question we answered based on the information that comes to mind. most of the staff to the same. the information that comes to mind however is limited and biased and for you or i. it is not that big of a deal but it could matter a lot. >> mentally, psychologically what information are we leaving out of our decision or not aware of that we are making the decision based? >> the context of a legislative decision making in congress i think i focused on information about constituents there may be other types of information that would benefit from being looked at in this remark that are not what i focus on. i was interested in the question about constituency representation because for so long scholars say they represent the district our constituents matter and what impact what that means and who is actually

involved. >> would you teach at the university? >> i.t. on the u.s. congress and interest groups and social movements and introduction to american government. trying to get as many incoming interested in the political science as they can. >> to national interest groups represent the representation? >> i think they do. it is in the focus of this research although i have another work focusing specifically on legislative lobbying. i think the way they can impact how legislators perceive the district is by encouraging members to make contact with them and that is something we know they are good at is making it easy to send a letter, send an e-mail to can reform letters sometimes, just facilitating the process i think makes a big difference and suggests it is all the legislators act. >> we are going through a redistricting period right now for the u.s. congress read what it makes sense to make the district's more homogenous thus

the representative could be more representative to more people? >> would make the job easier for the representatives and the district's. i say this with to caveat. the first is a thing about constituencies in the district as issue specific so the groups relevant on health care will be different in groups on education for instance hospitals, administration and insurance. there is a lot of talk about insurance but not tall on other issues, so it would be very hard to actually make such an largesse district because the configuration various issue by issue so practically this, but in addition there are other tradeoffs to making homogenous congressional districts and i don't know that that is a tradeoff that we want to make. >> what you mean? >> there is a sense that there is some value democratically in

having different viewpoints, different people together so the discourse should promote and also the feasibility or require moving people around in voluntarily. making districts homogenous is less likely than making them smaller. >> in the end, professor miller, two members of congress represent their constituents and has it gotten better or worse over the last 50 years? >> i think they represent their constituents as they see them. the problem is they don't see all of their constituents. so for me the story is not one of the lubber misrepresentation or corruption. i think most legislators want to represent their constituents and try hard to do it but in fact the limitations mean that they are not able to do so. >> constituency, representation in congress, professor kristina miller is the author.

cambridge university press is the publisher. >> this is book tv on c-span2, currently we are at the university of maryland, a college park maryland and of foreign bank library in the katherine anne porter room and we are talking with the university of maryland professors who are also authors joined by a history professor jon sumida, who has written this book, "decoding clausewitz: a new approach to on war." professor jon sumida, who was coral clausewitz? >> he fought against napoleon and the entire and first as a teenager in 79 these leader to be made great officer in the

battle in 1906 and was subordinate to the chief of staff of the army and was a participant in the reform of the prussian army after its three defeat. in 1812 he resigned the commission because he disagrees with the king in terms of their decision to be an ally of france and invade russia, so he goes over to the russian army and serves as an adviser to the czar and is attached to senior russian commanders in the battles of 1812 with at the retreat of the army when it's retract in the late fall of 1812 and goes on when they say it changes sides to fight the great

battles in of bolten and walton and in the 1850 campaign. so he is a very experienced officer will. after the war he is appointed to head the prussian war college, and from the team 18 to 1831 he is spending most of his time writing about the experiences and the great war. he dies from cholera in 1831 and has collected writings in ten volumes published by his wife posthumously and in the first four volumes they make up the book known as "on war." it is a famous book regarded by many as the most important book ever written on armed conflict. it is currently the standard reading and all of the war colleges in the united states armed forces.

>> your book is called "decoding clausewitz," why? >> it is called "decoding clausewitz" because i think it's been very badly misunderstood, and it's not like it's just any common book. we misunderstand many books but because of its place in american military education for it to be misunderstood. one of the biggest misconceptions is that he is the proponent of the of concerted and when in fact very reverse is the case is a great proponent of the defense at the strong performance the war and in particular he argues that if the defender is willing to resort to guerrilla warfare there is no such thing as a decisive victory for the attacker. >> what does that mean?

>> it means your army can be defeated and occupied and your capital in the hands of the enemy if you have the will to resist if necessary harming your own population that in the end of the attacker would be compelled to modify his political objectives and you can preserve your sovereignty. >> is that not the way that clausewitz is taught today? >> he is not always but frequently taught as an opponent of the defensive and the battle. he's often characterized as the rationalize our of the napoleonic methods of the war when in fact the exact opposite is the case. he is the proponent of the nepali and it melted but those who oppose napoleon. he is after all a prussian, not french. >> professor sumida, clausewitz is known for saying war is merely a continuation of policy

by the other means. >> welcome he did say that but it's often given the meaning that at the very least what clausewitz was trying to say. it is usually intended to mean when you go to the war you should have an achievable political objectives and he met much more than that and he met a number of different things. number one, that phrase is accompanied by other phrases which clarify what he meant in certain instances. it not only set of war should be an extension of politics or policy by a other means. he also said that policy politics affects the attacker more than the defender, and he also argued politics policy does not just mean foreign politics or international policy. it also means domestic politics. and the significance of that is