels out there have this when we get into subvariants of explanations of our world then we find entire characters? >> speaking of complexity the other aspect of the book, and i should remind people it's called the international -- "the international relations of middle-earth" learning from 'lord of the rings'." so five is the author and this is the scholar circle and i'm your host maria. you call them levels of analysis, kind of a scholarly term but it's like how to really understand conflict. you said in "lord of the rings", just like in world war i, you could look at it from these various goods. you can look at the systemic reasons why world war i happened and similar to "lord of the rings" and you can look at it from that structural elements like the state or you can look at it through the individual like the young man who decided to shoot the archduke. >> that's right and what is so fascinating, i will give one historic comparison. if you look at things that are true to all three of the wars that we choose to look at, they are very well no cases and obviously the lord of the rings is the fantasy world. why did it happen and then the causes as well of world war i that you just mentioned but also the war in iraq which is more recent in our times. one of the things that is in the "lord of the rings" as well as those other two cases, people have argued wars are precipitated by a week and are experienced and/or bad leaders quote unquote who showed bad world war i we have combination monarchical systems where was the best and the brightest and it was sold decrepit monarchs like the kaiser for instance in germany, the czar in russia who because they are there only through privilege and not confidence are really not very skilled in diplomacy and not very able to repent the outback of world war i. after that assassination you referred to. now iraq. a nonpartisan statement but i think it's said fairly that experienced foreign-policy and tended to listen arguably to people who wanted to precipitate the war. her hep c moved impetuously without appropriate evidence regarding wmd. that can be seen as leadership and later on the intelligence was proven not to have been there. here is the fun part. if you are trying to get these ideas and compare them to "lord of the rings" has its own decrepitude to talk about as well.
United-statesIraqSomaliaGermanyRussiaAmericanWinston-churchillCharles-darwinGeorge-bushPatrick-jamesAbigail-wayne brightest who are in leadership. it was old, decrepit owner asked like the kaiser, the czar in russia who because they are there only to privilege a no-confidence are not skilled in diplomacy, not able to prevent the outbreak of world war i after that assassination you refer to. now iraq, not a partisan statement, but it has been said fairly that george bush 43 was not an experienced foreign-policy president. he listened to people who really wanted to precipitate the war. perhaps it would impetuously without appropriate evidence regarding wmds. that can be seen as an experienced leadership and later on the intelligence was proven not to have been there. here's the fun part, if you're trying to get these ideas and compare them, the "lord of the rings" has its own to talk about assault. remember the leader of the free peoples? actually come he has no official position. other leaders won't listen to him. the two monarchs i have reference tab in one case, the more powerful of the two kingdoms, dinosaur has gone mad. he has been seduced and the leader row on has been we which, another wizard i mention. kim dolph is fighting fiercely and pursuing diplomacy to get these leaders to listen to him and saying we are going to be really in a deep, dark place if we do not prepare properly for the war that's coming up for various complex reasons, the incompetence weakens the free people and makes them more prone to a word they will lose. notice the comparison with iraq in 1914 is really quite apt. you've got weak leadership and war ensues. when i say he cheated and made this all up about world war i. if he was alive he would get quite cranky for saying this. but how about that come you can't say anything about iraq. he never saw iraq. it has been 30 years after he was gone. postcode now, i would like to add with what you begin the book with, which is in this most recent election in iran that when there was considerable consternation about how the election when, that the state feared the "lord of the rings" in an effort to pacify people, but it didn't have that effect. what happened? >> guest: the tremendous irony is while the stakes, the ahmadinejad regimes to muster the people about. these movies are hotter than the sun. this is of course years after they came out in the west. since 2009, here is the irony. the state puts movies out there that they should have had some of their own people watched very carefully at first because what do more than anything else, the movies are about human or personal freedom. they argue in favor of democracy and honest citizen fair treatment sna combination of order and injustice would hardly be something you show people to calm them down. what happens of course is a boomerang effect. people look at these movies and the messages within them as we are to resist. we shouldn't be pacified. the court is faced sword and sorcery movie. the best bond movie ever made. return of the king won best picture. they were right to entertain, but they would've been better off showing top gun or something of schwarzenegger if they wanted to shut people down. poster thank you so much, patrick james are with us. again the book is "the international relations of middle-earth: learning from the lord of the rings" this has been the scholar circle. i am maria armoudian and we will see you next week. >> guest: thank you so much. >> and her work, "pat nixon," mary brennan recounts the life. mrs. nixon's recent release private documents. this is just over 15 minutes. >> welcome to the richard nixon presidential library and museum. my name is paul paul wormser anm acting director of the library. i appreciate all of you, into one american canoeing author top presentations. today we are very fortunate to have really the leading scholar on pat nixon who was born 100 years ago this year. mary brennan, who did much of the research here for her book, is the chair of the department of history at the university of texas and san marcos. her specialty is post-world war ii conservative movement then she has written to date three different books. that's been turning right at the 16th, capture of the gop, wives and mothers and the conservative fundament crusade against communism and of course the book with a fast run here, which is "pat nixon: embattled first lady." her book is an outstanding work and i look forward -- our thank you to help me welcome her on the stage to talk about her work. mary brennan. [applause] >> thank you, paula. such a great honor to be back at the nixon library. as paul said i did much of my research here and i feel very close to all the people here. there is so helpful to me in learning but i did about pat. i'd like to begin with the story. one evening in 1954, at the nixon's exit at a dinner at which president eisenhower was going to speak, they came across an indian woman on a bench outside the banquet hall. pat that she recognized the woman. they continued down the stairs. halfway down, pat remembered the woman in nature has been returned to where the woman was sitting. i spoke with the one men i asked if they had not met previously. when the woman replied they had, passed about her stay in the u.s. and acquired what she was doing in the hallway. the woman explained she was returning to india in a few days and hope to catch a glimpse of the president before she went home. pat then arranged for the woman to be given a seat at the dinner so that she could hear the speech as well as see the president. nixon then left the hall to continue onto previous engagement. i use this story to begin my talk because it exemplifies several key points i wish to make about pat nixon on her public role. more particularly, about her role as foreign diplomat. first, pat met the indian woman during one of her travels a second baby. for pat, the traveling she did it first and second baby was the best part of her job as a political wife. i can't, this was not the wife of ambassador or statesmen. she was just a young woman who had come to the united states but first come to see the second lady and then to study. pat didn't limit her contact her travels to important people. she treated everyone she met as though they were the most for person in the world. the people she met since her sincerity and responded to it. third, she was happiest in her role when she could take action. the party to nixon's rack in the engagement they were going to were not as important at that moment is getting this visitor from india ac at the presidential dinner. and the greater scheme of things, this is a small act, but at that the lasting impressions both on the woman involved and on the women at the table she was eventually seated at. that's how we know about the event through a letter that someone who she ended up sitting with responded and wrote to pat later about it. for pat, politics was her job and when she didn't always enjoy. on occasion she was proud of her work in helping to raise funds for the party, she found many tasks frustrating and mindnumbing. by the end of the first term, she expressed jealousy of her friends reentry into the workforce. she wrote, i would like to do part-time work rather than use like adding about unexpected to do. the thrill of meeting famous men and women and the clamor of white tie dinner is at white house wore off, leaving only the tiring routine of confidence away from her girls, i'll chatter with women she did not always fight. for someone who worked hard her entire life, and she had worked hard her entire life, the situation could at times be intolerable. it is not the long hours, physical challenges the reader down, she resented not been useful, not doing something meaningful. perhaps that is why foreign travel appeal to her. during her trips overseas, she thought she was playing an important role. she was representing american interests abroad. her introduction came during her first or second baby when president eisenhower sent his vice president on a tour beginning in asia and continuing to parts of the subcontinent. during the fall of 1853, president eisenhower told the vice president he should take up with him. she realized this trip is going to be work, but it's going to be interesting. that describes a trip the same words in a letter she wrote to her good friend the next month. along with the minimal entourage that included a military aide, state department representative, flight surgeon, three press representatives, two secret service agents, nixon's administrative agent and the only other woman on the trip, rosemary was, the next since embarked on a 42,000-mile journey. and a little more than two months, the group visited over 15 countries, attended hundreds of state dinners and participated in innumerable ceremonies and spoke to millions of people. the state department had briefed the group and in many countries and people they would be visiting. pat took these briefings very much to heart. in fact, one member of the group told a reporter a few years later that pat had served as the groups walking encyclopedia. whenever they needed information , they would always turn to her because she would have the information. her has been concentrated on larger mission of reassuring american, asian allies on eisenhower's policies and attitudes toward communism. while he did that, pastoralist to go make the people. neither he nor pat had ever been particularly interested in her former socializing, so he requested dinner speaking to a minimum so they could meet with as many different people as possible in the countries they visited. i recognize there is a job to be done as she wrote in a travel diary, but could not help but be caught up in the thrill of traveling. even her sadness of leaving the girls did not completely overwhelm her excitement. the harsh reality of such extensive travels combined with the little girl's enthusiasm for seeing new and different sites leave on trent leaps off the pages of her diary. she gleefully recorded her ceremony she crossed the equator for the first time. king neptune and wore the crown designed by the crew. what fun. attendance at a female frolic with the hostess arranged all-male entertainment quite risqué. on the 14th of october, she detailed experience in a village in new zealand where he had to take part in a dialogue and actions of the native century. they both had to participate in the custom of nose rubbing. although she said she felt faint when some of the disheveled oldsters lined up for a session of nose rubbing, nixon's want to be good sports, so we took it. she had more problem because she also visited the kitchen where the women were cooking the food they were going to be eating later on inside the kitchen was so dirty and unsanitary tissue is actually quite leery of eating the food given to them and have learned the art of pushing food around on her plate and cover things up so much that she was eating without having to do anything. this had proved to be the case i'm all overseas trips and extensive nature of the vice presidential years. although their schedules are crowded and the conditions could be challenging, pat continued to be thrilled that visiting the countries. and early 1956, she ends up five attended the inauguration of the new bristling president in rio de janeiro, a city she called the most spectacularly viewed city she'd ever seen and read parties at the palace were fabulous. she did find it changed quite a terrific adjustment. they went in january so there is something that is 75-degree climate change when they went in one day. in july of that year, the nixon's one on another world went to her. she explained in a letter that this is a fast and full trip and in the course of one day they were in three countries, thailand, pakistan and turkey. although her has been met with leaders, she again had a schedule of events. in the end she wrote it was a busy but happy in such a short time so much could be accomplished. in november 1958, the couple traveled to london for pat was much of the press with her natty wardrobe and unspoiled manner. the following year they went to the soviet union and poland. in moscow, dick confronted khrushchev's in the famous kitchen debate where they argued communism and capitalism and an exhibition of american consumer goods. but once again had a wrote agenda of visiting orphanages and hospitals. he might've gotten her headline, the pats interaction was so the women and children also made a lasting impression. they're all kind of pictures of her handing out candy and bubble guns that it made it to life. more importantly, her pointed question to nikita khrushchev about his biceps and from festivities lied to mrs. khrushchev's is also as another officials suddenly. at the events in the rest of the visit. he told one reporter should not hope helped that the woman along on a diplomatic mission. they can make friends in different ways than men. she was overwhelmed by the outpouring of cheers that greeted the nixon's as they travel through the streets of poland. padua sundays they rattled had to fight back tears according to a news account at their arrival in poland. when pat became first lady almost 10 years later, her love of travel a recognition the import of allowed her to play only increase. the wonder shark traveler remained me to surface, but she had become much more of where the power of her position. during her five years, pat visited 32 countries around the world, central more than once. she accompanied her husband and set new precedents by traveling solo as a representative of the united states to the maturation of william tell bair of liberia in 1972 and attending the swearing-in ceremony of ernesto gesell. she is not the same practices utilized in the 1950s. she strove to make as many friends as possible for herself in the country. all her desire to make friends everywhere might've had political consequences, at a restaurant a sincere desire to look beyond the dignitary to the people of the country she visited. in part because of the connection with her own words. she never forgot who she was or where she came from. she was the daughter of a truck farmer who has supported herself since she was a teenager. at one point during her husbands administration, she told the childhood friend that even though she occasionally felt inadequate to the task that she was only pat ryan from artesia, and quote the people she met were so gracious she felt comfortable continuing the important work she and her husband were doing. in addition, she understood what a thrill it was for someone to shake the hand of a second or first lady of the united states to receive a letter from the white house. other results are her first trip as i got lady to her white house years attended dinners and visits with her husband as she was supposed to, but she also insisted on having her own separate itinerary that went beyond just the government-sponsored or approved women's tees and socials. she made it a point to seek out the institutions that affected women and children. after the business teacher, pat jotted her reactions in short hand on official schedule. during her vice presidential trip, she went with mr. silva to see the sister home for the aged. she commented the old people were thrilled because nobody had been deceived them. and the philippines she visited an orphanage in a training center for learning trade, which can be done in the home. in south korea she went to republic of korea division hospital and gave out candy at cigarettes. her brief comments indicated the state of things. quote, in heat, wanted on army cots with army blankets. soiled that close, and quote. when her first tour a second lady visited over 200 institutions providing industry, training women to support themselves and their women, setting up neighborhood kitchens and dispensaries. because the group made unscheduled stops, she felt they were able to get the real picture. she concluded in general people can sense when another person is friendly and genuinely interested. that is what they tried to do, to show the people they were visiting that they were interested in them as people. someone once asked pat why she could appear to be so interested in all these diverse people should not she said that's because i am. she said that the person i'm talking to when i know they have a story to tell and i want to hear that story. all i'm doing is paying attention to them while i'm talking them. pat tucker while as representative of the united states very serious way. she saw herself as part of an important official change. she start he made something of an impression on the people she met. one constituent explained to pat that her husband was on an around the world business trip and had run into what he called the pat nixon trail. he wrote his wife that pat really bring about on this part of the world at a time when americans were not very popular. an american couple living in india sets had a similar letter after her return, praising the couple for bringing a fresh understanding of america to the people of india. president eisenhower praised as nixon's further work on the tray. even the american press notice pat roles on the tour. we explain although she did not make any speeches or carry on high policy discussions, she bore her full share of the workload. her love of travel, openness to new people and places in a quick smile endeared her to the people she met and made her a wonderful, unofficial ambassador for the united states. in fact, in 1857, journalist girl may so labeled her this country is most female ambassador of goodwill after camp in a pat and dick in italy and watching as she tarred peasants criticize them. without talking politics, pat managed to win over not only ragged women, but also sultan mohammed cinque granted her an unprecedented formal audience. her goal was to convince people we enjoy being here and are genuinely interested in them. as it was not the only ones to see the importance and her role. by the time of the soviet trip, the last of their presidential one had one even "the new york times," calling her a diplomat in high heels, the reporter described her as self-made, orderly and precise. the capitol press club, an organization of african american news correspondents presented her with his international relations award in 1957, recognizing her goodwill activities among the people of eight african countries, end quote. they chose her as america's outstanding ambassador of goodwill. deputy attorney general william rogers wrote during a trip in europe during which had been parted for requests. he praised her important significant role in public affairs. of all her responsibilities, the travel not only fulfilled her childhood dream, but also allowed her to feel useful and necessary part of an import enterprise. when her husband had run for office, nixon had been a team and pat had been a crucial player. as his career took off in different directions, pat found himself relegated to sidelines. her work reinforced she was still significant, not just her husband's career, but something larger. when she became first lady, foreign travel whether it has been her on her own continued to play this vital role for pat, allowing her to participate in a positive way at a time when many other paths for limited. past bench much time working on political aide and did not value advice. they treated her as a prop to be used for diplomacy only. her domestic agenda did not ignite passion and the public. plushy face challenges from a shift in social order at the women's movement spread throughout the country. pat supermom and super wife face ridicule from a feminist press for letting her have them push her into politics. the more conservative press praised her willingness to stand by her husband. pat the women hated the increase lack of privacy among for something meaningful to do. traveling abroad took her away from frustrations at home and allowed her to be herself. even her husband who excluded her from most important policy decisions did recognize her as an asset when it came to foreign policy. years later he told frank gannon during a series of interviews that pat always handled herself very properly, even during sensitive diplomatic conversations that she might an advert you over here. he asked me and she listened and nodded, but never made comments have around. at the same time, however, he relied on her to notice things he did not because she was very observant. getting past some responsibility and small diplomatic tasks also provided nixon with cover from the increasingly vocal feminist who demanded more available a government policy. she was a woman he could trust to do only what he expected her to do. pat's foreign travel and did more than feed her desire for adventure of visiting new places. it was a way of reconnecting with her husband and to the dick and pat t-mobile. she'd never been more repetitive his life and work than when they travel together could certainly circumstances had changed. now they have a huge entourage of aid, security personnel and reporters and feelings towards the u.s. had hardened over years. there has been safe and abilities demonstrated by ability to send her a fire southwest of gratified her. she seized the opportunities to prove herself. pat's trip to peru in 1970 epitomize her value as a foreign ambassador. on may 31st, 1970, an earthquake measuring 7.75 and the richter scale devastated about half of peru, killing at least 50,000 people and displacing hundreds of thousands of others. mudslides follow the initial quake causing further damage. homeless, injured and starting from the survivors rushed to the coastal areas in search of medical attention and news of loved ones. as news reports filtered to the united states, president nixon promised $10 million in aid as well as promising to love army and navy helicopters but they search and rescue mission. the american public moved by the devastation had begun donating supplies and money to be sent to people of peru. similar empathetic, pat wanted to help. during a weekend at camp david, the couple discussed the situation and raise the possibility of delivering donations from the american people down to peru. a week later she flew to peru and the consuelo gonzalez, wife of the peruvian president alina to deliver donations, visit the injured and homeless and review the damage. she took with her over 18,000 pounds of clothing, blankets and other goods as well as cash donations. during her brief stay, she accompanied on a tour of the most devastated region, flying on a small plane sitting on a repurposed kitchen chair with a seatbelt. back in amid the rubble, she had children and offered comfort to those who have lost everything. her genuine concern and sympathy did much to ease the tension that had existed between the u.s. and peru sent the dissension of power. the main newspaper in limine noted that profound significance of paths visited. in her human work and identification were suffering the peruvian people come the editorial continued she had gone beyond the norm of international courtesy. the people of peru appreciated the understanding and concern she demonstrated in our sorrow. they awarded her the grand cross of the sun. even the "washington post" in which really had much positive to say admitted she had threaded her way among all potential sources of trouble admirably and with skill. epitomizing the human response acquired by the tragedy to editorialists continued she succeeded in communicating to peruvians she met a genuine desire to help and to have done so for great paths, for which all she deserves much credit. if the trip to peru show the potential for pat to serve as goodwill ambassador, her trip the following year to africa despite her determination to break the restraints of the first lady role. in early january, 1972, pat sent out on an eight day, 10,000 miles trip to the african continent where she visited liberia, ghana and the ivory coast. .. the wife of the johnson publishing company which published ebony and jet in addition to official meetings, press conferences and speeches before political parties, the africans treated pat and her entourage to a while wind of dinners and receptions. she took her responsibilities seriously. julie noted that pat snuck a. from the family activities on christmas day to go over their briefing notes and organize her thoughts for the upcoming trip. although the state department and staff of the west wing prepared remarks for her, she went over them, making changes she felt necessary and highlighting pounds she wanted emphasize in liberia, she pleased her hots by noting how impressed she was by the considerable development that had occurred since her last visit in 1957. ghana, she traveled out into the hills to pay her respects to 83-year-old chief who she had met during the vice presidential visit. he told her she had forgeed a friendship between the american and the ghanaian people that, quote, not even a lion do break. she delivered a rare public political speech before the assembly in each of the three countries-pat spoke with leaders about her husband's upcoming tariff to -- trip to china, explaining he was trying to open a dialogue, and she reiterate america's promise of financial assistance and announced the creation of two grad walt scholarships for women to travel to the united states to study. not her official pronouncements that earned her the accolades, either in the country she visit or back home. it was her warmth, enthusiasm, general win appreciation of and affection for the people she met in monrovia, she said she could not wait to meet people. she did that. she waded into crowds, shaking hands, and giving hugs. at the inauguration ceremony she gave the president a cheek-to-cheek embrace. he called her, quote, woman with strength of spirit and fortitude of character, when a group of women presented her with cloths, rather than just slipping it under her chair, she stood up and began to tie it around her waste. the women got up and came up to help her and dressed her in the traditional clothing. pat's delight in her outfit and her willingness to 0 model spoke volumes out about her respect for the people she was visiting. and you can see this wonderful picture of pat in a blue head address. -- head ress and it speaks volumes about our she felt about her ability to go out and meet these people and play a role and show them respect. and you can see in her eyes it was -- this was very much something -- it wasn't something she was putting on. it was something that she believed in very deeply. all of the news photos show pat with a huge grin on her face. whether she is walking a traditional tribal dance, listening to a speech or traveling in a motorcade or actually participating in a tribal dance which she does in another photo. pat returned home triumphantly. heralded by the press. she was declared african queen for a week, and they loved her in monrovia. pat would make one more solo trip as first lady. in 1974 she attended the nation craig of the president of brazil and made a stop in venezuela. her credentials as diplomat had been well-established. but the media paid little attention the first ladies travel itinerary, which is a shame because venezuela is where the nixons had the terrible experience during the vice presidential years and this is one of the first trips back there, and even though the venezuelan press noted this, the american press really did not relate the significance of her trip to caracas. most of the attention was on her husband's political problems back home. now, 1972 was the highlight year for pat in january she goes -- africa has this wonderful experience, the so manies back from africa, and in february, they prepare for the groundbreaking trip to pekeng and then moscow. while dick met with dip dim diplomatic leader, she attended culture events. six meetings, open communication between countries. while pat's effort helped to forge good feeling among people involved in the international relations. dick nixon, a determined anticommunist in the 1940s and 50s, had been working on ending ending the close war. once he game president, he and his national security advisor, henry kiss kissinger explored different forms of communication, and then china extended an invitation to the president to visit pay peking. because of kind's self-imposed isolation, one of a limited group of westerners who had ever been there. as a result, there was tremendous worldwide interest in the trip. when china decided to allow the american press to tag along with the president and mrs. nixon, people around the world followed the february 1972 journey with tremendous interest. dick had to remained sequestered with the chinese leaders much of the time. pat was the representative who introduced americans to china, represented the american people to the chinese. if she had not already realized what a great cement had, the briefing papers from the state department made it clear. emphasizing her role and the unique opportunity the trip represented to re-establish communications between the women of china and america, the state department remind her that she would be the first leading american woman the chinese had met. intensive u.s. television coverage provided her with unprecedented opportunity to affect the way americans viewed the chinese women. pat intensified the normal homework routine she followed before any trip. studying her state department briefing paper carefully, reading quotations from mao, learning useful phrases of chinese and wig about her schedule. on the trips and the 1950s and as first lady, pat insisted on attending more than the usual lady's teas and receptions. she asked to visit hospitals, schoolsers and other facilities that helped women in the poor. this time she had very little control over where she could go or meet. she need not have the worried. although she felt isolated from the public, she won over the people she did meet, and dealt diplomatically with those who tried to convert her. correspondent helen thomas recounted that when pat's guide, invariably young women from the revolutionary committee, would try to engage her in a political discussion, she would smile and say, oh, yes, i'm acquainted with his philosophy. from the cooks in the kitchen of the hotel, and the vice-chairman of the people's commune to premiere premier himself, the china melted under pat's enthusiasm. during her visit to the kitchen, with 115 cook, she gladly sampled their creation, including a fiery stuffed pickled squash. she impressed the reporters. they couldn't eat it. sitting next to the premier, she commented about the pandas. he asked her if she wanted one. pat rarely accepted a gift. nixon also realized that tiking to the chinese leader would worry the soviets so when they came back from the visit to china, he earned they would go back to the soviet union. as a result in late may, early june, 1972, pat, dick, and entourage traveled to moscow. dix met with leaders and pat was accompanied by mrs. brezhnev. the soviet leaders took a lesson and had their wives there. pat took a ride on the subway, visited will school children, and toured a department store, and attended a russian circus where a performing bear startled her and the press reported on it in the american papers, pat won over both the russian people and the reporters who accompanied her. the russians as well as the pols during the couple's visit there appreciated the first lady delight with the ballet and the circus, voice affection for school children she met, her easy manner with the wives of the soviet leaders. in fact at one point, mrs. nixon grabbed the hand of mrs. brezhnev, who was unused to the throng of reporters and crowds constantly surrounding the women and rather frightened. pat's determination to stop and talk with the people who had come out to meet and see her, also earned her the affection of the population. one incident exemplified her'm effect on the people. pat attended a recital. when the crowd applauded at she went to leave, the walked toward them, intending to shake hands with the people. her interpreter attempted to lead her back to the official party. she refused to join the group until the waded into the crowd of men and million, who responded warmly, some men taking off hats and others touching her hand. for their part, reporters were extremely complimentary. the globe described her as a remarkable saleswoman. the london daily mail claimed she was the best boost for womanhood since they invented lipstick, and the herald reporter got a good feeling seeingmy meteorologist nixons and mrs. brezhnev. throughout the trip, reporters had been forced to battle the soviet police who were guarding mrs. nixon. the situation came to a head on the there'd day as pat walked through the store, hundreds of people crammed on to ball copies or stood? aisles to wave and catch a glimpse of her. reporters trying to cover the event found their views blocked by the soviet security detail. pushing became shoving, fists flying. pat saved one reporter from being man-handled by a soviet officer by pulling reporter to him and offerer a lick ofly her ice cream cope. and so we end with another story that reinforces pat's love of travel. her openness to all of the people she met, including reporters. and her willingness to take whatever action was necessary. from her youngest days when she listened to her father's stories of his adventures, through her years as a single woman, taking off on small excursions, to the early years of her marriage to dick, as they shared they're love of visiting new places, travel intrigued pat, invigorated her, and provided her with opportunities she might not have had otherwise. travel also provided pat with the means to transform the first lady roz role. although observers at the time often criticized her for failing to focus on a specific cause the way lady bird johnson had, or mirroring too closely maimey icen mother, she expected the behavior of first ladies. she traveled more than any other first lady up to her time and accompanieder his husband on his groundbreaking trip to china. press report of her enter actions with the chinese as she toured the country offered the americans a glimpse into the formerly closed society. pat refused to limit her itinerary to acceptable lady formal teas and receptions. she wanted to visit hospitals and schools. her determination to meet with wounded american soldiers during a visit to south vietnam meant she became the first first lady to travel to a combat zone. pat showed the first lady was not just a ceremonial prop. pat also traveled successfully on her open. her journey to peru following the earthquake brought humanitarian relief to the citizens citizens of lima. when she attended the inauguration of libraria, she became the first wife of a sitting president to serve as an official representative to a foreign country. pat's enthusiastic response the people she met in south america and africa, served a diplomatic purpose for her husband and secured an opening for future first ladies to explore. in fact, pat's initial success with handling diplomacy on her own led to her taking additional solo trips during already husband's time in office. like almost everything else connected to right-hand nixon, pat's expansion of the role of first lady was lost in the midst of watergate. rather than celebrating her accomplishments, pat spent her last months in the white house avoiding reporters, and urging her husband to fight on. instead of the press inquiring about her next trip or commenting on her appearing in a pant suit in a woman's magazine, another first, the focus was on the growing scandal. even pat's obituary 20 years after the resignation concentrated more on watergate than on her activities as federal lady. pat never came to love politics or the political life. but as she had her entire life, she made the best of a bad situation. building on her love for travel, her natural abilities, both her innate openness and keen observation skills, pat opened the door for the first lady to become an essential part of her husband's foreign policy team. she finally did find her niche in politics. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would be happy to answer any questions if you have any questions. nobody has any questions? >> when you were doing your research for the book, did you contact the daughters for any input or insight that helped you gather any additional information that you didn't already find when you were at the library? >> julie actually helped know game access to the rest of her mother's papers, and to helen brown's paper, and i corresponded with her by e-mail and asked if she would be willing to do an interview, but she said she had said everything she wanted to say in her book and unless i had a specific question, that she really didn't want to be interviewed. and i could not contact her sister. >> hi. cue expand also more on the first lady's agenda and why you didn't think it sparkedded excitement. >> she became a first lady at a difficult time. she had an agenda. her first cause was volunteerism, she was also very interested in reading, and the volunteerism was something very dear to her because she did very much believe in people helping other people. but you have to remember this is 1969. the country is in tremendous turmoil. and so something like volunteerism was not going to be a cause that was going to catch on with the general public. she ran into obstacles. it was a very tense situation between the west wing and east wing me and ran into issues of trying to explore and find herself. she did have other things she did domestically. although jackie kennedy gets tremendous amount of credit for redecorating the white house, pat actually did more of that. she hired a protocol officer from the state department, brought him over, and the two of them went around the country making deals with different people, different museums to be able to get period pieces, correct period pieces in the white house, and to restore the white house to the point that when jackie kennedy came back for their first time since she left in 1964, she comment on how wonderful a job pat had done redecorating. i think it also took her a little while to find her stride, and so i think she was just kind of moving in that direction. amid all of this -- she had the double whammy of this shifting historical circumstances and the problems in the administration in terms of being able to define her own path. i think the other reality is that she actually felt most comfortable traveling and meeting people and doing kind of -- being able to get out amongst the people. >> she was embattled. did you mean when dealing with watergate or after the presidency? >> well, i have to be honest with you and i don't know if the press would appreciate my saying this, but when i wrote the manuscript in battle, first lady what the chapter that dealt with her problems within the white house. the press -- i named the whole book, pat nixon, every woman in the white house, and i thought that's what she represented. they liked the embattled first lady name better, so the press wins. that is how that happened. >> miss brennan, will you kindly speak to pat ryan before she was mrs. nixon? >> certainly. when do you want me to -- talk about her childhood? >> yes, and i was also -- respond -- was she a teacher? >> yes. she -- actually, she had a very -- when i said at the end that if she had her whole life, she made the best of a bad situation. her mother died when she was 12, and she had two brothers and her father. she helped to take care of the house and to kind of keep everything in order and then go to school, where she got very good grades. end up through a fluke of circumstances she and her two brothers all graduate from high school at the same time. she got skipped ahead. one of her brothers broke his arm, somebody else had some other problems and they were all graduating at the same time. so they graduated from high school right around the time their father became seriously ill. so they had to each find jobs to help support the farm, eventually deciding they needed to sell the farm. they went on and then they were going to decide who is going to college. all have to of them wanted to go to college. they decided that the one brother had a scholarship, he would go to college fit. the other two would work. so she worked to help support the brother, and at one point there was a couple that hired her to drive them across the country, and the idea was she would drive them across the country to new york, visit her father's relatives, and they would buy her a plane ticket back and that's how they would pay her. when she got to new york and met the relatives, they ended up offering her -- one of them offered her a job. so she lived in new york by herself for a year. she worked in the hospital there. she had tremendous adventures if you can kind of take this -- read between the lines in her letters to her brothers. she was having a great time. she flirted with the doctor. according to some of her relatives, who wanted to marry her. she had adventures -- she was working in a tuberculosis hospital. and dug snowstorm they would go our and go sled sliding and somebody said aren't you afraid you'll get ill? she said, no, i think about the young boys and how this will make them feel. eventually her brother wrote to her and said we save up enough money, come back. she came back, went to college she was working on a business degree. she hoped to be what we call today a personal shopper. she real realized it would take too long for thor work her way up and she was a very practical woman. so she decided to get her teaching certificate as well. so she did. and got a job in whit meg whitman -- whittier, for the first time in here life she had enough money and enough freedom to be able to take little trips she wanted to take. she had some girlfriends she would go and visit that she wrote to. she would go off an little excursions. but it's also while she's there that one of the older teachers says to her, we're doing a community play, and it would probably be a good idea if you were in this play, and that was back in the day when an older teacher told you should do this, she did it. she had been in theater before. dick nixon was in the theater group, and they met. now, i will also encourage you that if you have not been able -- the other part of the pat nixon exhibit you need to see, to see a different side of dick nixon, is to read the excerpts from the lot of letters. we have a ten dependency to think of di -- one of the most eye-opening experiences of my research was reading the love letters between the two of them. there was a -- all of these letters are playful, writing back and forth, and he was really chasing her. and he would sometimes -- she would need a ride into los angeles so he would take her into los angeles and maybe she was going to meet somebody else there, you know. but he would take her and then they would go on long drives, and they would go 'the coast, and they would each take a book, and then they would get out of the car and perhaps have a picnic lunch and then read their open book. it was a very quiet kind of dating. but eventually it progressed into something else, and they agreed to get married. so it was a very -- it's not necessarily -- it's kind of one of those things that marriage goes through, i think, that in the beginning you have this very romantic kind of relationship. even when he was first elected congress and he writes her letters from the first trip abroad, the letters are filled with all of these visions. this is what is going to happen when we come back. they had this wonderful nursery. we can take trisha down there. she can go the. we'll go see all the sights of europe. for years he actually promised to take her to europe. didn't actually happen as a vacation until 1963. but he was still promising it was going to happen. so does that answer your question? >> i think we have time for just one more question. >> i'm curious to know a little bit about her family. born in nevada? what did her father do there? why did they move to california? what were his parents like, her mother's parents like? >> okay. now we're getting into a tricky area. so, her father was the son of irish immigrants, and he had traveled around as an itinerant -- he had done a lot of different things help had been on a merchantship. he would talk about hissed a vaccine tours. he had been a miner. her mother was a first generation german immigrant, and her mother had been married before. he mother was -- came over as a child with an aunt and ended up staying, and eventually married a man named bender. they moved up to what -- i think it was north dakota. and he was killed in a flood up there. actually i tried very hard to find information about the flood that killed him. i called the archives. i called the -- spoke the archivist and could not find a tremendous amount of information about her mother's fur husband. from that major she had two children, and she then -- then she married will ryan, and they moved to nevada. actually several little up toes in nevada, and he was miner. but she her mother did not want to lose another husband to mining so she was constantly putting pressure on hmm to give up the mining rights, to become something else, a farmer, more stable and less dangerous, so eventually they moved to southern california, where he continues to have dreams of kind of finding gold, doing something that would get them other than being a truck farmer. but it doesn't happen the way he want it to. >> thank you, all and let's give mary brennan a hand. [applause] >> i had date with other religious cults, and it had been my -- i found in some case when they're leading such a group, they make certain
NevadaUnited-statesBrazilTurkeyChinaCaliforniaRussiaWashingtonDistrict-of-columbiaRio-de-janeiroEstado-do-rioIndia slot machines, other properties, but the "lord of the rings" act as a means to understand complex politics and international relations. our guide took us today says that it can, and he's recently read a book. patcher james is a professor at university of southern california and the director of the center for international goodies. his book is right here called "the international relations of middle-earth: learning from the lord of the rings." welcome, pat james. >> guest: thank you, maria. >> host: before weakening to the politics politics of middle earth, why the "lord of the rings" rather than another narrative to explain their theories of international relations. the short answer is that extraordinary completeness and complexity as the world. if you took all of jarrett talking ratings you the most completely specified value ever created. for example, full languages that one can speak details so accurate that you can chart raises have been at different types in the storyline and absolutely correct. the reason i say that is the complexity of this story isn't have to radically human history south. >> host: "lord of the rings" has for 10 languages. how many different species and storyline and themes? >> guest: the answer depending on how one would measure such things, literally thousands of the movies, which collectively were something like 11 hours long nature significant interest in carrot to resent plot lines are literally not tension at all. it would probably go want to see series for several years. >> host: let's talk about this themes. justice and order, how are these exemplified in the "lord of the rings"? >> guest: it is a constant struggle between the two. often more when you have, the more i'm just vice versa. we look at particular storylines and situation to see how those things trade-off because a person reading the book, if you will come anyone taken us up and saying it is to get a sense of an international relations about, the conundrums and trade-offs that we struggle with a rate they are for you and me and the real world. but given the time machine. you are william jefferson clinton come extremely popular yourself, you are in trouble with the public and the congress is in the process of falling to republicans. do the right they never wanted to set and a small and cheap for us to strike down the genocide or alternatively, do you forego justice and preserve your own political position by instead staying out of rwanda and remembering the public was still pretty mad about the debacle in somalia. that question answers itself, just as traded off against each other. >> host: what about the book? >> guest: b.c. an extraordinary black-and-white struggle. this is not for people who like shades of gray in the third three treacherous villains. at the same time the response in the penultimate struggle between good and evil, they are entrenching characters who have twists and turns and then benefit wanted to concentrate on someone, probably the race place to start is column/spiegel, the most interesting and asset character in the book. >> host: let's address a black-and-white issue because this is the case for scholars like me, we want to get our audiences to think about things in gray. does this black-and-white idea of defeat that? just go it's a wonderful throwback, maria, to a world -- remember much of this desert and the first half of the 20th century. this in some ways is an assault on moral relativism. if you read the story, you will see the characters are often tormented. wants to preserve the safety of his people in the land of condor, but is also struggling with the means towards doing not. in his case, for instance he finally gives in to his darker nature and pace of this lifetime endangers the entire mission of the so-called fellowship of the ring and their receipt giving end to evil resulting in a very bad outcome. >> host: you mentioned column and he said he exemplifies -- >> guest: he exemplifies within human teacher that there is no absolute determinism. all of us have potential for good and evil. he's been marketed for viewers who have a sense of who is, that he has this extraordinary high-tech character who has a jacqueline hyde personality. the goal is who he once was originally appeared a delight to the hobbit creatures among the most important protagonists. he has his darker side who is synthesized with the very evil ring of power, jeopardize the safety of the entire world and often throughout the story, crucial developments go back and forth in terms of whether the cynical part can stay strong enough to resist the fellowships members, frodo in particular, character we can talk about or rather regrettably the darker side takes over and threatens the world. >> host: you've also written in the book about how gollum represents a paradigm or model and internationalization in the imperialist model. how is that so? to >> guest: yes, that's right. in the story then briefly, alum murders another character who is a friend when they're fishing. the first act of evil that the ring causes because of its own inherent evil is the murder is legal by gollum. what does that have to do with colonialism? the river folk are simple creatures who live by the river, lake to fish coming up in this high-tech device in a fantasy world, the wing is the w. in d., the weapon of mass destruction as soon as it is subject into the simple location of the river folk, what happens, colin murders his friend, a successor to ring and use his magical powers to disappear becomes cannibalistic, reminiscent ultimately over 500 years of unnatural extended life due to the fact that he has the ring commits many heinous acts. this can be seen as a comparison to the effects of very high-tech elegies going into parts of the world they were innocent and pristine and causing terrible things happen. some people over the book that way. >> host: that is one of the many ways of looking at internationalization city of characters representing the other models. relive some, liberalism, who do you see as representative realism? >> guest: realism to form the progressive cause offense of realism is a sense that people live for the gain of power relative to others that they want to ask you that they are imperialistic. a storyline example involving the two wizards who's gone over to the dark side has been overtaken if you will by raising power versus the unofficial leader of the free peoples have a terrible concentration in the jargon, people who encounter are often turned out, but a concept such as bandwagoning plays a key role in offense of realism is that it is appropriate for me to bandwagon, rolled down the hill and join the side that's winning. if you see the movie and read the books, nicks on impassioned plead, which is just extremely dishonest in which he's going to win anyway, let's do that. this communicates a very old concept and one with a lot of staying power in international relations that we see bandwagoning. smaller states join and with hitler's germany during its release of conquest rather than pontificates him, fairmont, the wizard on the dark side and wagons with the evil an incredibly powerful farm, where he speaks for another version of them called out on seeing is that both are about power, but how you choose to deploy your power. he says let's cavemen and divide the spoils and he says very unwise, let us thoughts against him because he does not share power. >> host: you said candle for the book was a representative of what we call in political choice and yet wouldn't have rational choice. i that's winning? >> guest: the answer is that they calculate properly, the correct answer is no because they also can look ahead rather than being myopic and say we cannot did as then it may sound great to be in the so-called winning team, but this is very much like winston churchill's end. we back to help her here, siding with someone that is bandwagoning with him in the fantasy world is a lot like feeding a crocodile, hoping they will eat you last. the rational thing to do is to join the weaker side and try to balance because either you must as one of the american revolutionary said, you must hang together or hang separately. >> host: my favorite monoliths construct that some. how can we see the international relations theory of constructivism and the "lord of the rings"? >> guest: the answer is receiving so many places because to do this in a way that we do in the book, we avoid technical jargon discussions. constructivism is about studying ideas and saying it's not just guns and tanks and planes that matter. it's the power of ideas and if we look at the story of the "lord of the rings," here is one example of this that key actors, i've mentioned a few nsa complex story, so bear with me as they bring in more of them. if you look at a character like frodo, the ring bearer, he is looking at the world around him and don't notice he can introduce multiple theories of a single character. he has to come up with an idea about what this world is all about. is it about black and white, good and evil. he must construct the world and as he grew up in this very idealistic throwback to early modern england, his pastoral place called the shire. there's no ugly as she marry or industry must reconstruct is here because here is his initial view until he begins to have his adventures and gets involved in the "lord of the rings" story. who cares about that. it doesn't concern us here in the shire. many of us call that a construction that isolationism or as he begins to construct a more liberal, cooperative worldview as then i must join with this fellowship because even though we hobbits, we creatures who live in our sample shire would like to stay there and would like to be left alone, that is that realistic anymore. so he berenson discovers and changes his worldview and so to other companions of his could follow their storylines in the above in the same way. there's a famous line or one that really like from the two towers movie and book, or one of fergus hobbit companions is speaking to the splitting tree type creature and they are trying desperately to persuade these scans to be helpful to come into things. they are not sure this concerns than in the care of her shouts, you are part of this world and it causes them to look back at themselves as then they had actually allowed themselves to fall out of it. they had constructed a shell around themselves, but here's the problem. it doesn't always hold true. the shell can break down and the forest burns. >> host: it's all interconnected. >> guest: it is interdependent. do not try to pretend especially under conditions of globalization that there are little airtight compartments in this world and we can stay in one and keep the rest of the now. >> host: let me remind listeners for your speech went patcher chains and the book is called "the international relations of middle-earth: learning from the lord of the rings." this is the scholar circle. i am maria armoudian. the critical theory, how do you find critical theory and the lord the rings? >> guest: critical theory to give you a sense of what it's all about is not in the sense of newton or galileo to explain our universe like a natural scientist, but is looking more as a philosopher might in terms of what is right and wrong. so how in this fantasy world, other than critical theory. what is so fascinating as you will find theories created recently long after his death in 1970s that amazingly enough, storylines represent every character should talk about someone who doesn't make it into the movies and the famous old man willow. he's kind of a cantankerous to the ants. these truly creatures to join the good guys and help out. old man willow is quite nasty and mean in the storyline that's left out, we see him trying to devour the little hobbits early in their time away from the shire. they're so quite ignorant of the outside world. he laid down at the roots of the tree and unfortunately because they are not aware of such things, they risk being devoured by merrill to dallas. word is critical theory coming? intruded in his domain called the old forest always mean trouble. what do they do? paper in the trees, chop them down here this is critical theory expressed in terms of environmentalism. old man willow seems like a villain. he is trying to devour hobbits, bonelli transport ourselves to his domain. what is happening to him? people come into this territory, even right next to his doorstep and they pull and cutting head or his relatives down. old man willow is a centime creature, so it encourages from a critical theory standpoint to step out of the idea that trees firewood waiting to happen our fireplace. for example we might want to rethink what we are doing with the amazon. >> host: and also brings in the issues of justice and the entire system to be either just her and just in feeds into conflict. >> guest: you are absolutely right. it's an interesting struggle between myself and a wonderful collaborator, maria is i think a claimant with albert l., a very fine scholar at tree in three and one point of her career and is more devoted to critical theory, why much more on the colony fuel natural science tastings. she's more interested in justice. i'm are interested in order, not to the exclusion of the others. the book is written in a sense was not an explicit debated always encourages the reader to say now that you've been thinking about order for the last 10 pages per minute will have to think about justice and vice versa. >> host: bicmos or author who integrated feminism? >> guest: yes, i am more known as an exponent of what is called rational choice theory replication of economic models to the study of politics baris at the is quite expert on critical theory, in particular gender-based analysis. were obviously as different as you could get premise that each one serves as a naturally wonderful credit for the other, completely confident to say he went too far there. the book in other words tends to have in my humble opinion, a very pragmatic and balanced sense between order and justice. and then we do not excessive or justice to the point where everybody always has the same things all the time. at the same time we are not so callous that we want order badly enough that we don't care if one person has everything. the tricky thing is where is that appropriate balance in that context? >> guest: do you have a sense the "lord of the rings" allows that debate to come through? >> guest: precisely if you look at the hierarchy of power yet different races, called and asked me cities, these units, the al's who are long-lived, very distant and also they have flaws such as being condescending and somewhat self-absorbed. at the other end of things, powerful creatures, you have the hobbits or a pint sized, physically not very strong and not very knowledgeable with a few exceptions about the outside world. much more fantastic creatures create weakness is, towards who are short but powerful and credible engineers, but here is their flaw, their disgust with wealth. notice the problem that they might not care much about justice as long as they have a lot. they have characters that go over the edge into the so-called oryx and here we go back to the question of moral relativism. they have redeeming characteristics and that is an extreme character to have. they are creations and tormented, if you will, elves. >> host: and quirks you described is part of the realist model prototypes. how are they? >> guest: there's a memorably evil or who is a very exciting confrontation with one of the most horrific characters. he's the king in waiting, leader of the free people, and eventually the good side wins. he is a confrontation with the leader of a high brick stronger than normal and capable of traveling in daylight. these rather miserable and abdominal creatures support the sun and the particular type of work does not in the group i leader epitomizes realism and that he goes on a murderous rampage. all he cares about is offensively destroying his enemies. in other words, he's monomaniacal. he wants power and to destroy things and it does not have any concerns for justice. to him, order is dominate and the free people stride. >> host: he almost sounds like he belongs in another model, the traditional imperialist model. >> guest: essentially an historical version of a sense of realism and the higher imperialism in the 19th century, the great powers of europe sailed the seas, took over within a bad rating of charles darwin saw is extremely theory are people, colonize them. they didn't understand places and is quite ahistorical to pick on them too much for what they did. but you can look at a sort of neocolonial type of assessment through these rampages and in particular, going into places and savaging them that it previously been undisturbed. another storyline not in the movies, a very dark episode that a bit anticlimactic called the scouring of the shire. what happens for the hobbits in this wood is the movie, so they didn't put it in. people know the spoiler on this, of course the good guys have to win or ap be too depressing. when the hobbits go back to their ideal up shop or it's not in the movie. it's been taken over by decrepit reduced version of the evil solemn man. he and his minions have created an ugly industrial shyer. it's filthy, polluted, wonderful novel is full of industrial waste. there's smoke everywhere. in a sense, what this is pointing out about war and its consequences is there is no the jury without also loss, that the shire when they come back have to fight another rearguard doddle to the story occupying force of evil men and they do. the hobbits not because of their battle are able to come back, the four of them who returned for the great adventure come back and lead a hobbit rebellion. things are repaired come to some hobbits have died as a beautiful things in particular, if you recall the bridge between the hobbit and the "lord of the rings," there's something called a party tree that has been destroyed and turned into firewood. >> host: and i said your coworker wrote the feminist chapter, but you've got an entire chapter and another. the "lord of the rings" didn't have much presence of women at all and i wonder if that is part of the feminist critique of international relations theory as well. >> guest: to give women even a smidgen of airtime, they have to change storylines. in the book, for instance, the samoan herbal steam for the character, if you look the the part ultimately isn't all that and she does not rescue frodo from the dark writers, when he's been stabbed, he's going to turn into a ghastly zombielike creature. he needs desperately to get to where the elves have their sanctuary and a very powerful medicine. he's rescued by the beautiful are winning the movie, the other themed course and rescues frodo in the book version. i was character is really pumped up in the movies compared to wish he would be in the books and other characters, the few female characters that matter is not exaggerated. we haven't mentioned her yet. she's arguably the most powerful entity unless i were on can get the rain we've been talking about. if he gets it, all the world full text 10. collateral possesses a second hearing in this incredibly powerful, very wise, some elements of migrating powers as well implied. she's powerful and important. the leading character in the book is quite fascinating. you think a lack of this book was written. she is, if you will come as close as you can get to be in a few assorted female ivanhoe knightly character. she wants to fight alongside the men. she's quite vigorous and capable of doing so, but they won't let her. she actually has to disguise herself and assume the identity of a phony night who becomes a warrior from her kingdom, being allied with the principal kingdom we've been talking about. the people are writers. they were madura people who would live in a baking environment and they are grey horseman and she actually has to describe herself and she plays a crucial role in a very big battle scene in the movie. if she isn't fair, there is a saying about these black writers and the leader cannot be killed by a man. he is ultimately slain in a small hot bit who's not going to be allowed to fight either. the feminist critique as there are women who can do things that men can do. here is where some of my feminist friends who get annoyed me that does something. this is called liberal feminism. the ideas that you and i spent people opportunities opportunities as should everyone and you might then try to excel in the ways i might try to excel. different variants or strains of feminism objective is seen that men are actually different and here we get into another storyline that's not in the movie, is in the books. remember i mentioned this large fantastic living trees, they are all guys. the wife/. they found her sessions with treason knowing. the whites that pardons more exciting. notice the environmentalism again, but also one strand of feminism argues the liberal model where everyone should have an equal opportunity and try to excel in a democratic capitalist societies one kind of feminism, but another win would say we want to be different. we don't want to access with you historically have accessed over. we have different goals. even those nuances can be found in a return to my first point, how many novels have this degree of complexity who get into sub variants and refine entire carrot tours help us with them. >> host: the other aspect of this book and i should remind people it's called "the international relations of middle-earth: learning from the lord of the rings." patrick james is with us. he is the author. this is the scholar circle and i am your host, maria armoudian. you call them levels of analysis, kind of a scholarly term, but how to really understand conflict, you said in the "lord of the rings," just like in world war i, you can look at it from these various perspectives. you can look at the big
United-statesRwandaCaliforniaFairmontSomaliaGermanySamoaSamoanAmericanWinston-churchillCharles-darwinWilliam-jefferson-clinton