..

>> in honor of george mcgovern, the campaign in 1972 was the one -- it became a cliché. this idea that the democrat is weak. but the democrats don't know how to really beat a commander-in-chief. all he wanted to cut defense spending. this is a very effective attack ad. you will notice that the end that it has the tagline. this was an attack line in the 1972 campaign. >> the mcgovern plan. he would couplings by one third. the air force by one third. he would cut media personnel by one point. he would cut interceptor planes by one half. the navy fleet by one half.

and carriers from 16 down to six. senator hubert humphrey had this to say about the mcgovern proposal to it isn't is cutting into the facts, it isn't just cutting its manpower. it is cutting into the very security about this country. president nixon doesn't lead we should play games of our national security. he believes in a strong america. to negotiate for peace from strength. >> that is why there is such a memorable image. we see these little plastic toys, and nixon is on a real battleship. we have aircraft carriers now in

an airplane landing -- but it only seems to work when the incumbent does not. but this idea that the democrats are going to cut all of these important defense programs, it is exactly the same message of this advertisement, it is one the most effective attack ads. >> he opposed new aircraft carriers and anti-satellite weapons. he opposed all of this. he opposed the ground emergency warning system against an attack. now he wants to be our commander in chief. america can afford that risk. >> poor michael dukakis. if you do a google image search, this is how people remember michael dukakis.

it was unfortunate for the opportunity. this was a photo opportunity that was staged by the dukakis campaign. he didn't quite look the way he was intended to. but you have the same message. he is going to cut all of these programs. so now jumping to 2004. this is the same exact ad, just happens to use computer graphics or it uses the techniques of the time. >> as our troops defend america and the war on terror, they must have what it takes to win. john kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the war on terror. apache helicopters, f-16 fighter jets and hercules. components that are all built in florida. he even voted against body armor for troops our troops on the frontline of the war on terror. john kerry's record on national security is troubling.

>> it is the same exact ad. the ads are more targeted these days. this is the florida version of that advertisement. all of the focus these days on swing states and targeting the swing states. it is the same identical message. this is something i'm not very proud of the, but what i found out recently was we did an event in 2008. mark mckinnon was one of the guest speakers and he created ads for the bush campaign in 2004. he said that he was actually a fan of this website and he knew about this website and he would look at it to try to get ideas and go back to a past campaign. so i will give you an example of an advertisement. and i'm not saying this proudly. but it was interesting to me to learn this.

when we think about the reagan outcome we can do this norman rockwell series of positive ads that make people feel good about the way america was coming back. this ad was actually very effective. again, one that really uses an evocative image. it is an advertisement that really sticks with you. i do find the ec that less and less these days. this is something i was talking about some people before. but the ads don't seem to be quite as memorable be saved. i am not sure, but let me just show this reagan ad. >> there is a barren once. for some people, there is easy to see. others don't see it at all. some people say that the bear is tame. others say it is vicious. and dangerous. since no one can really be sure

who is right, isn't it a smart is possible to be as strong as the bear if there is a bear? >> it is about the soviet threat. it is towards the tail end of the cold war and that was a very effective advertisement. in 2004, we were in the post- 9/11 period 2001. mark mckinnon inspired by this reagan ad with the bear in the woods. and he said let's make our version of the bear in the

woods. that is why he created this ad. >> in an increasingly dangerous world, even after the first terrorist attack on america, john kerry and the liberals in congress voted to/america's intelligence operations. by $6 billion. cuts so deep that the weekend america. >> i'm george w. bush and i approve this message. >> by the way, the whole i approve this message then, we do have john mccain to thank for that. that was a result of the campaign-finance format of his. so that worked. [laughter] that is why that is a bear.

okay. so one more example of the way that we make things work, one of the big pieces of video this year that was not a commercial, but it has to do with mitt romney's fundraising and the obama campaign decided use that footage in a series of ads. there are about five or six different ads that the obama campaign created using 47%. i will show you one example. >> ♪ ♪ >> [inaudible]

>> if you think that half of the country are feeling like victims, i would not say victims. i don't think that's part of the american fabric. >> this is a web ad. this is not the day after the video emerged. this thing, more than ever, these ads are coming out almost instantaneously. i don't even think you talk about new cycle anymore, it's just nonstop. it is an endless stream of news.

but that number, 47%, stuck with me. i remember that there was an advertisement against mcgovern, because we have to show another attack ad against him. but when i heard this attack ad, i thought, where did i hear this before? this is an advertisement, another attack ad from the nixon campaign. it also talks about 47%. >> george mcgovern recently submitted a welfare bill to congress. according to an analysis by the senate finance committee, the mcgovern campaign leads 47%. almost every other person in the country would be on welfare. the finance committee estimated the cost of this incredible proposal at $64 billion the first year. that is six times what we are spending now. and who is going to pay for

this? well, if you're not the one out of two people on welfare, you do. >> so he is saying that mcgovern is so far to the left that he is an extreme liberal. they could probably support nixon or reagan did they go that route. but it's very memorable. you have this idea of what is the role of government.

how they should government be? should government be a safety net to help people? for its government to big? are we paying too many taxes? are there too many people who just feel entitled. this underlying message about what is the role of government, are people just bilking the government, it was there on the nixon mcgovern campaign in that part of the 47% video. again coming have these messages that show up over and over again. i know we have to go to question and answer in just a moment, let me share just to ads from this year to give an example -- it is

really a tit for tat, both are trying to ridicule the other ones. when we taken from the 2004 election where bush's approval rating was not very high. he was not a popular president in 2004 when he was running for reelection. most of the bush advertisements were very effectively attacking john kerry. the strategy was to define john kerry's vietnam record and to say that he is a flip flopper and there is the memorable windsurfing advertisement. i think a lot of you can think of that. it's on the website if you can think of it. but i will show you the tenor of the lot of the ads from this year. we will open it up for discussion. >> i am barack obama and i approve this message. >> [inaudible] >> gluttons agreed.

big bird -- the bird. >> it's me, big bird. >> big and yellow, a menace to our economy. mitt romney knows it's not wall street you have to worry about. it's sesame street. >> i'm going to stop the subsidy of pbs. [applause] >> the advertisement is trying to do two things. i guess there is this million puppet march tomorrow. the issue is not over yet, apparently. what the mitt romney campaign did was to respond and say that it is ridiculing the obama

campaign. but all they want to do is talk about big bird. so you get attack ads and then ads that are attacking the other candidates. ending with the level that we are at right now. this is the romney commercial. >> let me tell you what you don't deserve great a bunch of name calling. we have this condition, romney shot. you won't get that from my campaign. thank goodness somebody is cracking down on big bird. >> if you don't have a record to run on, you make a big election about the whole thing. >> obama is acting like a guy who is behind this. >> at times sounding almost dismissive. >> this is all that the obama people have. >> elmo has to watch out.

>> every single question. he had to attack his rival. >> attacking me is his agenda. ♪ ♪ >> there a lot of ads that are unprecedented. a lot of the ads are targeted to ohio. that is the auto bailout issue

that is huge now. we can talk about this years election or anything from the past that he would like. [applause] [inaudible] >> we need to use a microphone to capture your questions. >> [inaudible] >> with this blizzard video now with the campaigns -- i'm wondering about the search technology. it's amazing to me that they can pinpoint certain phrases.

>> obama made this comment when he was talking about libya. he said losing or americans was not optimal. and that sort of became -- the romney campaign seized on that. they found it very coldhearted. here is obama talking about these deaths of the four americans saying that it is not optimal. oh this technique is described

in so many print advertisements. the most famous example -- it's hard to even remember it. you know the story, i won't repeat it or get too much into it. but all the attack ads said that he doesn't respect to the small businessman does. the entrepreneur. that he thinks that everything is due to the government. so we got into the philosophical debate about the idea that democrats are all about government, republicans are all about free enterprise, and that the you didn't build that phrase, to use romney's language

when he said he wasn't speaking eloquently, it was clearly not an elegant way of putting it. what's that? >> [inaudible question] >> well, yeah, there is a sense that everything -- those catchphrases, read my lips, no new taxes -- those things are hard to find. but nowadays, you feel that there could be a piece of video for everything.

it shows the other candidates had some little soundbites to show how horrible they are. >> a lot of these ads were well produced. i live in pennsylvania, so i haven't seen a lot of that. [applause] >> yes, you used to be a swing state. [applause] >> that's right. maybe there are portions of history that stick out to the level of genuineness where you come away thinking that it is something that wasn't overproduced? >> there were some advertisements that -- in the 70s, for mcgovern, i felt like

you saw the mcgovern adds. he had a great filmmaker, charles guggenheim, who went around filming him. so he had all of these attack ads. so for instance, let us listen and respond about defense spending. >> we have to depend on war. we are in bad shape in this country. that is the argument that the communist me. they say our society won't work unless we have a war going on. frankly, i don't believe that. at the end of world war ii, which is the word i participated in, we had full have full employment after that war. the reason is that we set about doing the things we need to do that we couldn't do before.

those problems are still here. we need new environmental protection. >> whether it was effective or not, whether it would strike a balance. but you also want canada to seem presidential at some point. we see him out in the peanut field, you know, he is the man from the south.

>> it is almost always an act. it is an act in a way. everything you see is scripted in a way. carter did grow up in georgia. bill clinton came from a town called hope. his ad feels very authentic. a very biographical ad. these are very scripted. even what looks genuine is pretty carefully scripted, usually. >> as you assemble these ads, what is your impression about the proportion of negative ads over time? does it increase over time? >> is a bit cyclical. it's not as if he keeps getting worse and worse. this year, i mean, i knew going in, this is not morning in america this year. it is clear that obama would not

be able to run a campaign, a feel-good campaign. and that it was important to attack from the beginning and if you have to define mitt romney and do the negative ads. now, there have been more positive ads lately for obama. there was a very nice ad put together from the colin powell endorsement. and i feel like maybe obama could have done more of that. he could've done it in a more positive tone and been effective. but this is a year where unemployment is now a little bit below 8% and we haven't had unemployment numbers this high, since the very early 1980s. there is no way that this is going to be a feel-good year. attack ads were inevitable this year. if you go back to 2000. at the 2000 election, the economy was doing very well. and george w. bush want to

betray himself as a centrist. he was an unlikely candidate at the time. and he wanted to show that he was, you know, just a little bit -- maybe a little bit to the right of al gore. but he wanted to seem pretty close. so they were actually very few negative ads. bush didn't want to do attack ads in 2000. he really shied away from it. and there are one or two very mild attack ads against al gore. but that was a year when his country was doing well on and both sides were really playing towards the center. you know, you have an al gore advertisement where he talks about how he agrees with george bush about education. they were both playing towards the middle. it is not as though it gets more negative every year. some elections are just set up that way. there is a different narrative with every election and this was a very grim year.

it was inevitable that it was going to be this ugly in a way. the only way that mitt romney can get in is to make people feel bad about the country. that is the argument for romney. too many people out of work, we can't afford four more years of this. of course, the romney has have to be negative. so it depends on the situation, i think. >> thank you. >> thank you for bringing me. >> i was really interested. the main focus is the 32nd television ad. the short spot. but i was very interested in what you said about truman in 1948. i can't remember the last election cycle. obama purchased 30 minutes or an hour? >> there was a 30 minute film. this was a tradition, where candidates would do like a 30 minute special.

i don't think we're going to see that this year. it sort of hearken back to an old tradition. >> if you could say something about the longer form, have you seen not in other elections, what is the strategy and how is that different from the shorter ads? >> in 1956, the standard advertisement was four minutes. most of the ads that we have from 56 and on our four minutes longer than one minute became the norm and then 30 seconds. the tv ads, 30 seconds. you do see longer videos. there was just a video that came out for mr. obama that was directed by bennett miller, he directed the movie money ball and it is real people talking. it was a series of web videos. you do see longer pieces in a

format. so a lot of the video being produced is being made on the internet. it is being passed around to his supporters, they are trying to waste more money -- excuse me, raise more money. it's hard enough to get anybody's attention for seconds when they are sitting in front of the tv. thirty seconds is still the standard. but more and more of these ads are being designed for the web. for instance, you don't see humor use that much until recently. now, because of the internet, that is one reason why you saw that the byrd ad. i don't think it was that funny. i thought it was a little bit trivial. but the obama campaign was hoping that i would become a viral video. you know, the sesame street advertisement. and if you remember john mccain

did an ad where he compared obama to britney spears and that became a web sensation. if you're looking for that in the campaign, you want to create an ad that can be shared all over the internet. you know, so -- we haven't seen that many memorable, viral type of ads. this year we have a yes, we can -- the music video and that was seen by about 30 million people. >> yes, you said you had some media consultants in the past. at some of your events. i was wondering if you did in the oral history. >> [inaudible question] >> that is a great idea.

>> okay, we can shake hands afterwards. it's a great idea. this is sort of an offshoot. our focus is really on film and television and video games. but, you know, this was an area where the campaigns are using tools of making movies and making moving images. this was like a natural subject for us. but we don't have the resources to do what we have in mind. but it's a great idea. >> i'm with the national archives. >> along with a presidential library. >> okay, you can do the project director. >> you seem like a man for the job. [applause] >> it is a great idea. these people are fascinating. and they are still around. tony schwartz, i was able to meet him. he was making advertisements into the '90s and he was a very important figure.

a lot of these gentlemen were getting a lot of years who had passed away. i think it's a great idea. a lot of new records are coming available. >> yes, that is great. a great website -- it has been very hard to keep up with all the ads coming out this year, but that website is great. but yes, the ads are not quite as creative. they had come out so fast. the auto bailout adds, the romney campaign did an advertisement a few days ago that said that obama was going the production of jeeps to china and it was a very strong counterattack in the obama campaign had had an advertisement out to counter that. because those votes are so

important. you know, that was targeting voters in ohio, the all-important state of ohio. so these advertisements come out so fast that there's not enough time to make them very creative. you know, you see -- you don't see quite the same level of artistic values but it's an interesting story. >> so i was looking at some of the videos you are putting up their and it was one that featured debate footage that made me think of the 1988 benson versus quayle. i am not sure if this is collected on the site or not, but when did attacking the running mate become one of the main things that we do? >> i'm very glad you asked that. there was an ad in 1952. it's a very short stevenson had

the fed nervous about nixon? and that was the first. richard nixon as the vice presidential candidate. he brilliantly used television in his campaign. he was the first questionable vice presidential candidate to be attacked in an advertisement. this is my favorite. i will show because it's only 20 seconds long. [laughter] [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you for asking. yes, that cop at the end was such a great touch. tony schwartz is the master of

sound. he was most famous for going around and making recordings. he actually did this ad -- the daisy girl ad was a whole series of recordings that people had a children counting in different countdowns, and that is what inspired the daisy girl ad. and then there has been joe biden, who is always kind of a laughingstock for many people. but we haven't seen it, for some reason. it's very interesting. but this is great. i thought you're going to ask about the use of debate footage. there was a period when they candidate said he would not use debate footage in their ads. i was honestly not in play this year. but there were two cycles where the candidates had to say that they would not use any debate footage and that's why we didn't see any footage. i think it was during 1992. where the candidates had agreed

not to use the footage. >> i come from the fabulous swing state of ohio. here i am. >> you are not undecided, are you? >> i have not yet voted. but i will. >> my question goes back to what we were talking about which is the proliferation of ads. i am wondering if, in fact, it is as it seems that there are many more variations of ads being produced. the question goes to the classic marketing principles of consistent communication than having your key messages and sticking to them, versus what is happening now, which there is a new advertisement every day in response to the other ad. have you seen any sort of trends

of that creating more confusion or less clarity around the candidates position? >> yes, what you have is microturbine it adds. there are a lot of ads directed at women voters. women voters are the ones who you might be able to sway and they are very important. they are a very important voting bloc. what happens is you have both sides trying to say the same thing, trying to say the same thing. there was even a nod that is hard to describe. it starts with a woman saying that she is a rape victim, yet she is voting for todd akin because she so compassionate. [laughter] >> it was mind-boggling.

i was wondering if the onion produced it. [laughter] >> there was one of these third-party advertisements targeted at black voters. it said you should vote with the republicans because abraham lincoln freed the slaves. and it totally looked like it was fake. when i see an advertisement like that, have to check to see if it is a joke or for real. but it is a little tricky. i felt that there was not a clear message coming from the obama campaign. it is probably true of both campaigns. we were getting all the structured messages that are so targeted, almost as though women only want to hear about abortion and rape. you know, they want to hear about women's issues. so you don't get an overarching narrative. it is little hard to say what is

the overarching narrative for both campaigns. you are getting a little bit more the sense of things now at the end, where the campaigners do what is called closing arguments. president obama is sort of sum everything up. as i said before, a lot of i will i am not just dealing with radio advertising, but i'm control, advertisements on radio not just television, immigration in certain areas. much more money being spent on hispanic voters. that is something that the obama campaign did masterfully and the percentage advantage that obama

has among latino voters is up by 50 points. it has been an enormous disparity. but it is something that was really built the advertisement in 2008. not only through the advertising, but a lot of money spent on advertising towards the voters. >> thank you been okay to [inaudible question] >> okay, okay. >> when was the last conversation had with the questioner? you raise a bunch of issues that i have about repetition. you don't know how often the ads ran toward some quantitative measure of how effective they are? because it is true that it takes a long time before people even know there is an advertisement and then you start repeating the alka-seltzer abs or whatever is popular.

>> you had to run him 18 or 20 times for it to make an impression. [laughter] >> what you said, what struck me -- you want to debate and then you have the fact checkers right afterwards. the technology enables us to go right onto google in real-time and get things in context. as he said, there is something for everything and about anything. where is the fact checking? should we have standards? this is not fiction. you go go to the movies, you watch a tv show. are there any standards are saying that you can't run this ad because you're lying? >> there is a thing called the press.

one thing that happened, this is after the 1980 election. there were a lot of attack ads against michael dukakis that were questionable. they were ads about attacking michael dukakis' record on the environment and after that election, that was an election where the congressman was ahead after the convention and wound up losing by a big margin. the media was not really questioning the advertisements that year. in the next cycle in 1992, you started to see the newspapers in "the new york times." they would do ad watches. they would analyze the ad and whether it was accurate or not. the media felt that they did a bad job in 1988. now you have fact check.org and a number of tools that are used.

>> in the past few days, there was a big backlash among the media. a lot of reporters have attacked romney campaign for the advertisement about the jeeps being built in china. it was one of the first advertisements you see, there was a strong outcry from the media about that advertisement because it was so far from the truth. >> is interesting. there is a lot of information out there now on the web. you know, not everybody runs to backcheck.org when they see a tv commercial. a lot of misconceptions stay there that were repeated. that is sort of the nature of democracy.

there are tools out there now. perhaps things will backfire if they go too far. >> yes, my question is, to piggyback on the gentleman earlier that asked about the negativity. negativity apparently works, you can always go negative and that gets people's attention. but people always talk about negative ads turning them off. there is a disconnect there were people

>> negative ads only work if there is something that seems to be true. john kerry seems to equivocate and, you know, this whole -- there's there is a whole way that he would portray somebody who's easy to go back and forth. there were a lot of things or that were unfair about the way he was attacked. but it rang true to the public. he didn't have a feeling for how that came across. he often talked about going to jail on the privileges he had. bill clinton went to yale also. but he never mentioned that. he somehow was able to come across as an ordinary guy. so the negative ads work when they sort of ring true somehow.

it might not always be fair. you know, i don't know how perilous. what happened with john kerry, another thing is -- another important aspect is how does a candidate respond to attack ads. when john kerry was being attacked that came out in august of that year, he did not respond right away. one of the things we saw with the obama campaign in 2008, and this year, is that anytime there has been an attack, there was a response immediately. whenever a candidate says i'm not going to answer that attack, it doesn't work. bill clinton perfected that in 1992. that is where the phrase war room came from. any tech company responded to immediately. e-mailing in the internet, if

you remember that great movie, you see it on the phone all the time. always making sure that they respond immediately to attack. that aspect of how you respond to an attack has a great deal to do that. you never want to look like you're on the defensive. yet you always want to be defending yourself. >> last question? >> so like the 1952 election with eisenhower with a cartoon -- even if the candidate can control the advertising, what candidate would make themselves

into a cartoon? what into a cartoon? would explain the change in jonna? >> is a question of what works at the time. there are animated spot these days. but they are usually web videos. these ads seem effective, but 20 years now people will laugh at the antiquated techniques that were used. they have the style of that time. i didn't have to show -- i didn't have time to show the knicks and ads from 1968, but they almost look like at vanguard films. that was the style of the time so the ads really reflect whatever seems to be in the air at that time and working at that time. >> okay. thank you so much.

[applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> pools have begun closing in several states with several races expected to be closed. the possibility exists for one candidate won the popular vote and the other in the electoral college. next, historian and author ray raphael talks about the electoral college and its creation. >> good evening. welcome to the library of the american revolution here in

pennsylvania. we are a primary source library who studies the american history from 1750 to 1800. we promote interest in this area. by making our unparalleled collections available to researchers of every level of academic experience by awarding fellowships to advanced scholars and offering programs to the general public, such as tonight's election. we invite you to visit our website at www.dlar.org. tonight we feature a talk by ray raphael. ray raphael headed west the day after he graduated from high school. he was at active in the civil rights movement in the 60s and in the 70s he was in northwest california where he and his wife raised their two sons neck and

neil. he taught at a conference of one high school among the redwoods. and he began writing about contemporary issues. he is a prolific writer. his latest book is "mr. president: how and why the founders created a chief executive." it is my pleasure to welcome back to the david library, ray raphael. [applause] >> it is a pleasure to be at the david library with a full and eager crowd. this history is important.

we will be talking not about ancient history by contemporary history. the history of the founding and let me start by noting that americans engage every four years into very unique principles. one in october and we are about to start six days from now. about half the nation firmly determined that their side loses nomination goes to ruins.

they figure out which of the two contestants they prefer. that is one of our rituals. it is highly partisan. the other ritual that we will also talk about his every four years in october, americans urged try to understand this very bizarre institution called the electoral college and whether they understand it or not. i'm going to call it a federal convention. people didn't know, and they are there to amend the articles of confederation.

it is a working draft of the constitution. this is a unique event in history. all executive matters were just handled by congress. eventually, that had to be very cumbersome. the presiding officer, yes, john hancock and the others of the congress, all they did was sign their name in the big signature that we all knew all decisions

are made by the congress. the virginia plan said, okay, let there be an executive department. they don't say if there is one executive for several executives. the person will serve a single term ineligible for reelection -- i bet they will execute what they need to have a executed and that was the beginning of the presidency. two good questions in there. the first question is single executive or multiple executive. it might seem obvious to us.

james wilson, he said he wanted to be a single executive. we had just mimicked the constitutional convention. did you hear that sound? [laughter] that is exactly what happened at the constitutional convention. were they going to do? a single executive -- it's not like a king or monarch when monarch women do we really want to go that route?

with a single executive be close to them on our? they were considering not. now. the other things, they did decide quite quickly that they wanted a certain number of years. he was elected by congress. -- i guess any of us could in future spouse or anybody else there is one other item.

that is the same elected by congress -- and james wilson stood up and said, you know, i don't think he should be selected by congress. if you selected by congress, he is dependent upon congress. we were trying to get an independent executive. a rousing round of disapproval. all the other states are voting it down. so, so much for that idea. ..

so that of course is the on june 2nd 1787 was the very genesis of that idea, what we now call the electoral college. so on june 4th, they stop the debate and that's what they have geared every single executive. they decide on serving a single seven-year term and removal by malpractice by congress. six salary and that's it.

and they also determine he does have a veto that can be overridden. what are his powers? not stated. they are to execute the law and do anything else that congress wants them to do. so was first in line here? obviously still totally in charge. now we fast forward through debates over large state, small states, seven weeks forward to mid-july. they're going to invite time and this site once again, james wilson and a cohort of his named veneer morris, not governor morris, who is from new york who is serving as a delegate from pennsylvania. from new york -- really from new york. as a matter of fact, father was the present-day bronx.

so this fellow is well-to-do. so they come by. they tried to introduce the elections came again. once again they could only two states. and then they say well, how about we do the electors he began, but this time there is little morris is it. we suggest it not be chosen by electors who are themselves chosen by the state budget features. and now, not a whole lot of interest in that. but morris takes the floor. actually, let me say a word about strangeness are supporting what they really want an popular election, election many people don't give a check on congress. they had this concept that congress is obviously, they know there's a lower and upper and most delicate integrates the

idea that the lower branches democratic in the upper bridge more aristocratic in hamilton's words of our branch will branch will represent the mass of the people and the rich and well born. these two groups are kind of conflicted with each other, so the checks and and balances between them. and also with mm political squabbles. they want to have somebody to send above all that. a nonpartisan who is somehow immune and two other kind of political hanky-panky that goes along. so that's why they insist that it has to be free. you cannot be chosen by congress and particularly they can get rid of them at any moment. morris says you have to look at the whole picture here. all these issues are connected. if congress chooses the president, that's why you have to have a one term president

because it is chosen by congress and congress gets to read shoes and reaches, the president in order to stay in office has to court congress. so you have to have a nonrepeatable president. either way, i'm using the word president a little prematurely. they'll come on august 6. so if it's nonrepeatable, his term has to be reasonably long. so they stick with the idea seven years. this can tittered three, but she can't repeat. the only three years, not enough time. you cannot congress in charge this way or you can uphold their system. he didn't like the idea congress can impeach for very little reason because it's once again executive is not independent of congress. so how about if the people elect

them? of course they'd just been torn down twice. if the people elected off in, every two years, you don't even need an impeachment procedure. the people will be the one to impeach every two years. i see a lot of heads nodding. that's a good idea. so suddenly have a short-term repeatable presidency with the piece people basically serving. to understand how radical coming up to understand. governor morris, the american revolution is very much a bottom-up affair. it is huge, huge crowds of ordinary people really propelled the revolutionary fervor. and in 1774, new york,

gouverneur morris was observing events or pastries were basically swarming over the resistance to the crown policy. he's on an alchemy looking down and here's how gouverneur morris, by the way that guy elected by the people every two years, very populous for the day. since his initial idea of who the people are. these assemblies they are in short is no then a naturally the metaphor, the head are dangerous to the gentry and high keep them down is the question. the mob began to think and to reason. poor reptiles. they are struggling to cast off. they bask in the sunshine and aaron and they will fight, the gentry began to fear the spirit that's 13 years earlier. he still something of an aristocratic and later returns

to that kind of attitude. the logic of the situation is striven had to the idea that james wilson also is very unlike way. a few other people in the nation probably know there's a place called fort wilson philadelphia, which is james wilson's house. in 1779, when there's a crowd of angry people because of the rights of the prices of bread going after rich merchants like robert morris and wilson was part of the crowd, they retreated to wilson's house and fired shots that killed these people. so once again, an unlikely palace. logic however did not produce about. it is a matter of fact on suspicion of popular election was so great that they couldn't overcome it. george mason has perhaps the best single line or on that.

he said for the people who elect the president, it is late referring to try live colors to a blind man. and that is that view. anyway, so people can do it, what do they do? briefly these were introduced the idea and it passes this time and they make the president repeatable and shorten his term not from seven years to two, but from seven years to six. so they're kind of listening to someone's logic and not and went with it. for four days. and the backslide started when when they said okay, who gets how many electors? they started squabbling over that. so that was the beginning of the

black site. four days later they returned entirely to the original scheme. the president single seven-year term, appointed by congress and removable by congress and that's it. matter over seemingly. so between july 19 and july 23rd, we had an elect to a college. we had presidential electors. but then the backsliding reverts entirely to the old vote. once again, frustrated, james wilson's is wait a second, i am not happy with this. you don't want the people and congress doesn't work because then you don't have an independent executive. what you do? another bright idea. he says have a this? the problem with them elected by president is the president can politic with an congress to get people on the site. what if he doesn't know who will make the decision. choose them by a lot.

okay, choose people from each house by lots and immediately before anybody in those people get together and choose the president. gouverneur morris, who spoke more often than any other person in the convention, just a grant writer titian at this time and he says, that sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. and nobody else did. it was just the two of them. that idea got nowhere, so not that brings us up to the mid-point of the convention and it's not the end of july and they appoint a committee to flesh out the office of the presidency and all the rest. this is her get her first job -- real draft of the full constitution. it's called the detail report issued on august 6th. this is what the president actually gets named president.

president and presiding officer as opposed to governor. something to preside in a larger sense with the concept. the president was to be able, as wilson's size, standard mediator peer at the ultimate in not only be nonpartisan, but the ultimate nonpartisan force. that was the idea. right now the committee of detail stood, we would now be sitting from entering the last year nancy pelosi seven-year's seven-year term as president. needless to say, that is not what happened. but the time is right on and on and on and gouverneur morris in particular is not happy. he's trying to get the president stronger. he tries to get the treaty

making power is reassigned from the president -- in the senate to the president. he tries to get appointments. the senate make the appointments. clearly an executive task. but they are so fearful of a strong executive that it passes the senate. he's beginning to scheme is fine. so one more time he tries popular election. filled, third time. three strikes you're out. they say how bout electors token by the people? and they are he gets now is six to five vote. getting close. so he says okay, how about just the abstract question, who just kind of likes the idea? everyone's kind of puzzled and only four states vote on one, for on the other. massachusetts, they don't know the abstract boat. they don't do anything. even not failed.

the four to four vote failed because by the rules of the convention, you need a majority. they say it's passed in the negative with the tide. so it's a done deal. meanwhile, small states who were unhappy with congressional selection for other reasons, more congresspeople in the lower house, which is determined by population, so they won't have as much to say about it. from new jersey, they say there's two more questions to reconsider. the length of term and whether you can get elected again. they say please put out the vote for another day. and the reason why. then the next day, nothing said. nobody says anything else. so on august 31st, the last day before they're going to

return and put everything into this committee would now call of the committee of remaining matters because a committee of 11. well, as it's so hot in, the election of the president by congress does not do the same. if determined through different times in the popular electorate have been turned on three different times. they even know how congress is going to do it. joint session of congress you needed a clear majority. plurality would not do because they were worried somebody in a large state, they just had more people than candidate and that would be enough. we need absolute majority and in case of attack, the president of the senate would vote it would break the tie. so they had the whole thing laid out, done deal. on the 31st, they are talking

about what to do for the very first federal election. how it's organized from the particular events. someone raises his hand and physically dissecting, we haven't decided whether congress should appoint the president. what he was kind of talking about was maybe abstract boat, which actually failed. but there was no basis for that. but he was tied in people's minds with the other issue about the years and repeatability to new jersey people had raised to never cut that out purposefully to get into committee. the whole package goes to committee. the chair from new jersey and gouverneur morris is on the committee. and then, the communiqués to deliberating in september for, just a few days later, they report out. and suddenly, the president is

no longer appointed by congress, even though it's been cited three times, but with this very elaborate system. users for years, not seven, can be repeated in office. he yesterday making powers with the consent of the senate. entire shakeup and committee behind closed doors of the whole process happening in the convention. they're subtle references to the compromises within the committee and all the politics going on and even unrelated issues, like whether the senate can't initiate money bills, which is part of the great compromise and stricken from the great compromise and were introduced here as part of the complex web of negotiations, which i won't go into here. they're trying to satisfy all the interest. small states, large states, slave states. they get extra votes if it's by

population. so the whole thing is shaken up in the electoral college, just explain briefly is close to what we have today. we have people -- first of all, start with who chooses the electors. not in the constitution. the state legislators choose how they are selected. they can allow people to do it or do it themselves, but it's totally underhand to determine which. those electors get together and they choose to people -- two people appeared when a phone is not in their home state. they are scared of the favorite. the biggest able to get the most votes. so they said one other person you vote for cannot be from your home state. two people, what does that mean come into people?

well, who's the second person? about a vice president. suddenly we need a vice president. no vice president before september 4. either way, gina when the convention ended? 13 days before the end. meeting before three and half months, so sick of it, so tired to get home, but anyway, that we suddenly have a vice president. but the vice president do? add-on. well, let's make him president of the senate in case of a tie vote he presides. so actually when dick cheney said a few years ago and part of the legislative department and never mastered it because functionally that's not the way it works now. technically he was right. that's the only thing written into his office. so they get together. here's the key, they get together in separate places. the electors get elected.

they meet in their separate states, still legally this is what's going happen in december. they meet in separate states and on the same day they cast their votes for president and vice president. and if there is a clear majority -- the majority of votes cast -- obviously, each casting two votes. if the majority of electors cast one for candidate, that person as president. if not, it goes into a runoff in the senate. this is the committee report. the senate chooses among five candidates. so that is kind of the top five. what kind of runoff chooses from the top five? where is the choice of president reverting to? in many people's minds the senate is how often we have a majority. well, afterwards, and the

initial comes out. it is so shocking that edmund randolph and charles pickney, and a quote from madison's brother -- he is a very tried language, but you can read between the lines to your, wish for a particular explanation and discussion of the reasons for changing the mode of electing executives. like why are you doing at? so morris comes forward with his reason, his reasons than those of the committee and sosa followed to avoid intriguing cobol. this way they would be separate and they'll put it once, so no one can politick. and then later, shortly here, hamilton -- hamilton when he writes in the federalist, he writes an essay pretty much to

that effect. he says there's no better way than this. you basically solve the issue. trying to get the exact quote here. he says that actually solve the issue. but they haven't solved the issue. think about it. does this really solve the issue? not a few boat, let's say you elect the electors and there is a five-week span for they meet in these people are somehow immunized about political pressure, they're about to be voting for the president. supposedly no one will exert pressure to vote a certain way? not like you. they will vote in certain places at all at the same moment. nobody can possibly pressure them. that's not really hanging

logically. isn't it possible to exert political pressure if you have five weeks to do it before people vote? you with think the great rivers of the constitution might've asked a question. it's a logical question to ask. nobody believes that possibility. they continue to debate the committee report, but the only thing they really debate on the choice of the presidency was whether the runoff should be in the house or the senate. they finally did a compromise and let's make it in the house instead of the senate, the let's do it by state delegation, one state, one vote. nobody challenged the big system. they said this works. now when it goes up for ratification, people start wondering, wait a second, is

this really the best system? i'm trying to get the exact quote. so an opponent of the constitution, he's wondering this. he says an extraordinary refinement on the plain, simple business of election and to which the current convention had certainly the honor of being the first inventors. , why do they do this? why did they come up with this wild scheme? the reason they came up with the wild scheme is because the argument that congress should not select the president was found. it's pretty much irrefutable. you know, the president is an independent ranch. what's the alternative? popular election.

they didn't want to go there. they didn't want to go there too extremely that they said we need some other way. madison and the federalist says it might not be a perfect system, but if anybody has a better idea, but it's no. so it's basically this compromise. the only virtue of which it was not either of the others. every member, hamilton said it makes it immune to entry. dallas' argument in the federalist. nobody forward a little bit into the first federal election. remember, you vote for two members. each has the vote. he says, what if somebody who really doesn't like washington, like maybe their son got overlooked for promotion or some thing. washington had dirty anointed

items as a vice presidential possibility. they say what if everybody votes for adam, but a few disgruntled souls strawberry vote from washington, what will happen? atoms will sneak through the presidency. so he writes letters to people in six of the 11 state. we need to throw with seven or eight those for adam. to insure against this possible. not isn't he the guy who said there's no intrigue and somehow it is secure. how could they deluded themselves to doing not? look, they're tired and want to move on, not the intuitive definition is like in entries like people whispering in the corridors of european courts and they don't even entertain the notion that entry can happen

through the mail over a period of time and political interests might develop some people might focus around one candidate or another. this just doesn't occur to them or at least they don't ask the hard questions. so anyway, meanwhile the presidency is now the committee detailed would be the commander-in-chief. now he's in charge of the senate -- of the treaty making point compass is getting more power. there's still a lot of things unclear when washington becomes president. and he is trying to avoid what we now call a cabinet position, executive officers that encourages the secretary of foreign affairs. somebody says okay, here's the motion.

the president according to the constitutional point the person in the senate will approve it and the president can aim of the person at any time. well, where is that written in the constitution? somebody says, will logically if the senate is needed to improve come if you want to disapprove, the senate must do that also. other people say no, if you do that, what will happen is somebody who doesn't want to be removed for courts and people in the senate and they'll have a little of their own annual have some develop within the department of treasury and the president has to be reelected four years or more presidential, go and meanwhile you have the same secretary of the treasury basically running the show. and yet, arguments on both sides. the rhetoric would not -- they say the whole history of the

human race depends on this position. liberty in america is at stake and so on. great hyperbole. eventually come of the is decided on a tie vote of the senate on which john madden's, the vice president breaks the tie. that's when the president can remove people. we didn't even have the vice president before that. there's so many unanswered things. i'm not going to go than through. as he negotiates treaties, foreign policy becomes a big issue when washington declares a neutrality proclamation of the congress that how come you get to do that? i thought we got to decide whether gore or not. and later on, the house says we should approve this treaty, to because it involves commercial matters and we have to be involved in commercial matters.

packets disputed in the house says okay, the president sends papers. the president says sorry i've exclaim executive privilege. so the washington administration coming to power the president start to congeal. washington himself is trying not to be political. he really believes in the transcendent ideal. but it's so hard to achieve because it starts over hamilton's financial program and gets involved with foreign policy and whether your favorite england and france. by 1796, you infer that the genesis of two political parties. adheres interesting thing. in 1796, washington steps down. he was the unanimous choice of the first president. now we have the first contested president -- first contested

presidency. so how is this going to work? are the electors just going to go off -- she's actually going to appoint the electors of the state legislatures or will they let the people in the states? you know, john q. smith over at albany cuties a pretty good guy. although for him. it doesn't really happen that way. the idea was to legislatures choose prominent people, judges, respected people would get together and because they were so smart and wise and have the good of their country and stayed at heart, they get the best people. and they have the best minds to come together and exercise their best discretion. and say, here is the wisest men of all. this is sort of a national

concept when you knew they would although for washington and washington was clearly the best person. but now what do they do? as it turns out, they realize the powers of the presidency has expanded so much that no program can succeed unless your site has the presidency. so as you start to get to parties farming, suddenly the presidency of comic captured the presidency has to be the absolute must win situation and you get this zero sum game. you win or lose in the two parties coalesce. the irony is, remember that the idea was for the president need to transcend partisanship, local parties, all that stuff and somehow the institution is not a catalyst for the formation of national political parties. political parties in madison always thought those interested

bevocal in separate and you get them on a national scale in the kind of neutralized each other. well, what happened is the nationalization of politics the two national parties. so certainly of people basically caucusing in nominating candidates and now the federalist nominee adams and thomas pinckney because they do preach nonviolence. hamilton said that earlier post on adams. now he's all worried that if you southerners, because he's the federalist, would not vote for john madden and thomas jefferson the republican will get president. so he writes a letter. now he's in treaty, the northern elect are scum adults throw away any votes for pickney. we need them all. meanwhile, she's hoping some of

the southerners won't know for adams and they will vote in south carolina. south carolina is up for grabs because it was a swing state. pick from south carolina could get more votes even though he was the vice presidential candidate. as it turned out, adams did just squeak through. too many people did throw away the vote. remember, he was trying to get to stay firm and they didn't. and so, jefferson was vice president. so the first only time the nations history, we have one party president and there's a very, very brief honeymoon in jefferson and adams quickly get to fighting in jefferson tells

they were walking on fifth street one night and started arguing and went their separate ways and that was the last thing they communicated two months of the administration. and now, see if this sounds familiar to you today. this is 1797. after the first election, jefferson is going to write about the state of things in the capital. the passions are too high to be cool in our day. you and i have seen debates in the high political passions, but shut him in politics would speak to each other in separate the business from that of society. it is not so now. men who'd been intimate all their lives cross the street to avoid meeting and turn their heads in other ways lest they should be obliged to touch their hearts. this may be for young men with whom passion has enjoyed. the tranquility -- so we should

work together, but now this partisanship is coming together because of the creation of the presidency. we have this piece of history where it's almost like the founders were trying to do their best. they didn't thoroughly examine the issues. they didn't have a concept of how partisanship would play out. you can't blame them for that. you couldn't fault them for having tough questions. they were tough questions. but their idea was to create something that they feared coming mainly partisanship and instead been running from their fear they foster them. you are so scared of something you create something and somehow wind up creating that.

it's also on a grander scale the story of how human beings any social institution can create something, and institution and the strange ways, you're just stuck without, even though it morphs so many times. when you think of what malik there is no common is that a wise person who exercises discretion? quite the opposite. you choose the very, very most partisan politics people who would never possibly waiver. anon your ballot to vote for obama or romney, and elect trait, by the constitution are supposed to vote for electors pledged to a candidate. so there's an entire twist on

that. this comes to an absolute ahead in the election of 1800 as we know. a lot of words of manipulation -- the pledged elect this is so great and nobody wants to throw away a vote anymore. so jefferson and his vice presidential candidate wind up with identical tallies. so certainly they have to face a runoff in the house. and in the house, the federalist , the opponents of charter's inside with her, anything to get jacob revolutionary out of there. so they side with her and it goes to 36th ballot and they finally decide to jefferson. they saw the problem of voting

for two is the 12th amendment. might distinguish between president and vice president they don't have the thing hamilton was constantly trying to gain. either way, when he first started to do it in the first federal election, shortly after he wrote the perfect system, everybody knows the defect in the constitution, which are happy to vote for two candidates. he says could i think the other guys are going to play comment here so we should play it. so gaming the system. basically that's what happened ever since its various versions. we don't do to electors, but we are still stuck with the idea that the electors choose. even the whole of the whole function puts on a, we still do it. that's how people can become trapped by our own tradition. i'm going to close with a quote

from noah wester. you will know he had a way with words, right? so as a federalist, he was very much promoting the constitution after it was drafted during ratification stage. and so he writes, the president of the united states is selected. what is the capital improvement on the best governments, the mode of choosing the danger of faction and corruption. that's what he wrote. and then in 1800 -- he kept a personal copy of that particular essay. in 1800, right during the debate when this is all happening in congress and the 35th ballot or something he scribbles on the margin in little notes to himself or dispersed a little dependence can be placed on theory. [laughter] 12 years experience or for your

selection demonstrates the contrary. you cannot the last word after him, but anyway, that the end of my formal talk. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] the mac so now, participatory questions, comments. all you fans of the electoral college coming is your chance. yes. >> just out of curiosity, what was the original salary allocated to presidency? is this something people aspire to for financial gain? >> no, i don't know what it was. washington refused to take any. and franklin -- ben franklin would be very adamant there should be no salary.

what they did do, they did make clear that whatever salary is could not be augmented during your turn. does the first part of the virginia plan. i don't think the salary was never the issue. now whether people were able to capitalize in terms of future speaking engagements and endorsements for a medical bill to the point of our presidential candidates is back in the 90s. that's a different question. technically, souders itself wasn't a big issue. by the way, everybody assumed whoever was running for president, they might be the power. they might be devout or money. >> right behind you. yeah. >> for years i wondered, who is one elect her? what is one's name?

and now i really don't care. [laughter] i used to wonder. >> you know, i don't know a single electors name. with about 135 people. does anyone know analects are poor and electors name? they are just statements of people's imagination. they are clearly party loyalists. when they get together, this much i promise you. and each state, according to constitution the winning electors get together. i promise you do have a good time that evening. that's all i know. >> the representative of electoral college now? >> from having to electors.

>> let me clarify that. i'm sorry you cannot gloss this the speech, but the number of the lectures that was still an issue come the allocation of how much each state would get. the allocation has not been changed. the allocation from beginning to now was to have the number of total people of congress in your state. for instance, wyoming has three. that one congressman to senators. that's the minimum. every state has at least three. is going to change every decade that offenses come dissent been in the order of 45 because they have two senators or whatever the number is. so when you see the battle ground states and all that stuff, that legally has not been changed.

it's only the growth of congress which has changed it. the number two was simply how many people each goes for. they voted for two people and they still vote for two people. initially, there is no distinguishing. it was just a top candidate in the second candidate as vice president. so that how it worked. actually, when hamilton, inside of atoms and each federalist is voting for two. if if you don't offer add-ons, the people following hamilton set of atoms when, he will cotton on his own. if pinkney wins, he will owe us one. and he said he will be literally under our control. the whole thing was not intrigue, no compile. within the founding generation itself the fundamental premise was destroyed embryo that they

not on a much grander scale because of other events in our society. the power of idea and money in politics transform what was initially a constitution for something much grander. this little quirk is certainly not what the founders envisioned and hope for. the hopes for a great. let's try to get a transcendent president who can keep the whole thing and check. [inaudible] >> well, this very question -- this is part of the ritual i do every four years. people get very interested in the comp additional amend the possibility.

certainly we can do something about this. my personal opinion. this is not company policy or whatever. in other words, i'm not speaking as an expert here. and speaking the political mind. my suspicion is that to get a constitutional amendment passed amini three quarters of the state legislatures to approve. now i'm thinking, who would not want to change in the system? i'm assuming the 10 battleground states are just as soon keep the power they have for themselves. they decided the election, right? my guess is a small state, three and four have an equal say in those corners of the states. they have boosted up, if they just get warmed into the masses along with california and new york, they have nothing.

they've got one vote, one by congress. at least now they have three. they boost their percentages threefold. i don't think early primary states that are famous for early primaries would suddenly be nobody. so i just don't see. even worse, let's say for something to get started, to have to be a motivation, one political party to sponsor it, can you conceive of something of that magnitude been sponsored by one political party in today's environment? and probably if they do so, they think there's the dilettante is for them and how do you think that will play for the other political party? that's made negative prognosis. >> we always hear that washington was unanimously elected. i'm just curious, what is left of the formalities of the federal electors voting for

washington and each of the states. is anything left? >> you mean, like are there any records? is that what you're saying? what we have is this, i don't think we have formal records at the state level. what you have is the report to the senate. they report to the president of the senate. each -- the result -- the delegation from each state and the congress convenes, reports to the sun at what results were. so that's what we have. i don't know if we do have it it would be in the collection called the documentary history of the first federal election, a green series, which i'm sure it's here in the david library. i'm also the documentary the first congress.

these are great multivolume resources. and so, libraries open. come find out. >> it seems that so much happened in the last meeting of the committee of detail. james wilson was a big proponent of an independent presidency from start and he was of course drafting the constitution and the committee. see primarily responsible for a greater strength of the president be in the electoral college? >> now, as a matter of fact that's an excellent russian. the question was james wilson was one of only five members of the committee of detail. the question is do we know the first races after election. he wanted a stronger president. he was responsible for the greater power to the president. in the committee of detail. the answer is a resounding no.

out of the committee of detail, the senate, not the president had the power and the committee of detail has not changed. nancy pelosi is still president according to james wilson out of his report. clearly he did not have the vote. undoubtedly he wanted something like that. the committee of detail is really charged with not changing matters, but with fleshing them out. aaron jurisdiction and that to postpone matters and one member from each state is that they were charged, just settling the last little thing, the nuts and bolts details and instead rewrote the entire presidency

and the manner of selections. he's repeatable in office. his additional powers now has a vice president. they rewrote the constitution. this backroom committee of all of which we know. their star record of the comp or minus and solutions to them. and mr. president, i get into that. go into the footnotes because some of this stuff is a little too arcane to get into the narrative. but that's the footnotes are for. but yeah, that's a great question because people assume wilson assistant something. but he wasn't able to muster the vote. yet people within that committee who are more favorable to his site. >> chanda mike get up there? >> were there any other and will

send vote or were they just all by themselves? >> initially they're mostly voices voices of the wilderness. increasingly they had more people on their side here for instance come when morris suggested, put forward the electorate system in mid july, but i was a to five vote. so people were coming along. but there was sent the medical reason. small states are very involved, protective of what they're saying the president is going to be and they're the ones who team up to eventually provide the votes because they think they're going to be a lot too. as part of the whole delicate negotiation.

in the committee of detail, they got the runoff. a lot of people thought would be a run off and they got reverted to the senate. it's on the site the confederation. in many peoples minds they changed the input of the other the benefits election that there's no majority. and then they changed it back to the house and they would vote until the house voting by state delegation, which was today, for instance, let's say there is a typo. what is it to 692-5269 electoral college. what's going to happen? they cast their second ballot, but that's not true. one ballot only and they are done. that's the whole thing. they say these people can't possibly be political because they serve for one day come to cast their vote and disappear back into the amorphous mass of the population. how could a person like that possibly be political, never

thinking that this person has a lot of power. there's a lot of people on the outside wanting to influence that power. who knows what can happen. particularly if they don't have to stand for reelection and they disappear. what an opportunity. anyway, but let's say it is a typo. so then it goes through the house of representatives, voting by state delegations. so i actually did this last time. i counted the number -- i had like 11 scenarios in the 2008 election that actually were somewhat viable scenarios by juggling the states that were borderline. and then i said could be in the house and i counted i think 27 -- sometimes the delegations there's way too into. very rare. the democrats sounded like a 27,

22 edge. it's not going to be like 435, a vote of 300 something to 200 some paint. but now clearly the arithmetic i imagine republicans took control. so a typo, pay attention spans. a tie vote now would mean that romney would win. there's more state delegations in the house. let's see, hear and fanfare. your microphone is coming. will take just a couple more questions. >> was washington unanimously elected twice a >> yes. yeah, there is no contestant there. okay, and over here. >> i went to high school in the bronx -- >> in the mauritania?

>> morris hayek. >> okay, but that's because of morris. >> we often talk about someone, who was named after him. what happened to the morris family? >> i don't know the poor story of what happened. i don't know that. i can tell you a little bit more about gouverneur morris later career in france and actually it's an interesting note here. a good part was very influential in the new york state constitution, which had an influence in the federal constitution. he spoke more often than anyone else enough of them are motions than anyone else and very much manipulated the presidency in the federal constitution, which by the way, if you want to know why you haven't heard that story, the postscript of this is

kind of an analysis of why he's not a recognized for that. partly he's all over the map. two days before he voted for popular election every two years. he said we need a lifetime president. and it sounds weird, but his logic was he can't be dependent on congress. these are two different ways, which said we wouldn't be dependent on congress. there is one big reason. people look at that and say, what did he believe? what did this under believe? is that they sat at the time and a political context. they said these inconsistent, so they just dismissed him. do not look at the dynamics. politics, dynamics, what's happening in the moment.

not just a somebody believes. everybody flip-flops and a flip-flop for different reasons. that's the second constitution. he also does the same draftsman in the committee of style on the u.s. constitution. the search constitution, as he would a french constitution. he moved to france to tend to some business interests. he and robert morris, we believe i spoke about a few years ago at the david library after underway they had huge investment in tobacco -- selling tobacco from virginia to france. so he's over there. they appoint him. he eventually disappointed minister. during the revolution, right is the reign of terror is coming in. he finds up harbury aristocrats in the house. and meanwhile, he writes the constitution. he started then too, why not

another? they like you so we should do. the constitution is like, continues to ask us to the monarchy. but it's translated to us that she thought would conference. well, he was a little date at the time whether the monarch would work in france in 1793. then he came back and eventually joined the senate again. i don't buy the local history. as a matter of fact, if you ask many bit of history after reaching 10, forget about it. and so back there. i do we fast forward from there to here. i think enclosing there's a lot that really speaks directly to who we are. that's why we pay such attention. i think we pay a little closer attention to the dynamics of it, we see even closer relationships when resetting the gritty politics of what's going