likely to be captured. the emisrepresentation is probably not that meaningful but i would get to an archive and look at all the soldiers they had and make a list of everybody wanted to look at and start with a and go to -- and right around thus i realized i'm only at m. so the beginning of the alphabet, so there's this early alphabet names are highly represented other than the ss and ts, and i tried hard to not overly weight anybody. ...

>> and it gets wet, and it gets muddy, and it's survival, makes letters to soldiers from women harder to get at, but they do survive. sometimes soldiers send back the letters specifically so they get saved. i did not make a systematic inquiry into those on this project, but there are a few people who are beginning to do that kind of work, and i think it'll be really interesting. >> host: we have been talking with chandra manning, co-director of the georgetown workshop in 19th century u.s. history. this is her book, "what this cruel war was over: soldiers, slavery and the civil war." professor manning, thank you for your time. >> guest: my pleasure. thank you very much. it was nice to talk to you.

>> you're watching booktv on c-span2, 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. here's a look at a number of books that are being released this week.

>> and now another interview from georgetown university. charles kupchan discusses his new book, "no one's world: the west, the rising rest and the coming global turn." the interview was conducted at riggs library on campus. >> host: you're watching booktv on c-span2, and we are at georgetown university interviewing some of their professors who are also authors. and now joining us is charles kupchan who is the author of this new book, "no one's world:

the west, the rising rest and the coming global turn." it's published by oxford. professor kupchan, what do you mean by global turn? >> guest: by global turn, i refer to a period in history in which the world's center of gravity moves. the last global turn was when the world was relatively multipolar, arguably the center of gravity was in the mess poe tame yang valley, india, china, it was to the east. and then beginning in the late medieval period, let's say 12, 1300, you began to see commercialism rise this europe, new cities were born. you began to see a middle class, a bourgeois si, and by roughly 17, 1800 europe was dominanted and so the pendulum had swung from istanbul, from delhi, from

that part of the world up to northern europe. and what i'm arguing in this book is that pendulum has started to swing again, and that's because we see power moving from the west, that is to say north america and europe, and it's heading east, but it's not just heading east, and that's why i call the book "no one's world." i don't think that any country, region or model will dominate. in fact, i think we're headed for a world that for the first time in history will be interdependent, globalized but without a political anchor. >> host: why do these turns take so long? you're talking about a turn since the 17th and 18th centuries, you're talking about the next turn that we're in. >> guest: well, i think that this turn will actually be the fast e turn ever because -- fastest turn ever because we live in the digital age, and we're seeing how quickly china is growing, how quickly they're catching up economically with the united states. and consequently the degree to which globalization brings

economic change to the u.s. we've lost roughly half of our manufacturing jobs in the last ten years in part because economic activity is moving so quickly elsewhere. but in general what happens is today's core over time becomes tomorrow's periphery. today's periphery becomes tomorrow's core. and that's because if we look historically, really as far back as we can go, you see that great powers don't stay on top forever and that their innovation, their know-how gradually moves to other regions that are less developed. and over time they are able to catch up with the core, and they end up being in a hegemonic position n a dominant position. then that cycle starts all over again. you're right to say that this last tush occurred -- turn occurred quite slowly. the u.s. and the europeans have effectively been atop the heap

since about 1815 when the napoleonic wars ended. so we've had about two centuries which was a pretty good run. and i think what we're headed to now is a world that for most of the 21st century won't have a dominant player. and that's an interesting world. it's not that different than where we were in, say, 1600 when you had the holy roman empire, the ottomans, the japanese empire, the chinese empire. but the key difference is in the 1600s those imperial zones didn't penetrate. they rarely interacted with each other so that they could each kind of go according to their own. what's happened now is we're all smushed together. what we do here, what china does, what happens in india affects us, and that's why this next world's going to be complicated, because we need to agree on a set of rules in ways that we have never before. >> host: charles kupchan, how is

it that europe in the 17th and 18th centuries beam dominant -- became dominant? >> guest: i think the story starts with the end of feudalism, and to some extent europe's strength was its weakness. because when the feudal structure began to erode, suddenly you saw new towns, small towns emerge, and be they were populated by artisans, by blacksmiths, by the beginnings of what you might call professional people, bankers. and then over time those cities became the vanguard or of a commercial -- vanguard of a commercial revolution and economic activity, debt instruments, banks, little workshops that eventually became laboratories. they were able to thrive because they pushed back against the nobility, the monarchy and the church. and the rest of the world empires were much stronger, and they were able to maintain centralization. and, therefore, what you saw in europe, the fragmentation of

traditional institutions, the birth of the bourgeois si that embraced the protestant reformation which slowly pushed the catholic church out of politics and led to a sort of secular realm, all of that happened only in northern europe. it then crossed the atlantic and happened here in the united states. but it led to a period in which technologically and economically the western world pulled far ahead of the competitors. and that technology also allowed them to penetrate the competitors. we had better ships, better navigation. and so by the end of the 1800s, by the end of the 19th century, the west dominated about 80 plus percent of the world. and that's really something that is historically unique. >> host: some would argue that the 1970s, late 1970s and 1980s when japan was on the rise and becoming a dominant

economic power could have been a turn. >> guest: well, i think that though the terms that we've seen in the last several decades have been turns within the family. it is to say among countries all of whom kind of look the same, liberal democracies, they have industrialized economies. and so if we sort of say, well, what's happened over the last, say, 50, 60, 70 years, europe, the u.s. and japan have competed to be the top dog. what i think is happening now is the circle is widening. there are now many new cooks in the kitchen. and the western model -- industrial capitalism, liberal democracy, secular nationalism -- is being called into question. and that's in part because the west hasn't been doing so well. we are seeing political polarization in the u.s., we're seeing fragmentation in europe,

japan has been stuck in an economic recession for two decades, and a lot of that is the product of globalization. we are seeing jobs leave, we don't have as much control over economies as we used to, and so the broad middle classes in the west, in the u.s., europe and japan are not very happy, and they are saying to their governments, hey, help me. i don't like this situation. and those governments are finding it very hard to respond. and that's why we see in the united states trust in government is hitting historic lows. that's why in europe we see a renationalization of political life away from the european union, and all the while we see other models that are actually doing pretty well. state capitalism in china. they are growing at about 10% a year whereas the u.s. is stuck at around 2%, and they're not going to keep growing at 10%, but the success of their model does raise questions about

whether we're heading to a world in which no model dominates, in which western democracy, western capitalism will have to compete in the marketplace with other kinds of models, china being one, the persian gulf another, a left-wing populism in latin america being a third. and i think all of these have advantages and disadvantages, and that leads to a world in which the playing field will be much more level than it has been. >> host: do you see the china model or the middle east model, professor kupchan, as ideological models rather than just pure economic models? and are people going to look to those like they've looked to the west in the past? >> guest: well, i would say that they're a combination of ideology and socioeconomic foundations. and i think the two are hard to untangle. so let's just take china for a second. what is so different about

china's trajectory than the? well, as we were talking about a few minutes ago in the west, the middle class was the vanguard of change. they really drove economic growth, ask they pushed back against the -- and they pushed back against the absolutist state. the chinese state is much smarter than the old monarchies of europe because the monarchies of europe tried to keep down the middle class. the communist party, the so-called communist party because they're not particularly communist, has integrated the middle class. they have made them stakeholders in the state. and so if you were to talk to most entrepreneurs, most professionals in china, they don't want to change the system. they're happy. and can that raises the question, well, is this stable? if those with the wealth and power to change it are actually pretty happy with something less than democracy, does that give that model staying power? and if chinese can make decisions about high-speed rail,

about highway network, about investment for the long run, right? thea got a five-year plan. they've got a ten-year plan. and the united states, believe it or not, we've got a lot of government agencies, but nobody is doing long-range economic planning. and that's why i think the china model isn't going to carry the day, it's not going to be the model that everyone ascribes to, but it will be one version of modernity. it will have a large place in the world of the 23st century -- 21st century, and the western model, i think, won't be as powerful and pervasive as we once thought. so i'd say, you know, history has been seemingly on one road all heading towards some kind of end point that looks like the west. now i think we're starting to see the road take different paths. and that, i think, is one of the reasons that this century is

going to be quite interesting but also dangerous because it requires a level of management and a level of consensus that historically speaking the world has never required. >> host: charles kupchan served on the national security council under president bill clinton and, in fact, your former boss in his most recent book "back to work" has a line in there that hasn't been picked up on too much, but he said as long as we are still organized by states, um, do you think there's a future where we are not organized necessarily by country or nations? >> guest: maybe, but it's a long time away. and i think one of the interesting developments of the last couple of decades is how strong the state remains. in fact, i would kind of argue that the nation-state is coming back. and it's partly because globalization is extraordinarily powerful. it reaches into countries and

across borders in a way that's very intrusive. and in some ways those states are, basically, saying stop. we want more control over our destinies. take, for example, what's happening in europe. europe desperately needs collective governance to stabilize the euro, to find its way out of the crisis. but what's happening is that politics is drifting back from brussels, the capital of the european union, to the nation state. and that's because nation-states are getting slapped around by european integration and by globalization, and they're saying we're madder than hell, we're shot going to take it anymore. -- we're not going to take it anymore. they're pushing back. so those borders are coming back to life. there are so i think the 21st century will be a century in which the nation-state is alive and well. >> host: if your theories or predictions turn out to be true s this a bad thing for the?

>> guest: i would say it's an inevitable development. it is troubling in the sense that the west has run the show for quite a long time and has been able to create an international system in which western values predominate and in which they're inseparable from western interests. we have to prepare for a world in which the west is no longer as dominant as it used to be, in which the west which at one point represented 75 plus percent of world trade and world gdp will now shrink to well below 50%. after all, the west only represents about 15-20% of the global population. so it's trouble anything the sense that we -- troubling in the sense that we who are lucky enough to live in the west won't have as much control, but i think the key challenge for the western world is not to pretend

that this isn't happening, it's not to wring our hands, it's to say the world is changing, power is defusing. how are we going to react to snit how -- to it? how are we going to strike a bargain with the chinese, the indians, the indonesians? because they don't necessarily want to play by our rules, but we want to keep some of our rules. so i think what's required is expanding the circle, but also having a serious conversation about what kinds of norms, what kinds of rules can major powers of different political systems, different values agree upon? >> host: what do you teach here at georgetown university? >> guest: i teach broad classes in international politics. this semester i'm teaching one course called contemporary debates in international security, and that's a class that looks at what are people arguing act in foreign affair -- about in foreign affairs journal

or international security. what are the cutting edge debates. and then i teach a class called grand strategy and historical perspective which is a book, a class about imperial management. we start with the romans, and then we go up through the ottomans. we get to the brits, the french, the germans, the japanese, and we end with the era of american hegemony. so it's a senior seminar, if you will, and it covers a lot of history. >> host: what was your area of expertise on the national security council? >> guest: i focused principally on europe, and you may recall that the first term of the clinton administration was bosnia, the balkans was coming undone. so i basically did everything but the balkans because anyone who touched the balkans disappeared into a black hole. so i spent a lot of time worrying about the european union, trade relation, the

enlargement of nato and dealing with the emergence of central and eastern europe from the soviet bloc, trying to make sure that that transition went well. >> host: and this is the coffer of charles kupchan's new book, "no one's world: the west, the rising rest and the coming global turn," published by oxford. thank you, professor kupchan. >> guest: thank you very much. >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@cspan.org, or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> host: well, a former state legislator who's spent a lot of time in the news in the 2010 election cycle was sharron angle of nevada. she has a book out, and it's called right angle: one woman's journey to reclaim the constitution. senator angle, if people read this book, will they learn about the campaign there your

perspective, your senate campaign against harry reid? >> guest: you're too kind to call me senator. i'm private citizen angle now. they will get that, they will get my perspective on the campaign, but more than that, they'll get my perspective on conservativism and the constitution. it's more of a handbook for constitutional conservatives and not so much a memoir. >> host: what was one of the issues you talked about in the campaign that you write about in the book? >> guest: i talk about energy, i talk about the economy, the difference -- it's kind of a layman's handbook, if you will, to difference between what we're going through now and experiencing in this keynesian economic period and why austrian economics or that school of thought really works better, the supply side works better for a free economy. i also talk about education, and i talk about the social issues that are facing our day. and, of course, those social issues impact us fiscally as

well. and we're starting to hear more and more about that as our presidential campaign ramps up. >> host: let's take energy for one issue. what is the conservative approach or your approach to energy policy? >> guest: well, certainly energy policy, as any policy, should come from the free market, should be driven by the free market. and so whenever you have the government playing in any free market enterprise what you're going to get is winners and losers. some are going to feel more entitled because they're getting government funding, and i discuss that in the book, how some of the things that we classify as green energy are actually being subsidized. and if those subsidies went away or the entitlements from the government went away, the whole industry would go away. so what we really need to do is concentrate on what works well for nevada, what are those good sources of energy, and we know that the oil industry, of course, has been self-supporting for a long time. so that's going to be one that's really working in the free

market. we're also looking toward nuclear and why it works in the free market. >> host: a local issue in nevada is yucca mountain. do you think yucca mountain should be used for nuclear waste storage? >> guest: well, certainly we should explore the opportunities that yucca mountain has made available to the american people and can the people of nevada. as you know, a secure site, it always has been a place where if we have something that was volatile and shouldn't be opened to the world to explore, that's a good place to put it. and also we need to think about what the potentials are there for nevada if we have scientists that are already there developing how we can use the waste products, can we recycle those, is there technology out there. and i discuss that in the book. yes, there is some technical -- technology out there that really does begin to answer the questions what are the opportunities with nuclear and what are the opportunities for nevada with the nuclear energy

industry. finish. >> sharron angle, in the book "right angle," what's one of the social issues you discuss? >> guest: of course, the social issues that are most important and on the forefront right now are, of course, abortions and marriage, and i us the why a conservative comes to -- discuss why a conservative comes to the position of being, as i say, pro-life. and the reason is, of course, we're so angry with president obama that the first act of his presidency would be to send money outside this country for abortions. our taxpayer dollars, that hits every conservative right in the pocketbook, and they say i didn't think i was pro-life before, but now i am. and so i discuss -- it's not just from the moral religious perspective, but also from the perspective of just plain common sense. >> host: what was it like to run against the majority leader of the united states senate? what was that like? >> guest: well, it was certainly

a, an eye-opening experience. i can kind of feel that same momentum building with this president presidential election. i feel that what harry reid did was presented the pattern or the playbook to the democrats for this 2012 cycle in the 2010. he pulled out all the stops, he used every trick in the book, and he also began the messaging that we're starting to hear not only from the progressive liberal media, but we're also hearing it from our side which is just astounding toe -- to me. and i'm always eager to talk to conservatives about primaries are where we get to vote principles. and be we these to do that. we need to not embrace thinking or anyone who says this one is unelectable because we know it's we, the people, that elect. if we vote, they're electable. >> host: there were about four months during that campaign in 2010 where you were in the news every day. what was that like personally?

>> guest: well, that was by design. we were vulnerable the day after the primary because we had spent all of our money to win that primary against an odds-on favorite, an establishment favorite. we went into the general election with no money, so we were having to scramble to get some money. harry reid came out the day after with his media blitz, and what he did was he just began to pour tons of money our way. the press from -- the press, the pressure from the press was designed, also, to keep me off balance, to catch those things in sound bites. as you know, we're working in sound bites, out of context, and i was thefer allowed to really explain -- i was never allowed to really explain thoroughly what i was speaking about at the moment they caught that sound bite also we were never able to do the rapid response to that. so they got ahead of us in that first three weeks because we just didn't have the money to

fight the fight that we needed to fight. and i would just be very, um, a word of caution to whoever comes out of this primary. have enough to be ready to go on television and rapidly respond to whatever attack comes to you from that arena because we know we're not just going against the op session, we're going against the press that is aligned with that candidate. >> host: how long did it take you to write "right angle"? >> guest: i started in 2009, it was actually finished before i ran against harry reid, and my campaign manager said, you know, i don't think we want that out this print -- [laughter] and so -- >> host: why? >> guest: well, you know, the more you have in print, the more that's out there, the more they can use against you. and he was just saying, you know, let's just run the campaign. you can publish afterwards. and is so what i did was i pulled it out after the campaign was over, kind of put in the end of the story, if you will, and

made it applicable for today. so it came out this june of 2010. in retrospect, would you put it out before the campaign? >> guest: yes, i would. i think people -- that's what they want to know. they want to know who is this candidate. they really wanted to know who i was as a candidate, and i think if it had been out there, people -- if they had taken a chance to read it, they would have known that i was an american just like they are, that i'm a common sense conservative and that those things that were coming from that left-wing media were really a ploy to drive down my numbers, my positive numbers that i came out of the primary with and to paint me as a fringe, extreme, wacky person which if you read the book, you'll understand that i come from a very middle class family. my dad had a small business. we worked this that small business. i never intended to be a politician. my degree is in art.

and i'm an educator. and it was from that background when the government intruded into my family by activist judge saying i know it's the law in nevada that you can home school your children, but the law should say you can't home school unless you're more than 50 miles away from the school. my son had just failed kindergarten, he was feeling very defeated, and i knew as an educator that i had solutions for him. and when the judge, the government told me you cannot provide the solutions for your family, that set me on the course. >> host: do you see yourself running for office again? >> guest: possibly. i've not ruled anything out. i've not even ruled anything out for this cycle, and so i'm kind of waiting to see the cause that we've donated the money to for this book is a twofold mission. first is to make sure that we have senators elected that changes the majority to a