Transcripts For CSPAN3 Henry Kissinger American Power A Pol

Test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test. Captioning performed by vitac captioning performed by vitac Richard Nixon is our freddy krueger. This is the normal set of terms. You have not done that. You have wrichb the book with Historical Context of research but also understanding that kissinger knew what we know now. Thats the second wonderful thing about your book is the fact you used neither anachronistic views nor hindsight. I was struck by this in the nixon library, the point you were talking about earlier, tom, the fact they were so obsessed with the 72 election. Youre sitting there going, why are you obsessed . You won every state practically, but they were. You dont have that sense. Its almost a suspense book to read. Whats going to happen . Will vietnam be foretold. Im going to do some bigger, some smaller questions and let you respond. The first one was i did a poll of young students, law students, young professionals, and i said tell me the first three things you think about when you think about kissingers Foreign Policy. What i got was cambodia, chile, argenti argentina, and indochina. No one mentioned china. No one mentioned russia. No one mentioned the middle east. This, of course, is strange. So the question for you, one question, your book, what is so good about it, i think it goes very far to remedying this gap and saying these things you know about Younger Generation are within a much larger context. I wonder how you would explain the lack of this larger picture and what you would say to students if you were talking to them about this to give them the framework that the end of the cold war being 30 years ago has obviously robbed from the way all of us saw history. Thats my first point. Then the second point, which weve all alluded to is the question about small countries. Again, thats what people remember. Chile, the human rights violations. How does kissinger is it just that he sees them as, oh, well, banglade bangladesh, they get in the way of relations, i better not let it distract me or does he have a broader picture. As you say, kissinger wrote 4,000 pages. Yours is but a tiny thing compared to that. You cant talk about these secondary issues. But if you could address that. I guess ill start with two more. One is morality. Barbara, you brought that up. I think jeremy brought it up in his book. I was struck by something else. I am now writing a diplomatic and economic history of international adoption, so ive been immersed, among other things, in the 1975 vietnam baby lift, which kissinger plays a very Important Role in that. Also the evacuation of South Vietnamese, people who worked with United States government. In those fights, and he is fighting, continuously, with congress, with secretary schlesinger. He uses the word moral all the time. He says it is our moral obligation to help the people who helped us. I wonder how much we could look back and say theres a connection between his moral sense of our allies in that context and what he experienced himself growing up in his own life. Finally, because i cant resist, ive got this picture here. I dont know that we can see that. Theres Henry Kissinger in 1960 something. This is truly a cultural question of interest to me. You got the picture. The fact of the matter is and those of us who remember this, and you read about it in the 70s, hes a sex symbol. Okay. I want to keep showing this picture. He was the man about fountain, for all eyes. I cant think of alexander haig, schwartz, mike pompeo in any of those terms, and i wonder if you have any thoughts about his prominence in American Culture at that time. Thank you so much, and congratulations again. Thanks, diane. Tom, briefly. Briefly, yes. I see. Small countries, i think the end of the cold war like many things in history in a larger context in success. They arent good for success, triumphant, a disdain for it. The end. Cold war, a great victory for freedom, all that, but the result is it leads to a send guessing about some of the steps during that time, even world war ii. Subsequently people look at measures undertaken during world war ii. Some you mentioned, chile, argentina, does have to do with you might say the end justifies the means of the cold war. They are also very dramatic, quite emotional and sort of very gripping. I found the documentation on cambodia and argentina very powerful. But i do think that is part of the reason they are the things i remembered and emphasized. I do think on the small countries, kissinger, there was a tendency to disparage smaller countries. Kissinger did have something of that. I told this joke when i went down to australia to lecture at the university, kissinger was once asked why didnt you come to australia. Next time i hold a summit in antartica, ill stop. He was being disdainful about an ally. It was just not important. I think some of the decisions he made and some of the calculations about Smaller Companies do reflect that larger thinking he had about the United States when the world, going back to the nuclear and challenge of the communist world. Kissinger, its interesting you bring up this issue of the baby lift, he did Start Talking about morality of South Vietnamese. The reality is kissinger expected South Vietnam to fall. I think his expectation it would not happen quickly, in a military undertaking but slowly in subversions and elections would lead to the communists taking power and he did feel strongly. He was tarred and feathered for even bringing up that subject on vietnam, given the policy the administration had pursued. He didnt get very far on that. I do think it did reflect something of his notion the people for you, you do anything for you ultimately or you are willing to. I should say, of course, he was at times willing to throw people under the bus as he did with kurds and iran and other situations, so that wasnt a universal principle. But i think he did at times show a genuine concern for those who had assisted the United States in wanting to help them. So im aware of that. The sex symbol thing, i think i actually do have an argument thats beyond Popular Culture that kissinger did exploit the medias fascination with the idea he had this appeal. He was a charming man. He charmed a number of these actresses. He was very smart and could carry on a conversation, also showed an ability to listen that was very appealing. He is known for the quote, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, which i suppose in the metoo era has a tinnish sound and would get him into trouble. The relationships were all for the most part people spoke fopdly of hfopd fondly and admired him. The media had an obsession with the sex symbol. Dealing with journalists, media figures and take advantage of things that appealed to them in what was a relatively colorless administration. He could be an unusual figure. I cant tell you the number of time it was commented upon in some of the tv commentary of the time, this nebbish looking guy was a sex symbol and added to the allure of Henry Kissinger. It added to the fascination and i argue part of his power. Thank you. Before we get to our commentator and the q a with our broader audience, please use hand raising and shout function of zoom to get in line. Soo if you have a question, use that function and we will try to call on you if we have time. Now, they have asked some tough questions. Another commentator might have a hard time. If theres one who can pull this off, its jeremy. Were grateful you joined this panel, jeremy. Great to see you. Distinguished chair leadership in Global Affairs at austin, yale, phd from yale. A professor from the universitys History Department and Lyndon Johnson school of public affairs. Hes the author and editor of ten books on contemporary politics and Foreign Policy. His most recent book, impossible presidency, rise and fall of americas highest office. It has been noted in this context, biography published in 2009. His writings appear widely in blogs and media and hes a frequent public lecturer and guest on television and radio programs. He hosts a weekly podcast through jeremi suri. Net. Pleasure to have you here. Jeremi, you have the floor. Thank you, christian. Let me begin by congratulating tom. Actually tom and diane ive known since i began my graduate student career. Both diane and tom have been so important to my development as a scholar and my continuing growth and learning as a scholar. Its really a pleasure to be here. Its also pleasure to be part of an event. This the second time ive been part of William Roger lewis lecture at the wilson center. Glad to honor a colleague, wonderful to be part of this. Let me jump right in. I want to echo nice and laudatory things people said about toms book. It certainly deserves those. I want to add one more. I really enjoyed this book. I read it twice. One in page proofs and the final version. I really enjoyed it because it made me think. Its a book about kissinger that makes you think about American Power and the development of the United States. Its using kissinger as an insight to the issues. Thats what all of us on the panel have done in our writing about the issues. The book seems to me rests on paradoxes, the phrase tom uses, po polytropic. He can be charming, incredibly superficial. Narcissistic but can negotiate with others in a framework, which most narcissists arent able to do. Theres something in kissinger and tom brings that out. Tom is the only author i know that has run with kissinger being a Political Animal and that fits. As tom says in the first chapter, with the anxiety of influence kissinger has from the start, the desire for power, the desire for, the desire for selfinterest and the trauma of having seen what happens when you dont have power. I think thats something weve agreed on looking at Henry Kissinger. The three paradoxes that stand out to me, i want to flag them and ask a couple of questions about them. Ill try to do this quickly. First tom makes the case and has very persuasivively kissinger is a Political Animal. Makes the case that kissinger is a Political Animal who hates american politics. He hates congress. Congress gets very little mention in the book. Tom is a scholar of congress. Congress bets very little mention in the book because congress is a nuisance for Henry Kissinger throughout, before hes in office and in office. He likes celebrity activities. He doesnt like elections, he doesnt like congress. I say if you dont like elections, you dont like congress, youre not a Political Animal in the american context. How do we make sense of that . Theres a tension there. Thats not a question, im just putting it out there. Second paradox he sees the weakness in democracy, passages, kissinger sees weakness of democratic procedures. A point kinnon made, a point many foreign have made. The entire book is how he exploits the procedures. Exploits spaghetti like nature of american institutions. Turns Security Council created by truman and eisenhower, a planning and administrative body turns it into as Andrew Preston called little white house and a little shop he can make policy on his own. Hes exploiting the weaknesses. One way to read the book, kissinger could not be political successful animal in other other society because the things he does are so sui generous to the american system, nature of interlocking checks and balances and the power that the white house has and the opportunity United States has to use that. Exploiting the weaknesses as a source of his own strength. Then theres a third paradox, which i think all of us on the panel have written about and tom brings this up well. Kissinger is declinist. Hes acutely aware from his writing, the longest thesis at harvard about this about how empires rise and fall. Were in the fall stage. Yet he believes he can extend American Power. Tom makes this point time and again that kissingers urge is to extend power not to conserve power, to extend power, in the to conserve power. Thats also a paradox there that comes through i think very well in toms books. So here are my questions and these are questions in part inspired by the moment were in. Im not going to talk about donald trump. But as with Everything Else his orange hair is hanging over us. If he was there right now, he would be within, i dont know, with all the walls around the white house he wouldnt be very close to us but would be close to us. Here are questions, and these questions come from the strength of this book. I think they are questions i was led to think about deeply because of the incredible work tom has done. Abuse of power by the executive. Kissinger is right there in the belly of the beast. In the prior example we would point to before the one were in right now. Tom is clear that he doesnt believe. He says this a few times, if you read carefully. He doesnt believe kissinger didnt know about it. He finds that believe. He also doesnt believe kissinger is responsible for watergate. What is his role in this . Insofar as he extends executive power in ways no nsc adviser did and then becomes, as tom says in one of his chapters, in essence the Foreign Policy president no one elected. Tom covers this well. Without consulting the president in 1973. To what extent are the abuses of power we see thereafter, are they connected to kissinger. How much of his story is the story of abuse of executive power. I asked him that once, and he was very, very angry, so i hope tom will not be as angry in answering that as he was. Second, for a Political Animal in a Democratic Political context, why does he love dictators so much . It doesnt negate the argument he might be a Political Animal but, again, is not what you would expect. Its not what you would expect. Ronald reagan at times was certainly willing to work with dictators really had this belief that other societies were eventually going to reform and become more democratic. He had a connection, he believed, to what he believed happened as society changed and progressed toward democracy. Kissinger has none of that. How do we reconcile Political Animal, horrors of dictatorship, saw the horrors i struggled with this you showed this tom. Interesting to me. Why is it someone who is a Political Animal and as you show in your last chapter does such a good job to keep himself in the game, in the game at the same time at the same time how can he be so unwilling to take on selfcriticism . Politicians flipflop all the time, just like professors do. We have to. Right . Our students change. We have to say different things. The world changes. I teach reconstruction differently now than five years ago. Part of it because im in texas and you know what, less accomplished in reconstruction than i thought five year ago as i look around in our society. We change. Epa though hes managed as a celebrity to stay connected to figures even like hillary clinton, as you point out, he seems so unwilling, so unwilling to play the game most other politicians do, what i think Robert Mcnamara did brilliantly, apologize, express regret and blame someone else. Mcnamaras argument, terrible things happened in vietnam, i feel terrible about it, and it was Lyndon Johnsons fault. Why isnt kissinger doing that . Why can he not let go . I think thats significant to us, because i think one of the real challenges we face as a country is how do we loving our country, how do we accept express our own selfcriticism . How can we look out into the world . Obama struggled with this, not effectively, he struggled with this honestly. How can we see and admit to our mistakes and actually turn that to our advantage rather than try to cover them up . It does strike me perhaps after november certainly i hope after november, we will be in that position as a country. How are we going to do that . How can we learn in that sense from what kissinger has not done . Again, these topics come out of the depth of the work youve done here, tom. Its a wonderful book. I do want to encourage everyone to read it and buy multiple copies. I know that will make tom very hap happy. Thanks so much, jeremi. Great questions. Tom. Wow. Jeremi poses some excellent points, and i appreciate very much what he said about the b k book, making him think. Thats the highest praise you can give an author, youve gotten them to think about something. That certainly is one of the things i hope to do in the book to get people to think about these subjects. On the abuse of power by the executive, well, yes. I think kissinger was one of these figures, in a way his own concern about leaks, of course, was one of the driving things that led Richard Nixon or that encouraged Richard Nixon on a path he probably would have gone on anyway to get the plumbers and that kissinger had a connection through some of the people who worked on his staff as well. One of them has written a fascinating doctoral dissertation and i encourage people to look that up. I think kissinger this is where kissinger both being political and nonpolitical paid off in a way the image he shaped. The president doesnt talk to me about domestic politics, was something the media was more than happy to believe and very happy to buy into and give him a pass. Theres a wonderful line, Richard Nixon<\/a> is our freddy krueger. This is the normal set of terms. You have not done that. You have wrichb the book with Historical Context<\/a> of research but also understanding that kissinger knew what we know now. Thats the second wonderful thing about your book is the fact you used neither anachronistic views nor hindsight. I was struck by this in the nixon library, the point you were talking about earlier, tom, the fact they were so obsessed with the 72 election. Youre sitting there going, why are you obsessed . You won every state practically, but they were. You dont have that sense. Its almost a suspense book to read. Whats going to happen . Will vietnam be foretold. Im going to do some bigger, some smaller questions and let you respond. The first one was i did a poll of young students, law students, young professionals, and i said tell me the first three things you think about when you think about kissingers Foreign Policy<\/a>. What i got was cambodia, chile, argenti argentina, and indochina. No one mentioned china. No one mentioned russia. No one mentioned the middle east. This, of course, is strange. So the question for you, one question, your book, what is so good about it, i think it goes very far to remedying this gap and saying these things you know about Younger Generation<\/a> are within a much larger context. I wonder how you would explain the lack of this larger picture and what you would say to students if you were talking to them about this to give them the framework that the end of the cold war being 30 years ago has obviously robbed from the way all of us saw history. Thats my first point. Then the second point, which weve all alluded to is the question about small countries. Again, thats what people remember. Chile, the human rights violations. How does kissinger is it just that he sees them as, oh, well, banglade bangladesh, they get in the way of relations, i better not let it distract me or does he have a broader picture. As you say, kissinger wrote 4,000 pages. Yours is but a tiny thing compared to that. You cant talk about these secondary issues. But if you could address that. I guess ill start with two more. One is morality. Barbara, you brought that up. I think jeremy brought it up in his book. I was struck by something else. I am now writing a diplomatic and economic history of international adoption, so ive been immersed, among other things, in the 1975 vietnam baby lift, which kissinger plays a very Important Role<\/a> in that. Also the evacuation of South Vietnam<\/a>ese, people who worked with United States<\/a> government. In those fights, and he is fighting, continuously, with congress, with secretary schlesinger. He uses the word moral all the time. He says it is our moral obligation to help the people who helped us. I wonder how much we could look back and say theres a connection between his moral sense of our allies in that context and what he experienced himself growing up in his own life. Finally, because i cant resist, ive got this picture here. I dont know that we can see that. Theres Henry Kissinger<\/a> in 1960 something. This is truly a cultural question of interest to me. You got the picture. The fact of the matter is and those of us who remember this, and you read about it in the 70s, hes a sex symbol. Okay. I want to keep showing this picture. He was the man about fountain, for all eyes. I cant think of alexander haig, schwartz, mike pompeo in any of those terms, and i wonder if you have any thoughts about his prominence in American Culture<\/a> at that time. Thank you so much, and congratulations again. Thanks, diane. Tom, briefly. Briefly, yes. I see. Small countries, i think the end of the cold war like many things in history in a larger context in success. They arent good for success, triumphant, a disdain for it. The end. Cold war, a great victory for freedom, all that, but the result is it leads to a send guessing about some of the steps during that time, even world war ii. Subsequently people look at measures undertaken during world war ii. Some you mentioned, chile, argentina, does have to do with you might say the end justifies the means of the cold war. They are also very dramatic, quite emotional and sort of very gripping. I found the documentation on cambodia and argentina very powerful. But i do think that is part of the reason they are the things i remembered and emphasized. I do think on the small countries, kissinger, there was a tendency to disparage smaller countries. Kissinger did have something of that. I told this joke when i went down to australia to lecture at the university, kissinger was once asked why didnt you come to australia. Next time i hold a summit in antartica, ill stop. He was being disdainful about an ally. It was just not important. I think some of the decisions he made and some of the calculations about Smaller Companies<\/a> do reflect that larger thinking he had about the United States<\/a> when the world, going back to the nuclear and challenge of the communist world. Kissinger, its interesting you bring up this issue of the baby lift, he did Start Talking<\/a> about morality of South Vietnam<\/a>ese. The reality is kissinger expected South Vietnam<\/a> to fall. I think his expectation it would not happen quickly, in a military undertaking but slowly in subversions and elections would lead to the communists taking power and he did feel strongly. He was tarred and feathered for even bringing up that subject on vietnam, given the policy the administration had pursued. He didnt get very far on that. I do think it did reflect something of his notion the people for you, you do anything for you ultimately or you are willing to. I should say, of course, he was at times willing to throw people under the bus as he did with kurds and iran and other situations, so that wasnt a universal principle. But i think he did at times show a genuine concern for those who had assisted the United States<\/a> in wanting to help them. So im aware of that. The sex symbol thing, i think i actually do have an argument thats beyond Popular Culture<\/a> that kissinger did exploit the medias fascination with the idea he had this appeal. He was a charming man. He charmed a number of these actresses. He was very smart and could carry on a conversation, also showed an ability to listen that was very appealing. He is known for the quote, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, which i suppose in the metoo era has a tinnish sound and would get him into trouble. The relationships were all for the most part people spoke fopdly of hfopd fondly and admired him. The media had an obsession with the sex symbol. Dealing with journalists, media figures and take advantage of things that appealed to them in what was a relatively colorless administration. He could be an unusual figure. I cant tell you the number of time it was commented upon in some of the tv commentary of the time, this nebbish looking guy was a sex symbol and added to the allure of Henry Kissinger<\/a>. It added to the fascination and i argue part of his power. Thank you. Before we get to our commentator and the q a with our broader audience, please use hand raising and shout function of zoom to get in line. Soo if you have a question, use that function and we will try to call on you if we have time. Now, they have asked some tough questions. Another commentator might have a hard time. If theres one who can pull this off, its jeremy. Were grateful you joined this panel, jeremy. Great to see you. Distinguished chair leadership in Global Affairs<\/a> at austin, yale, phd from yale. A professor from the universitys History Department<\/a> and Lyndon Johnson<\/a> school of public affairs. Hes the author and editor of ten books on contemporary politics and Foreign Policy<\/a>. His most recent book, impossible presidency, rise and fall of americas highest office. It has been noted in this context, biography published in 2009. His writings appear widely in blogs and media and hes a frequent public lecturer and guest on television and radio programs. He hosts a weekly podcast through jeremi suri. Net. Pleasure to have you here. Jeremi, you have the floor. Thank you, christian. Let me begin by congratulating tom. Actually tom and diane ive known since i began my graduate student career. Both diane and tom have been so important to my development as a scholar and my continuing growth and learning as a scholar. Its really a pleasure to be here. Its also pleasure to be part of an event. This the second time ive been part of William Roger<\/a> lewis lecture at the wilson center. Glad to honor a colleague, wonderful to be part of this. Let me jump right in. I want to echo nice and laudatory things people said about toms book. It certainly deserves those. I want to add one more. I really enjoyed this book. I read it twice. One in page proofs and the final version. I really enjoyed it because it made me think. Its a book about kissinger that makes you think about American Power<\/a> and the development of the United States<\/a>. Its using kissinger as an insight to the issues. Thats what all of us on the panel have done in our writing about the issues. The book seems to me rests on paradoxes, the phrase tom uses, po polytropic. He can be charming, incredibly superficial. Narcissistic but can negotiate with others in a framework, which most narcissists arent able to do. Theres something in kissinger and tom brings that out. Tom is the only author i know that has run with kissinger being a Political Animal<\/a> and that fits. As tom says in the first chapter, with the anxiety of influence kissinger has from the start, the desire for power, the desire for, the desire for selfinterest and the trauma of having seen what happens when you dont have power. I think thats something weve agreed on looking at Henry Kissinger<\/a>. The three paradoxes that stand out to me, i want to flag them and ask a couple of questions about them. Ill try to do this quickly. First tom makes the case and has very persuasivively kissinger is a Political Animal<\/a>. Makes the case that kissinger is a Political Animal<\/a> who hates american politics. He hates congress. Congress gets very little mention in the book. Tom is a scholar of congress. Congress bets very little mention in the book because congress is a nuisance for Henry Kissinger<\/a> throughout, before hes in office and in office. He likes celebrity activities. He doesnt like elections, he doesnt like congress. I say if you dont like elections, you dont like congress, youre not a Political Animal<\/a> in the american context. How do we make sense of that . Theres a tension there. Thats not a question, im just putting it out there. Second paradox he sees the weakness in democracy, passages, kissinger sees weakness of democratic procedures. A point kinnon made, a point many foreign have made. The entire book is how he exploits the procedures. Exploits spaghetti like nature of american institutions. Turns Security Council<\/a> created by truman and eisenhower, a planning and administrative body turns it into as Andrew Preston<\/a> called little white house and a little shop he can make policy on his own. Hes exploiting the weaknesses. One way to read the book, kissinger could not be political successful animal in other other society because the things he does are so sui generous to the american system, nature of interlocking checks and balances and the power that the white house has and the opportunity United States<\/a> has to use that. Exploiting the weaknesses as a source of his own strength. Then theres a third paradox, which i think all of us on the panel have written about and tom brings this up well. Kissinger is declinist. Hes acutely aware from his writing, the longest thesis at harvard about this about how empires rise and fall. Were in the fall stage. Yet he believes he can extend American Power<\/a>. Tom makes this point time and again that kissingers urge is to extend power not to conserve power, to extend power, in the to conserve power. Thats also a paradox there that comes through i think very well in toms books. So here are my questions and these are questions in part inspired by the moment were in. Im not going to talk about donald trump. But as with Everything Else<\/a> his orange hair is hanging over us. If he was there right now, he would be within, i dont know, with all the walls around the white house he wouldnt be very close to us but would be close to us. Here are questions, and these questions come from the strength of this book. I think they are questions i was led to think about deeply because of the incredible work tom has done. Abuse of power by the executive. Kissinger is right there in the belly of the beast. In the prior example we would point to before the one were in right now. Tom is clear that he doesnt believe. He says this a few times, if you read carefully. He doesnt believe kissinger didnt know about it. He finds that believe. He also doesnt believe kissinger is responsible for watergate. What is his role in this . Insofar as he extends executive power in ways no nsc adviser did and then becomes, as tom says in one of his chapters, in essence the Foreign Policy<\/a> president no one elected. Tom covers this well. Without consulting the president in 1973. To what extent are the abuses of power we see thereafter, are they connected to kissinger. How much of his story is the story of abuse of executive power. I asked him that once, and he was very, very angry, so i hope tom will not be as angry in answering that as he was. Second, for a Political Animal<\/a> in a Democratic Political<\/a> context, why does he love dictators so much . It doesnt negate the argument he might be a Political Animal<\/a> but, again, is not what you would expect. Its not what you would expect. Ronald reagan at times was certainly willing to work with dictators really had this belief that other societies were eventually going to reform and become more democratic. He had a connection, he believed, to what he believed happened as society changed and progressed toward democracy. Kissinger has none of that. How do we reconcile Political Animal<\/a>, horrors of dictatorship, saw the horrors i struggled with this you showed this tom. Interesting to me. Why is it someone who is a Political Animal<\/a> and as you show in your last chapter does such a good job to keep himself in the game, in the game at the same time at the same time how can he be so unwilling to take on selfcriticism . Politicians flipflop all the time, just like professors do. We have to. Right . Our students change. We have to say different things. The world changes. I teach reconstruction differently now than five years ago. Part of it because im in texas and you know what, less accomplished in reconstruction than i thought five year ago as i look around in our society. We change. Epa though hes managed as a celebrity to stay connected to figures even like hillary clinton, as you point out, he seems so unwilling, so unwilling to play the game most other politicians do, what i think Robert Mcnamara<\/a> did brilliantly, apologize, express regret and blame someone else. Mcnamaras argument, terrible things happened in vietnam, i feel terrible about it, and it was Lyndon Johnson<\/a>s fault. Why isnt kissinger doing that . Why can he not let go . I think thats significant to us, because i think one of the real challenges we face as a country is how do we loving our country, how do we accept express our own selfcriticism . How can we look out into the world . Obama struggled with this, not effectively, he struggled with this honestly. How can we see and admit to our mistakes and actually turn that to our advantage rather than try to cover them up . It does strike me perhaps after november certainly i hope after november, we will be in that position as a country. How are we going to do that . How can we learn in that sense from what kissinger has not done . Again, these topics come out of the depth of the work youve done here, tom. Its a wonderful book. I do want to encourage everyone to read it and buy multiple copies. I know that will make tom very hap happy. Thanks so much, jeremi. Great questions. Tom. Wow. Jeremi poses some excellent points, and i appreciate very much what he said about the b k book, making him think. Thats the highest praise you can give an author, youve gotten them to think about something. That certainly is one of the things i hope to do in the book to get people to think about these subjects. On the abuse of power by the executive, well, yes. I think kissinger was one of these figures, in a way his own concern about leaks, of course, was one of the driving things that led Richard Nixon<\/a> or that encouraged Richard Nixon<\/a> on a path he probably would have gone on anyway to get the plumbers and that kissinger had a connection through some of the people who worked on his staff as well. One of them has written a fascinating doctoral dissertation and i encourage people to look that up. I think kissinger this is where kissinger both being political and nonpolitical paid off in a way the image he shaped. The president doesnt talk to me about domestic politics, was something the media was more than happy to believe and very happy to buy into and give him a pass. Theres a wonderful line, Walter Cronkite<\/a> at his 50th Birthday Party<\/a> for kissinger was asked what they gave him. He said we gave him a pardon. Walter cronkite is the Network Person<\/a> saying that. It was this notion, he might have known these things but we dont care. Hes not like them. Kissinger, this was one of his genius in some ways, keeping a distance from american politics, suggested in other ways was a paradox, but also it played to his favor in this context. He was able not to be drawn down by the abuses of watergate. In fact, nixon also served a role in that by elevating him and thinking it would save his presiden presidency. To the extent kissinger cuss ger was annoyed by congress, no question, didnt believe congress deserved the role it was trying to assert on Foreign Policy<\/a>. Lets face it, in American History<\/a> weve gone back and forth. Weve had times when congress did play a role but its a tough institution in Foreign Policy<\/a>. Weve admired president s who directed Foreign Policy<\/a>. I think we admire a george h. W. Bush who led Foreign Policy<\/a> and in some ways h. W. Came close to defying congress over the gulf war. I think on this question of where the separation of powers lies in Foreign Policy<\/a>, i go back to the old line its an invitation to struggle. Its a struggle thats gone on throughout American History<\/a>. Im not sure im not defending kissinger on everything there but i think this question is responsibility for abuses has to be put into that context. Why do you love dictators . Well, you could make deals with dictators, or at least this was the perception he had. The best contrast, obviously the unsavory ones in latin america isnt a good example, the best example was anwar sadat, he could basically bring egypt around and change his policy. To kissinger, this was a huge achievement. It changed the whole dynamics of the middle east. At the same time it drove him crazy, the Israeli Parliament<\/a> and political system and its tendency to pound him down on every concession that woulding made. Its ironic in retrospect hes seen as someone defending. At the time he was excoriated by israelis for not being sufficiently supported. I think thats probably the answer. Obviously in many respects thats how we got president s like dictators since. Yes, contemporary we seem to have one with an enormous fondness for them. Its not terribly surprising again that dictators have a certain appeal. Jimmy carter, one of the most moral men to be in the white house, loved anwar sadat, gives you an idea. Your last point about his willingness to undertake selfcriticism. I take your point in many ways on an individual level selfcriticism is a great thing we need to teach. Im not sure it works politically. Yes, in the context of academia. But its costly to acknowledge your mistakes. The bill clinton apologies come to me. I think americans are torn on that issue. On the one hand, i think there is an inclination to like someone who says to hell with you, im sticking to my guns, this sort of thing versus the more empathetic and willingness to acknowledge these things. Im not i think that Robert Mcnamara<\/a>s apology got hammered in the New York Times<\/a> at the time. I think kissinger had a certain awareness you cant apologize. In a way you will be hammered one way or the other on whatever you choose. It may be a reflection, maybe in the depth of his soul kissinger does think about these things or is prepared to. I watched just to get back into the frame of mind, i watched the documentary kneel ferguson d neal did, i would have done the same thing, as much as it was painful. He doesnt seem to have that particular characteristic. Im not sure it was politically advantageous or even politically as appealing as it might seem right now when we may face that issue in a few months. Thank you. This morning second Panel Confirmation Hearing<\/a> for three nominees to the federal election commission. Watch live coverage from the senate rules and Administration Committee<\/a> starting at 10 00 eastern on cspan3. Online at cspan. Org or listen on the free cspan radio app. Youre watching cspan3, your unfiltered view of government created by americas Cable Television<\/a> companies as a Public Service<\/a> and brought to you today by your television provid provider. Senator tina smith, democrat from minnesota, talks about advances in telehealth and mental health","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801707.us.archive.org\/3\/items\/CSPAN3_20201118_133000_Henry_Kissinger__American_Power_A_Political_Biography\/CSPAN3_20201118_133000_Henry_Kissinger__American_Power_A_Political_Biography.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20201118_133000_Henry_Kissinger__American_Power_A_Political_Biography_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}