driven, so notched into these partisan categories, meanwhile, just this past week we have a doctor, whose work is literally saving women's lives, who have to get late term abortions, with the children who would be born dermed, d, he was shot in cold blood, after the entire kansas republican party, entire right wing of the party made that doctor dr. george tiller, the subject of vilification, for over ten years.

we have over - sent law forcement officers so far in the term of barack obama, who have been shot by men who are terrified that barack obama i going to ke their guns away. i don't think the kind of divisions i'm talking about have by any means been transcended. barack obama's vision is to build consensus, and whether he's going to be able to cross these bridges, and build consensus, is, again, very much still in -- an open question. >> and, to echo rick, by no means have our election systems been fixed t the extent that -- to really counteract and of the problems i have been talking about. and, we have here even with the democrats -- take a look locally in illinois, we have democrats in power at t state, they run

both houses, and in congress, w have a democratic administration, they run both houses, the senate is now almost filibuster-proof, 59. and, they still can't take bold actions against the credit card industry for example and cap interest rates. so, even on substantive matters, we have a quote-unquote opposition party that has now become the ruling party, and, ruling with an abundant majority and they still can't take brave actions against corporate interests in washington, d.c. i would argue that the system has not changed at all, because we still have campaign finance problems. both locally here, which we didn't fix, and, nationally, and we have our politicians marinating in corporate campaign ntribution and, they do not have an interest, ultimately, at the end of the day to cut off their funding andhe reason why is because we have systemic

problems. not only do we not have federal financing or state financing, like some states do, but we have awinner-take-all system. and when you have a winner take all system what you have is almost an incumbent protection going on and on and on. 9 -- in a where between 95%, 98% of our people in congress are returned. why haven't we had a significant overturn in our congressional levels? because of redistricting. if you te a look, if you ask yourself the question of why do we have these people in power d then you move up the food chain to see systemically, where is the problem, the problem comes back to, a winner take all system, where you have to have 50% of the votes, in a congressional district, and so you don't have competition. people know it is almost a forgone conclusion in the vast majority of our races here who is going to win the election.

such that there is not competition and the other major party doe't show tp in most of these elections because they know they will not win that particular geographic district and so, we have a lot of people who are protected, government cycle, election cycle after election cycle who go back and even when they have a major force orontrol all of the mechanisms of power, still will not say no to their corpora pay masters. >> let me ask you both, then, is it really a structural tyranny or is it a lack of demand, since 1928, i believe, we have had third party or independent candidates on every presidential llot, only twice have you seen a third-party candidate get more than 10% of t vote as i said in the last election, third parties were barely heard of. i want to ask you, are peoe pretty comfortable with the two-party system. >> i'm glad you asked that again

because you had originally said tyranny and democracy and i wanted to be clear it is night tyranny of democracy, i think we need more democracy, it's the tyranny of the majority that has suppressed the minority and tt if you take a look at the systemic problems weave in place, everything from the campaign finance system to the presidential debates commissions to the really odious, heinous ballot access laws we have across this country that would make other countries blush if they -- i mean, we are so far the outlier in terms of how we dictate who want get on the ballot and offer their candidacy to the american people that it islmost incomprehensible we have gotten tohis state, in part demand is dictated by to what extent there can be a chance for political supply. and, there is no fair level

playing field of competition in the u.s., if you are a third party, an independent, trying to run for the presidency. if we had much easier time of being able to get, for example, on some of the free media, the bandwidth that is dominated by the broadcasters, we -- i mean, right now, you know, ross perot, remember he had to buy his commercials, well, he could afford to buy those commercials and most third party and independent candidates cannot challenge the two parties structure on the lunch money that they have. and, so, until we fix some of the systemic problems, we are not going to get very viable third party and independent candidates, unless you are self-finance and a multi-millionaire. >> it is really striking how little structural democracy there is in the american system. i mean, if senators from the states representing 11% of the population decide they wanted to ba together and fill buster a

bill, that senators representing 89% of the population wanted, they could filibuster it because we have a senate that, you know, grants two representatives to every state, wheep they have 10 million people or whether they have 10 people. now, why did that come about? it wasn't an accident, the idea is that we would have minorities protected, by these checks and balances, what was the minority the founders were interested in protecting it was the slave holding states who would not allow themselves to join the union without what was called in philadelphia at the constitutional coention, the grand compromise. and it has been an ongoing strqggle every decade, every century of arican history, ever sie, to expand the possibily of the popular will being recognize and until 1913 i think it was, senators were elected by state representatives. you couldn't even vote for a senator if you were an ordinary citizen.

so, the struggle foremocracy in america is ongoing. i think theresa is onto something very important. i'm not sure ralph nader is necessarily the best witness for the prosecution, precisely because he did such a brilliant and important job of holding regulatory agencies to account. when he was the g who was a national figure, fighting for those issues. and now that he is -- made himself a presidential candidate he has become unfortunately very in effect tulle in the most important work he has done. t, the -- absolutely, absolutely we need more democracy in america and won't get it until there is serious popular will for that. >> if youook closely at the 1968 election, george wallace got 13.5% of the vote, it was i a good thing for democracy. >> this is an excellent question and when i look ba, third parties in america, most frequently in our century, have been basically formed by

southerners, hoping to hold the balance of power in the electoral college co they could basically broker who the president wouldet to be and were never successful and it started back in 1948, strom thurmond ran as a dixiecrat and the idea was, if he could deny truman or dewey a majority of the electoral college they'd have to say, well, we'll vote for you in the housef representatives, because that is who decides the tie-breake if you, you know, promise not to grant civil rights for african-americans. and wallace had the same idea, he was explicit about it and was going to try and become president without a majority of the vote. and that is -- it is a difficult thin i would like to throw it to theresa. i thinkften because we do have -- what is really an unfair system, if you get 49.999% of the vote you get zero power in america and whoever gets .00001% of the vote and controls that, you now, can literally tip the

balance. it's an unfair system but often the people who tried to up the th blend and don't most successfully have been people who don't necessarily wish all the citizens in our country well. >> so i'm glad you went back there, becse we should ask ourselves, why in the 21st centur we still have an electoral college. >> excellent question. >>you know, there is an excellent book out called fixing elections. that was written by steven hill. and there are -- have been -- there is a natiol movement each going on now, with the national popular vote plan, of ople who haveried to work around the electoral college, you know, steven hill points out that when our constitution was itten, it was cutting edge, but, today it is horse and buggy. and there have been in the last 200 years all kinds of different mechanisms for how to conduct elections. that are far more choice maximizing, that are far more

representative of the will of the people. and why don't we have a direct vote for president of the united states, at the dawn of the 21st century, why don't we have that and why don't we havether alternativ vote maximizing systems like instant r off voting for -- there is range of different kinds of votings, try out cumulative voting, et cetera because we don't learn about them, because there is no organized constituey to move these she's and these they're systems that trap us into the lack of competition, we have an uncompetitive decracy, precisely becaus unless you think you can get 50.01% of the voted it is almost hard to start trying and voters know, why do we have a situation where we have close to 100 million no-shows for the presidential election. 100 million no-shows to vote for president of the united states,

i mean, why do we have that, because people are figuring out, that their vote doesn't count. in one stater nor if they're a blue or red state and the system forces though candidates to go only to a narrow spectrum of states, catered to those voters, how the people in ohio feel, or the people in florida feel, and, that is where all of the money goes, where the ads goes, and -- ads go where the campaigns go and those are the people who are spoken to. you know, we start in iowa. is iowa reflective of the united states of america. >> when abraham lincoln said so that government by the people, for the people of the people did you not parish from the earth as the mission of our civil war, that was when america really was the onlyemocracy in the world and blessedl new democracies since then with accelerating pace especially after world war ii have proliferated. and, everyon faced the choice, what kind of constitution would they have nd america is

supposed to be a shining city upon a hill. how many of those countries chose a bicameral legislature, a three branches of government, two parties, how man chose to emulate the u.s. constitution? instead of, say a parliamentary system, where a minority group has a much better chance of getting thin through, when in congress, if you have 50% plus one in a single chamber of the legislature you can actually have agent jor rule and get things like health care and why hasn't any other country chosen that because our system is not particularly an effective way of registering the public will. >> and how many chose an electoral college, and let's answer the queson, none. no one did. not one country since 1974, we ha been in this great wave of democrac building and dem mockization across the world and in the u.s., wherehe title of the book comes in, we live under

this iusion that we are the model of demoacy, for the rest of the world, none of these countries, we're talking 30-plus at least. adopt it. >> didn't even ask them, to we didn't tell iraq you should have a constitution like ours, they have a parliament like england's. >> we just went through this in illinois, impeach governor and try and shame legislative leaders into more trons partners and openness in government and we found out they'll tak a lot of shaming, rather than... [laughter]. >> i think a lot of people in florida, of 2000 were shockedo find out the supreme court said we had no constitutional right to vote. that it was up to your legislatures to let you vote for president. really. and -- >> a lot of ideas i really liked in the book about opening things up, one i was taken by was the idea of none of the above ve option so if none of the above gets 50-plus -- >> that is a serious proposal.

>> nobody wins and you re-- find new candidates, has anybody -- has that idea gotten anywhere. >> you know, it has been proposed. but, i certainly we haven't adopted it. they have it in other countries, not our country, really, and i think that maybe it would be an incentive fo remember i talked pow a good chunk of the american people, not even showing up to voted, coming and saying, look i don't approve of any of these candidates, and, let's find a better way. let's get more candidates, let's find different viewpoints, i really want to have a choice on my ballot andot have my ballot dictated or unfairly narrowed to just one, two or three choice i mean, how many people have goneo vote and have found elections where there were not more candidates than the open seats? there is -- right! there's often no competition whatsoever. on the baot. >> remember michael moore, when

he ran a ficus for every open seat in congress in the u.s., few years back. >> and you also mention in the book and tried to push and have the gotten nowhere on is the idea of redistricting done by something or somebody oth than the pple who have the vested interestn redistricting. and in i was, i don't know how much closer you look at the iowa system, where essentially a computer gets involved and you do try and create competion rather than incumbent protection. >> well, i was not -- iowas is not a perfect system either but we should get to the point where we have nonpartin drawings of the ballot, here we flip a coin and younowf the democrats win, it will favor the democrats, and the republicans win,t will favor the republicans, and for the next decade. you will be stuck with however the coin flip cam out, and we need to get to a point where, you know, i would prefer we get to a opponent where we have proportional representation and

then you would have situations that translate into something different,ou know, i want to ju not tie this to the electoral system because, the electoral system translates directly into the substantive issues of what you get to see and hear and debate in our legislatures across the country andongress and look most recently, senator max baucus, had a hearing, where they were going to talk about rorming the health care system. and you had all of these people and he said,verybody is going toe represented, and still, the people who support single payors, a good majority chunk of the people didn't even have a seat at the table. because one option was deemed not to be in the seat at the table and now if there were members of congress elected who came from districts that had a proportional representation and you had different parties there, you would have seen single payor at the table because, they would have insured single payor got a

seat at the table because they woulhave been representing districts or parties that had that as part of their platform. so, it is important to put the entire -- election system into the context of how that translates whether in favor of this proposal, or not. the question is, should it be heard? should there be somebody there representing that position? i don't care if you support one or the other or whatnot, but, to say, we can't even have tha voice present in our halls of conress, is ridiculous. >> rick what is the nicest thing you can say about richard nixon? >> he was a very good father, his daughters both spoke very highly of him. but, e besides at, as a politician, seriously, i tried to write a book that is sympathetic and that shows empathy towards him. this is a guy 60% of the american people decided -- not 60%, i should say defer to

theresa, 60% of the american people who chose to voted in 1927 which had the lowest turnout of any election up to that point decided that he represented their aspiration and wish and i wold be insulting those americans by saying, there was nothing worth while in the man. i think what is most admirable, about richard nixon was simply his courage, physical courage, spiritual courage, he refused to back down, when more forces more powerful than he tried to trample upon him, and, you know, physicly speaking that was profoundly manifested when he was in south america in 1958 or 1959, i forget which and a mob started throwing stones at him and staying, death to nixon and he got out of the limousine and looked them in the eyes and said, i dar you, basically, to say that to my face. and talked down the mob and politically, a great example in 1952, when he was under a cloud

-- supposed to be improprieties, probably really weren'tnd the aders of the republican party, made him go on tv and told him he had to resign and what he did in the checked speech was he didn't resign and in fact turned it back on his tormenters, and said they were just as possible as he was, and stayed on the ticket. and won thousands and thousands of telegrams, 98%, supporting him staying on the ticket and did that practically without notes, and did that practically without preparation and the red lighted on the camera went on and stared it in the eye and stared the american people in the eyen the biggest tv audience up to thatoint and he won his case. and, you know that is a lot of character and there is a lot not to admire and we'll if save i for another time. >> there are liberal democrats that longed for the days of richard nixon substantively in terms of what s pass and signed in legislation and go back to a-the late 1960s, early 1970s, you s the freedom of

information laws, osha, clean water, go on and on the kinds of things nixon actually signed into law. >> the policy environment was a lot further to the left then and ths complicated question, though. >> it vis complicated -- >> but interesting. i don't know how much time we have. >> we'll take questions from audience in a minute and i ask you go to the microphone in the center aisle and while you go to the microphone in the center aisle i'll ask one more question, rick you write in the book, the lesson of the the '60s, liberals get in the biggest political trouble when they presume that a reform is inevitable, concomitant of progress and it is then they are most likely to establish their reforms by top-down bureaucratic means of blind siding backlash often ensues and you snow how a president, who is running general motors, a president pushing national health care, and put a trillion dollars into federal stimulus, is there going to b a blind siding backlash. >> you do pick one of my favorite lines of the book, i

appreciate that. i don't think that that is a particularly good example, we are talking about reforms that wereupported by the previous president, too. i mean, there is a pretty big consensus among large parts of at least the people who kw what they are talking about in these sorts 0 things we have no choice. and, i was thinking more of things like, for example, the experts in the psychological field, and social work were saying, well, kids really need learn about sexeducation. so, basically, school districts instituted quite, you know, made and thoughtful sex education program and there were blinding backlashes because the idea of the goverent basically reachingnto what was seen as an area of instruction and life that was seen that's prerogative of the family, was something that brought about great panic and great backlash. i think tha witharack obama,

taking these kinds of emergency economic measures, the metaphor is a l more of a war time presidejt and people will rally behind them because we know it's a time of crisis and i'm not worrd about the backlash there. >> yes, sir. >> hi, more perlstein i read "nixonland" with great pleasure and despite the subject matter, it was not without a sense of humor, black human or of course and i was struck by reading the book, you know, there were many references to up liberal republics. conservative democrats. these are not phrasesou hear any more. >> like the zebra elephant. >> right. and it is just kind of like, huh! you know, and if you can maybe kind of clarify, you know, kind of what -- again you don't hear these words and are tse people just cynical opportunityists, true believers? you know, your conservative

conservative, liberal liberals, but like itched -- >> it is fascinating the structure of how people understood i dee i don't agree in the party systemhifted over basically since richard nixon and reagan came to prominence and theresa has it in her book and people were terrified, pundits of the experts, the people who wrote editorials, like to say the david brode of the day, they were of course david broder, but -- [laughter]. >> -- we are terrified of the idea of passions rning away with us and the reason for that was because they had known the experience of fascism and had knn the experience of europe turning to a house of demigoings, reaching out to pele's passionate trasz and both parties had to have an equal number of liberals and conservatives and had to be bizarres and they were, and it was fascinating. and in new york you had a senator like jake javitz probably the most aggressively

civil rights senators, he was a republican and the democrats had theodore bilbow, the mississippi senator who wrote separation or mongrelization, take your choice. and, one of the great dramas of american history i certainly can't tell five seconds or 15 seconds or 15 minutes is why that sense ability broke apart. and, actually a lot of it probably had to do with the way politicians chang the way they tried tout together coalitions, that included 50% plus one of the electorate. and it probably one have shaken out either way,he broker system or the ideological system had we not had the winner take allystem and theser rich, fascinating an complicated questions. >> and how they raised money. and who they had to raise money from, in order to run. so... >> we're in the lightning round now, five minutes left, we have several people that want to ask

questions and i want to get everybody a chance and i'llsk you to keep the questions succinct and the answers as well. >> all right, two questions for both, one, i'm hearing the word structuring tyranny and shocks me. you know, i had a gentleman over from uganda, and my house and he said boy i can't believe how everything went well, people just voted, andhey went on their merry way and anyways, you know, i don't hear you putting any respond on the voters, 100 million didn't even show up and you mentioned there are multipl candidates on the --or president in florida, and i don't think the problem is a structural tyranny, i mean, everybody is allowed to voted and you can look at whatever media you want to look the. and i don't hear, people a getting what they are voting for or not voting for. i mean, the problem for me seems to be, rest much more with the voters like to hear you response and mr. perlstein, in terms of -- people not getting along, you know, the case you bring up,

with the physicianeing shot, is absolutely the exception not the rule here in this country. given the polarization and number 2 it seems like, like to hear your response, to me you vilified the legislators that quote-unquote vilified him and did what democracy calls for, not the person who shot the doctor and he there is vilified, like to hear your response. >> quickly what the legislators in kansas did was say a man saving lives was murdering people for money. and, i think that is beyond the pale in a democratic republic and that is what i have to say an pass it over to theresa. >> at the ends of the day, i mean, it is the individual voter. and, all reform in the u.s. is woodrow wilson was fond of saying starts at the ballot box, i'm paraphrasing him. but you have to look at the context in which the individual voter grows up.

lives. sees thehoices and the flip side of voter rights are candidates' rights and the structure that we encourage everything from how you grow up learning about what kind of system we live in in the u.s. to whether you are ever taught to go and have some kind of emphasis placed on the importance of the vote, whether you learn that people died for the right to vote, and to expand the franchise in the u.s., and whether you are -- whether kid a premium in your household, primary because that is where we learn most of our civic habits or in schools, in terms of whether you go and exerciser vote but at the end of the day it is also the structure and the system. does the system allow to have more than one or two choices? in the u.s., i think the answer has to be yes. and that we have to start looking at how the system unfairly narrows those choices

>> yes. >> for theresa. i'm largely sympathetic to your argument, especially against the electoral college, but just as a devil's advocate, how would you respond or what would your solution be to the idea that if we got ridf the electoral college, we would have a new situation, where all of the media attention, candidate visits, et cetera, would only fall in the highest density population areas, and large areas of the country would be sanction ignored. >> right. i heard a very good answer to this. the other day, because someody had also raised that and i encourage people to educate themselves, about this, by looking at the national popular vote plan whether you agree wit or not, they present the pros ancons of the electoral college and how it works. if you add you all the think of all this major cities, chicago being one of them it comes out to be a very small percentage in terms of population of the whole

u.s. and we are really a big country and there are a lot nf people still who live, in down state illinois, who live in rural areas, who live in smaller sized cities and live in suburban areas, et cetera so it's not just all of the resources wouldn't be focused on new york l.a., chicago, houston, whatnot. so, this vast majority is still out there that would have to be traveled to and it is -- is a shift of saying, okay, do you prefer just to have your candidates go toflida, and ohio? or do you want them to go across the country to try to get the votes of everybody, they still have to get the individual voter. >> yes. >> this is a question both for theresa and rick, mtly theresa. in your opinion, has there been or is there presently country whose political system we could emulate on some level? a country at the present mome, or throughout the broad scope of history? thank you. >> theresa.

>> athe risk of look like i'm not answering a question will i won't pick a particularountry but there are systems in various countries and, you know, i am leery of the idea of transferring one set of the rule of law to another, because i have been part of when the berlin wall fell and when the iron curtain fell there was a big rush of lawyers who went to these other countries,hat were newly, new democracies and said, hey! look at our system. and, hey, we do this here. and we do that there and well, there is a predicate for se of these particular, you know, laws, people would say, well, that's nice but in this country we don't hav an independent judiciy, so our system is based on taking someone else's system without taking all of th other features of it is very difficult. but you can say that there are

certain features you would like to see press and i would like to see proportional representation. >> sounds like the short answer is no. >> i have to dodge it, too. because i mean -- >> go ahead. >> when barack obama -- >> i want to get our last question in, we're out of time. >> thank you. >> okay. my question really qckly is about democracy and as we t to bring or country towards a true democracy, some of the things happening tots california voters are really interesting. and they are having to -- being propositioned to death to the detriment of their government and how do u correct that while still trying to move towards an aual democracy. >> barack obama was quite eloquent when he spoke in cairo on the subject of democracy and said a few things, he id, no country can impose democracy from -- without -- alone, and democracy is indivisible and is the aspiration of all people and has to come out of the institution and the history of each country. so, yes, there is know one

perfect democracy this democracy for each. as far as california, the tragedy there is that basically the proposition system becomes democracy by tv and who buys the most tv commercials and nipulative ones wins the 50% plus one and now there is a situation where liberty is almost impossible because proposition 13, passed in 1978, is so -- bol locked up the tax system and all they can do is figure out a way to keep themselves from falling into the sea. so it's always a challenge. >> that will have to be the final word, thanks for being here and please give a hand for rick and theresa. more of back tv's coverage of the 2009 "chicago tribune" printers row lit fest, featuring eliott gorn, the year that made america's public enemy number one and author of "die novel

desperados" the notorious maxwell brothers. >> one of the reasons i love books is that i'm inept with thgs like that and i don't know how to turn off my... my phone. i have got it. i'm sure that will be great with the book span crowd. this is an interesting one, t way -- many of these panels, just comeogether randomly, like toss a couple of authors names up and fall on the table and say rick, interview these people and this is an interesting one, ion't think it was planned. because, what we are dealing with, with these two fine books, dillinger's wild ride and dime novel desperados are a subject, anyone in this room not know who john digger is, thank you, anybody ever hear of the maxwell brother sns i final it mass nating. this is what -- i'm serious, this is a wonderful kind of thing.

and eliott, when you think about -- i'm not sure how you go about it, thinking about and writing about john dillinger, do you ever say before starting any search, well, gee, a lot of people have thought about and written abo dillinger. >> yes. and what is -- surprised me actually when i came to the end of the book thinking about it was that a lot mobe has been written since i began, and the amount of material is increasing, not decreasing, since, the turn of the century there were been several books on dillinger. good books and so -- maybe i should have thought about it more before i got into it but i thought i might have something new to say. there are good books and i think, i think, this is one of them. but i think i try t emphasize the context plate and trying to understa dillinger in the 1930s and understand why as you began, why we still remember him today. >> i think in both cases, these books are -- you both do

remarkable jobs of setting time and place. and sort of showing how time and place influenced these guys. the maxwell brothers. this is onof those stories i kick myself in the head a lot about, man i knewhe everly sisters, why didn't i write "sin in the second city" and this is a remarble story and in their time, these guys were famous. what happene how -- you are bot historians and how does something get buried in the dust of history waiting for you to come along and find snat that is fascinating, why do we remember as a culture remember and you can get fascinated with it and forget the things and people that we forget, very fascinating question and appropriate for this particular volume, because yeah, the thing with dime novel desperados, it is almost a stunning rediscovery because here you have outlaw figures, who were as well-knownn their

own time as the james brothers or billie the kid and everybody sitting here knows about them and there were three dozen movies for example on billie the kid and i don't kn how many books and he was a sllime cattle rust ler in the southwest, new mexico territory and killed a couple of deputy sheriffs when he escaped from jail and so on and so forth and here you have them in the midwest from illinois, the maxwell brothers, who were small time, basically, horse thieves, and thieves from people's homes, burglars, thingsike that, got into a gun fight in wisconsin and dropped two sheriffs, who from two different counties in the street. and it was the same era that's famous gun fight at the okay corral everybody sitting here also remembers as has heard of and probably seen movies about, and brothers against brother, right, the -- the earps and they were supposedly the good guys

and brothers against brothers in wisconsin, the maxwells, against the coleman brother and the maxwel were crack shots an could have beening circus performs and dropped them in the street and killed two sheriffs an touched off the largest manhunt for outlaws, horseback outlaws in the history of america. >> i'm thinking one of the interesting things and a parallel, were there a fbi and most wanted list, these two guys would have been what you dillinger was, the most want men america? >> yes, and in a sense they were for a while, among the most wanted. for example, when -- in the background to the book he talked about context in these two books and in the background of this one, you have bill lits ts of te the kid, in the same year that's climax of the maxwell story, 1881 and president garfield is shot in the back,uly 2nd, 1881

and charles gateau an dies slowly through the summer and passes awayn september, and all of this violence going on. in america and in the middle of is the maxwelh brothers and billie the kid is killed and gets page 5 article in the "new york times," he's faus, hn meco territory and gets a page five article, billie the kid, killed, and when ed maxwell was lynched in wisconsin, page one, "new york times," page one. >> you have to admire this kind of discovery, don't u. >> it is st, just the sort of thing you always hope to find in the archives, that kind of story, wonderful. and is a good question, what gets rember and forgotten and how things get remember and forgotten, a big part of it and dillinger for example is always

remembered as an outlaw and the metaphor through which we understand and people understood him in the 30s is as an outlaw and more often called an outlaw than a gangster and it is in that same kind of -- broad tradition, but by the same token we forget certain things and a good example is, the james brothers, and jesse james, how in the recent biography, fairly recent, by styles, he brings back that which is footten and remembered a the desperado and outlaw and not remembered, as part of th missouri border wars aftethe ciil war, that part of the -- bringing back the redeemer governments, the old southerngovernments, and basically starting the part of starting the process, of institutingegregation and jim crow and he's part of that, jesse james, is politically aligned with that configuration and some of it is serendity

and what we remember and one thing drive out another and there are bank robber as successful as john dillinger and people as bloody as john dillinger and somehow, his charisma or whatever it is, the story gets remembered. but there are also other reasons why you remember certain things and not others, why they -- as stories, as myths they serve certain kinds of -- become stories we want to believe. we would rather think of outlaws as the old west. that is part of who we think we are as americans more than the midwest, more than wisconsin and -- >> he hit on sometng right on the mark, that is absolutely true. the particular social context in that place, and that time has much to to wit what we remember or who and wha we -- or who w forget, i this case, billie the kid, for examp was from what we now call the wild west, old

west, far west, a place that is always sort of gloried in its outlaw types a bold desperado types, and the one hand they wanted to eradicate them and ambivalence about the and the other hand wanted to lionize and celebrate them and see them as heros because they embodied certain, to use his term, he's right, american myths, boldness, manliness, all those things were embodi in outlaws and they are remembered. thesguys were on the wrong side of the river, for one thing. they were on the illiis-wisconsin side, and the old west, which the frontier had gone from here, bthe time they were here in post civil war days and this was, had -- was no called t midwest, it would not be called the midwest for the first time until the 1890s but was movg toward thinking of itself as the midwest, illinois, wisconsin, we're like the east coast, come out here and invest in our cities and buy your farms out here and this is safe, wonderful, and a wonderful place to have a future and so forth and we're not like... across the

river, out there, where you have all of these stories about vience and cattle rustling, nono no,e're not like that and there is nothing like that here and therefore you bury maxwell brother, if i mention frank brand to you, there would not be a hand go up, hearing about frank rand who supposedly killed 16 people, exaggeration like wh billie the kid and did kill 6 or 7, and was quite a remarkable outlaw, gun fighter, in the illinois area, also, same time as the maxwell brothers, and playing down all of this -- that stuff on our side of the river. >> it is interesting that it takes, you know, the formation of the -- organized crime to bring the midwest back up to its... [laughter]. >> the lawless lofty point we love and admire, how much as a newspaper guy and in your research for both of these, the press has always, even in those days, the press has somehow --

can be responsible for the glorification or the mythification and you have a good point about the midwest and a should rudd reporteror the tribune might have taken these guys and done that. do you find, especially as two historians, is it often the press and coveragef the characters that influences the future image and winds up burying other people? >> one thing i try to do in this book is talk more about the press than other books on dillinger have because he's, dillinger's father used to say that he should be credited, his son should be credited with being the greatest circulation builder hins and it was true. reporters latched onto the story and reported it day after day and it is an exciting story of bank robberies and jailbreaks and shootouts and so on.

but it absolutely is a story about the development o press and the building of the press, actually the tribune, not a glorious era in tribute -- the history, but, actually the tribune was a leading newspaper in criticizing or being very, very looking askance at this -- what was the growing power of the -- what became the federal bureae of investigation. the tribune was actually very, very critil of how the bureau hand the dillinger story but it is very much, the story is ver much based on the development of the press, and on the press, wire service, especially, picking up stories an carrying them nationally, and the same thing when dillinger dies, headlines, all over america, for days, it is the -- page one news, because it is a sensational story, page one overseas, pag one -- page one in latin america, page one in europe. a big story. >> exactly. and, in my book, too, in other words the exact same theme about the press and its impact is throughout the book.

and, in fact i can't name another book on outlaws and i have read many that so focuses on the creation of figures in the press. as in this particular case. in fact in general, my vision of things as a writer, i see a world of chronically shall dough corehension, of complex human beings. and, i use really the maxwell brothers as an example of that kind of thing, in other words, we are all struggling, against shallow social comprehension, of who we are. and so i say in effect, okay. let me give you the case of the maxwell brother whose are engaged in the same struggle that you and i are engagedn but with more hrific result here and let's look at their, their struggle, and so i'm coerned about how the press and how story telling as a whole, shapes public comprehension of people, often, for the negati. and so the star begins with

young ed, in a down state jail, he's been arrested, and, the -- with a local article on im, that says, local desperado and so forth, man who is destined to be a killer... a et cetera, et cetera and makes it -- comparisons to him, to figures that we would kind of call sort of action figures today. or like batman-type figure fewers, of the time, jack the giant-killer and so forth, heroic figures. and what has the guy done to earn this? stole a suit of clothes from a local store. see? and so what do they do, what would a modern judge do, would say, ed, age 19, you know you shouldn't steal clothing from a store. and now don't do that or report to the local offer of the court for once a month for the next six months or do 20 hours of community work at the local ymca and don't do that again, i don't want to see you in my

court and they sent him to joliet. and i take you in two different chapters inside joliet, and if you don't know anything about joliet an 19th century preference you are in for a shock. terribly dehumanizing place that produced outlaws and severe violen men because of dhe nature of the place. and again it reinforces my notion that the public in many different ways contributes to the creation not only the public notion of figures but also the actual creation of figures, because of the social conditions that we provide. >> what i want you to talk about now, i had an interesting panel yesterday talking about the mob and what makes a crimal. and men people in the audience, well,he nature and nurture and these are, make no mistake, bad people. however romanticize they'd may be and how we think of this. the circumstances, dillinger, do you believe, eliott, made --

because it is interesting about the going to print thing, because i know light of people who have gone there and come out much worse than they -- when they went in. but, talk about dillinger's background and what is your theory on that? was he borto be bad? as they y? >> previous biographers, i'm not really his biographer, previous biographers talked about him and written about dillinger as someone who was, yes, exactly born to be bad and, when you read the accounts of descriptions of him, as a kid, they come right out of the vies. and you realize, these aren't accounts of john dillinger. no one could know that about him, these are whoever was -- writes writes these account is writing out ofthe movies, which are very, very popular and when you try to get as close as you can and you can't get that close,

the ources aren't great, he probably got into trouble in his li and he was -- but, basically i think the weight of the evidence is he was a fairly average kid and no doubt prison was the important formative thing for him. and he committed a crime and it was a violent crime, a stick-up, with a -- when he was 21 years old, with an ex-convict, ed singleton. and held up an old man, like dillinger's father, an elderly grocery store owner, makes you think. and for that crime, was sentenced to a possibility of 20 years in prison. first time offense. he served nine, nine years. and what couldn't be more clear is that tha is where he really learned about crime. that is where he hung out with the guys who became the dillinger gang and where he figure out wn he got out on thoutside which banks to rob. what towns to go to.

who to hook up with. what cars to think about getting. what cars are fast and so on, how tolay the game of ambiguous jurisdictions, police jurisdictions. d fm there, to then break his friends out of the indiana state pen, so that he would have the gang together that basically formed in jail. there is no doubt that -- no doubt print was a school of crime, for dillinger and i don't ink there can be any doubt about that. >> it nurtures one's bad instincts. >> absolutely. and there are reasons, good reasons to incarcera people, don't get me wrong, but, we shouldn't act as if there aren't consequenc and there aren't things to think about here, especially, as we continue to en cars rate more and more people, people in mark. >> these guys, relatively simple background, childhood and nothing in there, if u read

the book to a certain point or, a certain par of it when these guys as kids, you -- i one think they are destined for desperado-dom! >> let m speak to the issue that you have asked and eliott has addressed nicely, to dime novel desperados is centered around a philosophic issue and the most widely discussed issue of -- controversy in the history of all philosophy and that is, do people have free will, can i choose to do this or that or be this kind of person or not or are we creatures of determinism and more oress forced to go this way or that way by forces beyond our control and believe me it is the most widely talked about issue in all of philosophy, look for example at the 640 page okay ford book of free will, for example, by oxford university press and take it up directly and use the maxwell broers again as an example of that, because incidentally, to summarize

things, briefly, that are very huge and complex, evidence is now streaming in from a variety of different eld, psychology, sociology, and so forth, genetics, that are showing that we don't have the free will normally we thought that we have, we don't. we are creatures who are impinged upon by forces. especially as things affect our identi, in order, what you can do for a job, orould never do for a job for you, who you can stand to live with as a spse, or could never stand to live with as your spouse. those kinds of things, expressions of who you are, those are really -- you are a product of forces, driving you and let me read a section and then, eliott urich c comment on it. from the book. from the middle of the book.

ed maxwell is lynched, one of the brothers, and one gets away and he is lynched, touching off a nationwideiscussion of lynching in 1881 but he did not create or want the psychological problems, social conditions, and public attitudes that produced him. and the same was true of -- they were fated to be themlves. impoverished, shamed ienated, insecure and frustrated, self-absorbed young men who resented authority an yearned forespect and loved guns. those factors and penitentiary dehumanization which ty also didn't choose, shaped their experience including their sudden response to armed strangers in the street who pulled guns on them, and could have shot them down, and if the causal history o a violent @ct extends back well past the mediate provocation, to powerful unchosen forces in the

perpetrator's life, what response by society is appropriate? and what must we also think aboutur own lives? as far as that is concerd? and believe me, the weight f scholarship in those fields is now coming down hugely and introduction to the oxford book ofree will will tell you coming down hugely to the fact we don't have anywhere ne the free will to choose major things in our lives as we have assumed in the past. >> i'll comment on that, god, does that depress me! [laughter]. >> i'm surprised i didn't bome a criminal,o many of those things, that is fascinating and you are on that oxford -- you -- certainly its in this case. >> teach a course -- have taught courses with this kind of a mix, kind of a focus and build them into my books when i see particular case that will support, bring this issue t. bu the very matte that you raise to whategree are people responsible then? and you see, it's yes.

if you and i were growing up, as impoverished, disrespected, sons of tenant farmers, on the front tear in illinois, we would probably not have become outlaws, why? we have a different genetic mix, we have a different psychology cam issues, related to our childhood and we have all those fferent factors interacting and we must think of theuman self as a complex of different forces that is very different from person-to-person. and, for somepeople, poverty, disrespect, and so forth, can trigger this kind of bevior. and to us it won't trigger that. it will trigger maybe a desire to rise and show somebody we really can make a contribution. somebody else will tricker resentment and so on. >> eliott, what do you oink of that. it is fascinatg. >> as if natings an depressing, you areou're right. [laughter]. >> i wouldn't disagree with the notion that there is anwful

lot that determines who we become in our lives but the part i would want to separate out and think about more is, you mentioned netics, for example, who we are and i am -- get a little easy, with that kind of discuson, it's not that i don't think it is important, we don't know so much about that. . . that is one where the bank failure doesn't come until just

before the elder gets out of prison. the banks start t collapse in massive numbers, very important at banks are the enemy in people's minds. much more than today there is rage, anger. the context really does matter very much. i don't want to make it totally determinist. most people don't do that during stickups. it is very important. >> i absolutely agree. the social context and the cultural context, the idea that we have in our mind of how men should be a of, what ameri is all about, the culture that we carry you ski, t social position, whether is depression or not, these times, my guys were all so young men trying to get start during the depression, the 1870s, the

greast depression we had had until thatime in america. that impacted them very greatly. you have those factors, a portion of the population has in common at a particular time coming and those are very determining factors, eecially for certain people depending upon there genetic or psychological mix. >> the times in which we are living, pushing someone just far enough. ere is a video about a guy attempting to rob a quick march or something, they got a shotgun out, he pulls a shotgun out and the guy plead for his life and says i only lost my job and i was trying to get somhing to eat and the owner gives in $4 and a loaf of bread. you are right that the times, if not ma