>> and so based on everything you've seen and now today, if you could propose three things for a new constitution, the three most important changes to today's constitution, what would

those be? >> let me take your word proposal quite literally, because, i mean there's a certain issues i have very strong views on. that at the end of day may not be all that important. like, for example, tenure for the members of united states supreme court. they should have single terms. that's a small deal when we're talking that fundamental change. so let me suggest proposals that i would like to see argued about on c-span. and incidentally, let me also say because another question someone might have in mind come where did it come from. i have an answer to that. and it's based on a wonderful book written by paul woodruff called first democracy, which, in fact, returns to ancient athens and suggests that we

select more leaders than we do our lottery. whether or not the house and senate should be selected by lottery we can debate, but it seems to me that it would be wonderful, select members of the convention by lottery. basically nationwide jury. then the three proposal i would like to hear them discuss, not necessary in order of importance, first of all, how do we adjust institutions developed in 1787 under the assumption of rule by the neville and political elites -- who would more or less share a notion of the public interest. how do we make those institutions congruent with the kind of party structure you see in parliamentary systems across

the world? so my proposal would be maybe we should emulate the canadians. maybe, in fact, they may the better response, loyalists they were, by going the route ironically enough that the british went in 19th century toward parliamentary government rather than stick with the separation of power structure we have. now, i don't have pound the table views on this but i would propose it because i think it really does need to be discussed. secondly, assuming we stick with the separation of powers system and a bicameral system so that we have a house of representatives and with something called send it, i despise the current senate but i'm not opposed to bicameralism

per se in a country this large. indeed, i think even the state as large as texas probably benefits a second house. i don't think minnesota does. i supported governor jesse venture when he said that minnesotans should be like nebraska. but we are lethargic. i think bicameralism is enough. so that another proposal would be either to eliminate the presidential veto insubstantial respects, or at the very least to make it far easier for congress to override presidential vetoes. presidential vetoes are upheld roughly 95% of the time. it seems to me that's too high a success rate. i don't know what the right success rate should be. i would like to hear debate

about this. in certain aspects you might want to strengthen the presidential veto. the texas governor, again for better or for worse, talking about texas governor's, texas governor has a line-item veto. now there's actually something to be said for a line-item veto if you're concerned about earmarks and the like. so the whole veto system, it's not just one thing, it's a collection of things i would like to hear, hear this debated. the third proposal, i can't assuming that we stick with a separation of powers system, is that we can fire a president in midterm. the impeachment system has been an utter failure basically. partly because it's been captured by warriors. and so we shout at one another

about what constitutes a high crime misdemeanor. i'm not fond of presidents or criminals, but quite frankly i don't think it's the greatest threat to the american political system. i think a far greater threat is having a president in whom one has lost fundamental confidence with regard to issues of war and peace, life and death. so even if we don't go the full parliamentary route i would like to see a system whereby congress democrats by collecting two-thirds though, can vote no confidence in the president and require the president's replacement by somebody from the president's own party. so you can't simply defect a party to enter place republican with the democrat or a democrat with republican, but at least get rid of a particular

democratic president or a particular republican president that leaves you feeling sick in your stomach as you go to bed and as you wake up with regard to the qualities of judgment, with regard to certain transcendentally important issues. you know, i of the others as well but you asked me three, those are three. >> i think if we fired president in midterm we would have gotten rid of truman, reagan and clinton so i do know if that's a good way to approach things. what's fascinating is, first off, i want to call them and you for putting your finger on a real problem. there's no question in my mind that if we got together industry, both of those on the right and on the left will probably come too late agreement both on gun control, simpson-bowles, budget and the rest. but congress can do that.

the president can do that. and is obviously disturbing to the american people as reflected by the statistics you have shown. but the question i have is reflected by sort the question you're from your first three questioners. and that is, okay, what specifically are you going to do to change it? what would the american people agree to? you kind of have thrown it to do. one which is about changing the president midterm. i'm not really happy with. the other one was changing maybe the veto power and with the statistics are. it seems to me you talk about state constitutions. i gather you have really studied state constitutions. 's so my question to you is, what state constitution has really worked, and when you come in the state constitutions that is really worked, what specific amendments to the constitution do you think the american people would agree on? because you're absolutely right when you start by putting a finger on the fact that the

system doesn't work the way it should work now. >> really work scares me a bit. in part because that might suggest what i was criticizing what friedman was doing, that the constitution will always work, or it will always lead is down the path towards the cliff. one of the most fundamental questions is whether the constitutions are important at all. because many would say well look, what's really important with regard to any political system is its economy, its degree of heterogeneity, how many languages are spoken, how many different religions and what's the extent of the space among the religions, how our

natural resources distributed. it's generally not a good idea for all of the resources to be found only in one part of a large country, and things like that. so i don't want to overestimate the importance of constitutions, or therefore, to say here's the constitution that's really worked because no doubt there would be examples when it didn't. let me be truly heretical and say that one of the things i like about many state constitutions, and you find these especially as you move west, but not only in the west, is the degree to which they allow some element of direct democracy. the united states constitution was written by people who, not to put too fine a point on it, were fundamentally mistrustful

to their core of democracy. james madison writes very proudly that although the constitution is ordained names of we the people, that would be the last time the people speak more or less directly your otherwise they will speak exclusively through elected representatives. now, if you look at a whole bunch of states, there are ways of doing end runs around elected representatives. many of you will immediately think of california, and many of you will say, well, that immediately makes this a bizarrely stupid suggestion because it is certainly the case that the california constitution itself helps to explain why that

date is incorrect desperate straits. but california isn't the only state in the united states that allows direct democracy, justice their states around the world, including switzerland that has referenda all the time. but think of main. most people don't think of main ever, and when you do think of main, you think of a dual and boring new england state. maine has provision in the constitution that allows its electric to put on the ballot a referendum on recently passed legislation. it's not california where the electorate can initiate legislation and pass legislation. rather it is what might be called said judicial review, citizen review.

twice in the last three years citizen review in maine has worked to overturn legislation, for better and for worse. the first time in 2009, 53% of the maine electorate voted to invalidate a law passed by the transit legislature, signed by the maine governor that would have legalized same-sex marriage. i'm very sorry the electorate did that. last year the maine electorate overrode a law passed again by the transit legislature, signed by a republican governor, that would have considerably restricted the ability to vote in elections. and i was opposed to that and was delighted when the maine electorate agreed. in ohio, another state that's usually not youth as wild and

crazy, there was a referendum in the most recent statewide elections overturned a public employees union law that had been passed by the legislature. wisconsin has just gone through a very melodramatic recall election. i actually like these sorts of things. i like the fact that the people can feel empowered to take control of their own government, and to make the pitch to their fellow citizens. sometimes their pages worked, sometimes to my regret they don't work, but it is democracy in action. what we do i think is to overgeneralize from the experience of california, and then with california i would turn to what i was saying a few moments ago is the pathology of

california strongly linked to the constitution, or is it explicable because it's a too large a state of 36 million people with very different economies, different parts of the state, very different cultures, and maybe no constitution could, in fact, allow california to be governed effectively. as a matter fact i think california constitution does explain some part of it. i don't believe any constitution explains what is going on. political scientists are usually thrilled if they can establish that something will explain five or 10% of what contributes to some phenomenon. my view is that the united states constitution explains

five or 10% am but it's a very important five or 10%. and metaphor that increasingly am fond of is to think of interaction among sex and drugs. we take this aspirin, you take this that any other, usually it's just fine. so long as you're taking them separately. but it turns out that under some circumstances the most innocent sort of drug that generally benefits you, like aspirin, can kill you in interaction with other drugs. and so it's really, really very important to know how drugs interact. my view is that the united states constitution under certain circumstances generates extraordinary dangerous interactions. and i think one of the interactions is to create a general fallenness in the body politics that they really have

no say in the government, that we have elections and they just don't really matter if, by mattering you would mean the ability to win the implement a program. >> a short follow. real concise, if i get a short answer, your basic recommendation from you think the american people would agree, maybe it's not enough just to say national discussion and constitutional amendment. your specific recommendation is some type of referendum for the u.s. constitution? >> some kind of direct democra democracy. there are good reasons to have second and third thoughts about the wisdom of going all the way down that road. but yes, some form of direct democracy. one of the point, i mean, how do we know what the american public would, in fact, agree with and

vote for him that she really talked to them like adults and say we are in a pickle, what is truly inspirational about the framers, and that always insist that i do not engage in founder bashing. they were smart men. they were all men, who are trying to do the best at a time of genuine challenge. they wrote these newspaper screens, the most famous of which the federalist papers, and really tried to address one another as serious adults. we don't do that. we have these 30-second ads, and the whole notion that it's conveyed about the american public is that we have no

attention span, and really cannot be addressed as serious adults. so, you know, what would happen if people actually had a sense that they're being taken seriously as members of an american public? maybe they wouldn't, but my main obsession now is to generate the conversation that isn't happening, rather than to try to sell you the 18th point levinson program, because i don't have an 18-point program of things that i'm truly confident about as being the cure for what ails you. >> one thing they came to my mind when you're talking about the 51 constitution is i hadn't heard any idea come i haven't read the book, sort, but i haven't heard any idea in a speech about what you take about

federalism is overall because the founders perceived like state governments and national governments them and you think this new constitution it would be created or any ideas on whether or not the powers should be mainly towards the national government, the state governments? i've read lots of things whether the counties are set up in a way to get -- >> i think that would be the central question. i started teaching courses in federalism, and one of the really interesting things about the united states constitution is that is under its has astonishing little about the so-called reserve powers a secret you look at constitutions around the world, that are pro-federalism and you discover that states or provinces are given exclusive authority over languages, over religion, over

education, over environment, you know, fill in the blank. again, this is something that we could debate about at great length, but i assume -- if you like federalism, defined as some degree of subnational autonomy, where people can make decisions relatively free of national override, that our constitution -- [inaudible] you might on the other hand believe that some areas we have too much local autonomy as a political matter and would want to address that in a constitution. you mentioned cities that are very interesting. texas is six times as large as the entire united states population in 1790. we in austin are especially for me with the tyranny of a centralized government in austin

itself called the state government, that austin seems determined to deprive the city of austin of autonomy over matters that we hold near and dear. so i think that to the extent that federalism does stand for a principal of decision-making at subnational levels and allowing people to participate decisions that affect their lives, then any modern constitution convention, whether at the state or national level, would have to address this. one part on the cities or do we not, what kinds of protected autonomy to we want for states and whatnot? these are all wonderful subjects for a convention, or for any sort of national conversation, and we are not having them now. >> so my question is based on a lot of the things you said, i wonder what your take is on i

guess you would support the kind of things you're talking about, given the fact that you have kind of a lot of people clamoring for change with the tea partiers spent another very good question. a very common response to my earlier book is some degree of agreement on the particular diagnoses, and then utter disbelief that they could be serious in proposing a national convention to i get this from my closest friends and family, as well as many others as well. let me just, short and do. last december there was a fascinating two-day gathering at harvard law school cosponsored by a professor who had written

his own cry from the heart about the present state of american politics, we focus particularly on campaign funding. but it's cosponsored by larry and fight the patriot tea party. larry and i constitute may be as much as half of all, more or less respectable law professors who support a new constitution. so it was an interesting test case. what i discovered is that there's remarkable mirror image between left and right on this. i dare say that almost all my friends and family are certain that any such convention would be taken over by the tea party, and then you just set out your

worst imaginings for what they would do. but what i also discovered is that the tea party is under the delusionary view that convention will be taken over by people like me, and they have their own set of fears about what people like me will do. this is one of the reasons i actually like the idea of -- [inaudible]. i do think that because americans so fundamentally mistrust one another and believe the worst about one another these days, that it's not simply swimming upstream, but swimming up a waterfall to try to persuade people that a new national convention is not, in fact, an utterly crazy idea.

>> sandy, i'm sympathetic to what you say, but like you, i've lived through periods when separation of powers has played a really important role in protecting our system and democracy such as it is, like the joseph mccarthy period and the watergate period, et cetera. and i'm also pessimistic about the prospects for this sort of constitutional convention and all, but in the short run, everybody seems to fear that things are worse now in terms of effective action by congress, for example, in any point any of us can remember anyway. there are a lot of different ideas about why that is. maybe it's the growth of talk radio and television, et cetera. maybe it's having a black elected president. there may be all kind of things at work here, but there are things that could be done pretty

easily to improve the productivity of congress. for example, if the senate were to change its rules to limit the filibuster, or at least to prevent filibusters on bringing a bill to the floor, which is an innovation of the republicans basically, or require the filibusters actually be filibusters. today we don't have real filibusters like we remember from our past. we just have somebody -- if you do this i'm going to filibuster or we're going to filibuster. oh, golly gee whiz, if you're that upset we won't bring something out. so things like that might make a significant contribution to improving the effectiveness of congress in the short run. do you agree? >> all i can say is i think one of the reasons why we have the kind of faux filibusters now instead of good old-fashioned strom thurmond, 20 for our filibusters of our youth, is

that congress doesn't do that much in the good old days. it is just remarkable to see what wasn't on the congressional agenda in the late '50s or '60s. they didn't have to worry about national education policy, national energy policy, pollution allowance, canada, terrorism policy. you just go down a whole litany of things that the modern congress, which incidentally has consisted the same number of people as in 1959. so you have more people, or the same number of people trying to do so much more than they ever did that filibusters of any kind

just kind of destroy the institution. but i think that's one reason why the idea of returning to the old-fashioned filibuster won't work. let me say one final thing though about watergate. watergate is a tribute to the upside of politically divided government. that is, richard nixon was run out of town because the democrats controlled congress. if the republicans have controlled congress, this would not have happened. one of the things you do get with divided government is greater oversight of the president by the congress of the opposite party. so the current house of representatives is spending all of its time beside voting to repeal obamacare i'm trying to investigate the obama administration and this is exactly what would be predicted.

so what we have is separation of parties, not really separation of powers. because we are unified government, you don't have oversight. and what we need to address is how do we get the benefit of oversight that you do get when you have divided government without paying the immense cost, which is the near impossibility, at least in our time now of passing responsiveness. >> i just have a question like on the amendment process to select our constitution -- some oof the market a bit like the te fact i can vote. and i just don't like the fact i can do, the fact that black people are no longer considered proper, those are huge changes to the philosophy of

constitution. i don't know if you like even see how -- i didn't change things for a long time. do you think any new constitution that an amendment process is even a good thing? its cover like an appendix osha we always have to look over the whole document to see a change should be made? >> well, the united states constitution is the most difficult to amend constitution in the developed world. all of the state constitutions are easier than the united states constitution, and as of our suggested, all other national constitutions which i am aware are easier than the united states constitution. the framers were not, did not suffer from delusions of grandeur that we often project onto them. they did not believe that they were getting it just right for

once and for all. article five is a testament to the fact that they thought amendments would be likely and necessary. indeed, that a convention might be desirable. article five says we go to convention if two-thirds of the state convince congress to do. it's my own view you don't convince congress. to err is human. it is our fault that we have projected onto them this notion we were demagogues and that we don't adequately discuss both the amendments we have gotten and what it took to get them. it took at least half a century. the woman's movement begins in 1840 with the seneca falls

convention. the 19th amendment comes along in 1920. we did the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments as of our suggested because of war, and because the radical republicans who were able in fact successfully to seize control of government in part, and i applaud this, by threatening to impeach lyndon johnson, were able to push new changes that otherwise would never have occurred. quite frankly i have no reason to think that the 14th amendment would have been added if abraham lincoln had not been assassinated. lincoln, like madison, is an endless test with regard to certain issues of basic public

policy. what does with malice towards none and charity towards all mean, with regard to reconstruction? a can mean, frankly, whatever you want it to mean, including acquiescing it a far less radical reconstruction of kurt, but, of course, we will never know. again, let me thank all of you for coming. [applause] >> you've been watching booktv, 48 hours of programming. >> booktv on c-span2. it takes place data on the national mall in washington, d.c. go to booktv.org to get the full schedule. >> let me just say i think you could sum up because i think it's a very timely book, i hope you enjoyed. i think they can be summed up in one sentence, that seldom if ever in our history do we see such a concerted series of

vicious personal attacks directed against any president of the united states. completely funded in this case by a pair of brothers, big oil barons named the koch brothers, with the assistance of an all too compliant american media. and to add those three elements together and you get "the obama hate machine." so i would just like to sell the bit about each of those elements and an open it for questions until c-span tells us the cameras are turned off. and let's start with a hate directed against obama, efforts at got to say though i think criticism of any immigrant president is fair game. i'm part of the white house press corps. i go to the white house every day, would've been here today if we were coming down here. and every day in front of the white house, pennsylvania avenue, there's a crowd of

people protesting something. and i love the pic i really do. i always make a point of checking out what they are therefore, what the point of the biggest. it's a very healthy part of our democracy, and criticism of the presidents of courses been run on for a long time but if you want to go back to the ugliest presidential campaign issue public about 1800, john adams and thomas jefferson, the things that were said. their followers against each other. but with president obama, it's been attacks not on his policies so much as on him as a person. and we haven't seen that i don't live, and i went back and did a lot of research into presidential campaigns in presidential history, we haven't seen that directed that severe and that ugly directedness at a president since abraham lincoln. we think of lincoln of course as saint abraham. he wasn't all that way during

his lifetime. was only after you was assassinated. when he came to washington he was introduced to the nation by the kentucky statesman as follows, abraham lincoln is a man above the median height. he passes a six-foot mark by an inch or two. he is rawboned, bowlegged, knock kneed, pigeon toed, so lopsided, a shapeless skeleton and a very tough, very dirty, unwholesome skin. his lips protrude be on the natural level of a face at our pale and smeared with tobacco juice. his teeth are filthy. meet your president coming in your new president of the united states. [laughter] at the same time, another paper published this profile of mr. lincoln. mr. lincoln stands six feet tall in his socks, which he changes

once every 10 days. [laughter] his anatomy is composed mostly of bones, and when walking he resembles the offspring of a happy marriage between a derek and the windmill. his head is shaped something like a rutabaga. he can hardly be called handsome, though he is certainly much better looking since he had the smallpox. [laughter] yeah, all right. flash forward, right, president obama called a racist, marxist, a fascist, a dictator, a muslim. that's not meant as a positive term by the way. a muslim meaning a terrorist. a nazi, a foreigner, a jackass, rush limbaugh called him that, a liar. of course, on the floor of the house. and a socialist.

this is obsession with obama as a person. it's what others have called them, the phrase in the book, the of the ring obama. have to prove he's not like this. some of it of course is the color of his skin. he's black and we're why. is the first african-american president, but also he's not a true american. the whole birth certificate nonsense but all this showed that he is again something different, something else, something foreign. it's really this obsession to say, to try to destroy president barack obama person. dan horowitz, one of the most conservative commentators out there, actually calls it, he himself calls it the obama derangement syndrome. they just can't help themselves. i do know how many of you heard about this, it goes on. last week the leading federal

judge in montana sends out an e-mail on his official judicial e-mail account to his friends this a joke about little old rock obama asking his mom, why am i black in your white? and she says for all know -- for all i know about your father, i'm surprised he didn't bark. meaning she had sex with dogs. he said a user don't send jokes to like this but i thought this one was particularly funny. i mean, got so sick these people are and that's what we have seen over and over again, again directed not so much against, you can disagree with president obama's health plan that it's strong enough or its government takeover of health care, but you can disagree, taxes or whatever. this is against them personally and try to distort or discredit him personally, "the obama hate

machine." and it's not just fox news. it's after because of a couple of people that most americans have never heard of, the famous koch brothers, charles and david coke. and again, we've seen corporate sponsored attacks against president before, particularly i outlined to them, franklin delano roosevelt. by the way, that was the dupont brothers. and there were three of them at the time. to actually banded together, put their money together, for the thing called the little late to deny fdr a second term. then with bill clinton of course was richard mellon funded all the investigation that led to paula jones and on and on. these articles in american spectator. but nothing compares to the money and the organization that we've seen o on the part of charles and david koch, who are

the heads of koch industries. they were the third and fourth richest man in america, people in america. we know about bill gates and warren buffett. these are number three and number four. combined wealth of $50 billion. they have put more money -- by the way i have to say this. they do some good things, particularly david koch was the wealthiest men in new york city. you thought michael bloomberg was. now, it's david koch. he financed the metropolitan opera, a big supporter of the. the metropolitan museum of art, cancer research centers around the country. but most of their money goes into political activities, and they are everywhere. the heritage foundation in washington, d.c., koch brothers. the cato institute when it started, koch brothers. some of you may know now that koch brothers, cato when its own

independently and the koch brothers are now suing the cato institute to get it back to the a totally controlled koch brothers operation. people -- americans for prosperity, the most active political organization today all funded by the koch brothers. freedom work in the dick armey's koch brothers. john kasich and ohio, koch brothers candidate, bob lock, stock and barrel by the koch brothers. same with scott walker in wisconsin. everywhere in california, a couple years ago there's a measure prop 23 on the ballot to repeal the clean, new clean car standards put in by arnold schwarzenegger. that measured to repeal standards which loss, prop 23, totally funded by the koch brothers. legislation in west virginia to overturn the new mining safety rules that were put in place after the last mind disaster.

the effort to overturn mining safety regulations funded by the koch brothers. i have in the book a page with 53 different organizations. a lot of them by the way research centers on college campuses around the country all for the purpose of disputing the existence of global warming and fighting to do away with any government regulations, so anything to do with climate control. 57 organizations that i was able to find that we do partially or totally funded by the koch brothers. their reach is so great that some has called them the kochapus. they don't do it alone. twice a year with their corporate buddies from around the country and raise money for right wing political cause. two days before the book came out i was so happy this happened because i could tell people you see, i'm not exaggerating. i'm not making this up to two

days before the book came out they had their latest come out in palm springs. and i'll tell you which there. sheldon was there by the way. their meetings are routinely attended by republican governors, kasich, walker, chris christie, opera, from virginia. i'm sure rick scott. they've opened up the supreme court justices and clarence thomas, alito, they've all been there. so their meeting these are but sheets and this one, just about a month or so ago they raise $109 in one weekend to defeat barack obama this year, president. so think about that. if you look at the super pacs for romney and santorum and ron paul and newt gingrich up until super tuesday they have spent a total for all other candidates of $53 million. and in that one weekend they

raise $100 million. so they are huge. they will say and they will do anything. of course, it's a lot easier for the now since citizens united because you can not erase under corporate -- unlimited corporate money but you -- but they also couldn't do it without the assistance of the nation's media and that's what drives me crazy. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. you are watching 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2's booktv. >> i have been writing history books for 30 years, and one of the things that i've done throughout every single book, i try as much as possible to go to the sites of the experience is that i'm writing about, a special presidential ones. this is a historical monument

which is called president lincoln's cottage. abraham lincoln spent about a quart of his presidency here. it was neglected for very long time until about 10, 15 years ago which is when national trust and others restore to come and they're doing their best to restore it so looks the way it did at the time abraham lincoln was president. this house is in northwest washington. it is up the hill from the white house which is down near the river, and so as a result it's far enough away for him to escape and is also a lot cleaner. the book i'm writing is about presidents of wartime from james madison on the war of 1812, to george w. bush and directed one of the centers of this book is abraham lincoln and the civil war. and the thing about lincoln, the experience of america during those years and the largest of the man, he almost might think

it's a further -- anything further to say about abraham lincoln. there always will be because of the lessons we take away from his life experience and his presidency. and also because amazingly enough, the resources still in the united states turned up from time to time. if you're writing about a president is usually helpful because as a story you're trying to repeat or to give the reader a sense of what the president's expense was. in this case, abraham lincoln and the civil war. and because you can come here to this house where he spent so much time while he was president, you could go into the room where he woke up in the morning, see the psyche so by looking outside. you can hear a lot of the sounds that are very similar to what he would've hurt at the time. this is my favorite rem and house which is the library. for a couple of recent appointees adjudicative sense perhaps more than some of the other rooms of what the atmosphere in this room might

have been like when lincoln was living here as president. also, books and learning were so much a part of lincoln's life experience, particularly as president, that the room in which he did a lot of this turns out to be pretty important. as a war leader during the civil war he always wanted to make sure that the decisions he was making about men's lives never got -- that's something we have not always seen. the way lincoln did this was this. so many soldiers were dying in the early months of the civil war that they had to build a new national cemetery and was going to be in washington. they went to the president, where should we put it? and lincoln sent essentially, i want near my summer home so that i will probably be able to look out of an upstairs window and sees men's coffins being taken on a caisson, fresh graves being dug if i come up to the house and back.

he felt that this would almost hourly remind him of the awful toll of the decisions he was making that had taken the country into civil war and allowed him to execute it. to counter gives you an enormous sense, i think, of why you can write history, document, and memory stick if you're writing about a president you are able to go where he spent an awful lot of his time either going up while president. i think you're missing a bet because you standing here almost history in three dimensions, you will learn certain things about abraham lincoln that you would not if you have never been here. >> we would like to hear from you. tweet us your feedback, twitter.com/booktv. >> i'm going to tell you a personal story today, and it's a

something that i normally don't do, but this tour that i'm going to kill you is in large part y what motivated me to write a second book, "what it is like to go to war."ec and one of the things i talk about in that second book isr". that our culture has basically gotten some kind of anurul agreement, like i call it sort of the code of silence about what really goes on in combat. on in combat. what really goes on when our nation asks our kids to go out and kill some other kids. i am no pacifist but i think we tend to not want to think about it very much. in my family the same as all families, i was 50 years old when i found out that my father had fought in a battle of the bulge. dad, wasn't that big deal?

i get all kinds of stories about normandy and that sort of stuff. our culture are good about don't wind and don't brag. any combat veteran will do you -- to wine and complain about and 4% and the things you want to brag about. and things to start breaking down a little bit. personal history, i grew up in a very small town in oregon. a lot being town called seaside oregon and when i grew up virtually all the fathers had been in world war ii. we called it the service back then. that was when your uncle was in the service. our culture is starting to make

the change. i don't hear the service anymore. i hear it called the military. i think that is an interesting switch in language that is happening. that we should think about. i got a scholarship to yale and blasted out of the county and joined the marines because that was the thing to do. guys on my high school football team joined the marines. i joined the plc program which is a sort of marine rotc. you get run through boot camp in the summer and people who survive go to college as reservists. you don't get paid but you get to be a marine. sounds like a good deal. we don't have to wear uniforms or march around during college. i got the road scholarship and thought i wouldn't be able to go. i wrote a letter to the marine corps and they said that is fine. take it. i was there about six weeks and

started to feel really guilty because the guys are served with and kids from my own high school had been over there and lost five boys from my high school in vietnam and there i am drinking beer and having a wonderful time feeling iowa's hiding. i went to the war and ended up in the fourth marines and we were stationed in the jungle in the mountains and the ocean border. and eventually the executive, and finally after i got shot a couple times. and how can you get aaron metals. i wrote this book "what it is like to go to war" for several

reasons. the audience was young people who were considering making the military career. i wanted to reach them. i don't want any romantics joining the united states military or the armed forces. i want to join with clear heads and clear eyes about what they're getting into. i wrote it for veterans because i have struggled with a lot of things. if aiken struggle with these things and get some clarity to someone reading it, might be helped by it. i also wanted to write it for the general public and particularly policymakers. is important that we understand that we are involved very deeply in our wars and we tend to think we are not. i opened the book with a quote from bismarck. one of my favorite quotes. bismarck said any fool can learn from their own mistakes. i prefer to learn from other people's mistakes.

i thought if i can put some mistakes down that i learned the hard way maybe someone else could do it. here is where i launch into this story. we were on an assault and going up a very steep hill and by this time it had broken down into chaos. as anybody will tell u.s. and as the first shot is fired, the way it gets done is individuals 18 and 19-year-old marine's figure out how to get there and and that is how it really works. two hand grenades came flying off of the top of the hill and exploded and are got knocked unconscious and when i came to, sort of a mess but still functioning. we through two grenades back and two more grenades came flying from the top and we were scrambling up hill to get under them so they went below us.

we through two back and, karl marlantes figured that we only have two grenade back. i told the two guys who were with me next time you throw grenades are am going to be around the side and in a position to shoot you guys when they have to stand up to throw their grenades at us. i worked my way around the side of the hill. i could see one of the soldiers was already dead. the other one just like us was a kid, late teens. he rose to throw the grenade and our eyes locked. this is a very unusual thing in combat. generally don't ever lock eyes with people you are about to kill and he was no further away than the third or fourth row. i was waiting for him and i remember whispering, wishing i could speak i won't throw the trigger.

if you don't throw it i won't pull the trigger. i pulled the trigger. i remember being slightly chagrined because i anticipated the recoil on the rifle. drill sergeant kick you in the rear end for doing what they call blocking your shot and it hit the dirt slightly in front of the guy. and the battle still going on. about ten years later i was in one of these california groups they had. remember the california stuff about getting in touch with your feelings and no one had heard of pg s t. totally unaware of it. i was the typical sort of guy trying to -- my wife had brought

me there. finally the leader turns on me and says i understand you were in the vietnam war. she said how do you feel about that? i said -- a typical answer. she said why don't we start talking about it? she asked me to apologize to a kid that are shot. i am game. i said i will do that. i start to think about that kid. that kid had a mother and sister or whatever and i started to cry and i started to ball. i started crying so hard that my ribs ached. i couldn't stop for three days. literally three days i couldn't stop crying. i go to work and have to suck it up. folks start to talk to me had to leave and go outside and walk around. i managed to shove that down again and deal with this. i got five kids to raise.

everything is cool again. 1990 i am driving down i 5 at 2:00 in the morning and this is a wonderful -- you are all by yourself, the dashboard in front of you and country music, radio and no one can touch you at your doing something and it is time -- two eyes appeared on the windshield in front of me. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> next weekend on booktv as he spent two the 12th annual national book festival will take place data on the national mall in washington, d.c. some of the panelists and guess that will be covered live include --