is a crisis. we don't want to get there. so the question is on the stock, is this an earthquake or not and the message in the book is this is not an earthquake. this is not a natural disaster. this is something you can do a huge amount to avoid and prevent and while you do that and also get a better, safer system, less of a store to the system, less loaded subsidy system. just about everything you can think of is good. and there's absolutely hardly anything you can think that is that unless you are a banker. >> we have been talking with anat admati, who's a professor of finance and economics of the graduate school of business here at stanford and university and the kuhl author of the new book "the bankers' new clothes" what's wrong with banking and what to do about it. you are watching book tv on c-span2. now an interview from book tv college series.

in culture war morris argues americans are polarized than the public is led to vv by the media and independence. he discussed his book for about 15 minutes at the hoover institution on the campus of stanford university. >> stanford professor morris fiorina is the author of the book "culture war the myth of a polarized america." professor fiorina, are we divided into red and blue camps in this country? >> it depends on who you mean by weakening if you mean the people that are active in politics and run for office and work on the campaigns and give money coming yes, they are. if you mean the ordinary average american citizen who basically just turns out to vote, the answer is no, we are not. >> how do you find that? >> we find that through very intensive looks of the american

national election studies, the general social survey come some of the good commercial surveys like gallup poll etc.. with a show is the american electorate today doesn't look any different in terms of its partisanship 40 of which were issued positions than the 1970's. it's the changes that we're seeing are changes being driven by the people at the elite level and people most active in politics. they are different. they are more polarized, more is the logical but that's not the ordinary -- the ordinary voter can only vote between the alternatives that he or she has provided and if they are given extremists to vote for or against. >> you start writing this book in 2006 or so. >> in 2003. islamic have you done an updated one? >> no, i haven't.

>> there wasn't any need to do anything. i've looked at the data and i concluded. >> when you look at some of the issues that we talk about in the state and we are not here in northern california and silicon valley and stanford. are we in a completely blue area? >> yes, we are. this area what we look at when we see a map of california it is very deep blue pockets along the coast and the major metropolitan areas and then the red areas everywhere else. we have a lot of redwood trees and cows and farms in the desert >> in silicon valley itself or their red pockets and people who aren't that polarized or are they polarized? >> there are a couple differences everywhere evin in manhattan. you will find them but what makes it difficult for people

you would normally think of as republicans, wealthy people that have a lot of stock options etc., the california republican party looks more like a texas republican party of some of the republican from the platform is to kill the salmon and - gays and that doesn't appear to the people here they will raise their taxes because they basically have no choice. so i mean, again, it's you can't really tell what people are thinking for how they are voting because they can only vote between the two alternatives and so just the fact they are continuing to vote for democrats doesn't mean given a different kind of republican, pete wilson kind of republican even ronald reagan the voting patterns might be different. >> that's because the republican party itself is controlled by -- >> if you talk to the people here in the former republican

state chairman, the current state chairman, they realize a lot of the republican base in california has its roots in the more desert room areas and the social issues are strong and they would rather lose with a social conservative than to win with a moderate and the -- that is why schwarzenegger was such an anomaly that he couldn't have made it through the republican primary in california but the recall gave him the opportunity when the four running. >> you have a chart and i want to ask if this is up to date when it comes to congress. congress in the 1960's you can see the blue and the red and overlap and you say the congress has gotten more and more polarized. how has this happened? >> there's a couple things going on it's changed the social and demographic change in the country african-americans move

north from the self making them a racially liberal party. the sun belt the tremendous sunbelt led to the south becoming a more conservative economic region and we are seeing the social movements, the environmentalist movement and the religious right. these have driven the party apart. what happened in the u.s. is supporting, not polarization. a generation ago, and given to the point most people are younger. but there were lots of democrats and liberal republicans and in the northeast u.s. senators like jacob javits, republican, and in the south you had conservative democrats. whereas now basically they've disappeared in both parties at the highest levels you have few conservatives and republicans.

but the actual number of liberals, conservatives, and the cuts and republicans hasn't changed all that much if anything since the 1970s. the result is the basis of the two-party, the activists are highly polarized. they are not indifferent at the base and contrary to a generation ago. politics has become more polarized but it's not because the metal has disappeared. it's not because there are fewer moderates it's just because the metal is a draft. skype what about hot-button issues, gun control, abortion. aren't we divided the? isn't there a yes or no? >> we are divided again if you think of it as the political elites. this is something that isn't

appreciated. since the inaugural address he said we are going to deal with gun control, immigration, global warming. the pure research center without a poll in january and asked people what do you think the major priorities of the president and congress should be in the coming year and there were 21 options. immigration was 17 out of 21. a gun controls 18 to feed this was a month after sandy hill. this is a point i made in the book the priorities are often very different from the priorities of the public. bread-and-butter issues at a time like this they are concerned abut their jobs coming connie, deficits, healthcare

their way down a list of priorities and that is the subject but the priorities are things that are generally not high on the public. >> why is that? >> because they are important to the political class. we had a party described as liberal the gives an element and the republicans for their part of replied with the religious right so they in fact these issues are deep concern to them yet not so much the average american. >> the only lively scene where a gay-rights wasn't gay marriage was one that imploded tort reform and most americans have no idea whata2 this is so it cae in dead class on that one that especially in an area like this

if you tell people and americans don't care much about a gay marriage people don't understand the need to believe you because study after study shows you. >> why do people in oklahoma or california -- when i say northern california -- >> if you were to put them into a room and we are talking not about people active in politics but just pick up a bunch of people of the oklahoma st., norman st, takes a city or some urban area, put them in the room and they start talking and find out we are not all that different. then it's not going to be the solid through the cutting spending or raising taxes. it's going to be some of both and let's talk about where we can find common ground and i think issue after issue you'll find that.

they report they decided to do one of these comparisons. i talked to the person on the block and it turned out they were the best friends of the person on the block so when you talk about reasonable americans as opposed to those that showed on tv and who tried to convince each other how pure they are in their political views and full of a lot of common sense to use the mcginn culture war you have a chart and i want to ask you if you have used this updated chart after you update the book after the 2012, eligible voting age in the u.s. and 04, 202 million. voted in 04. people who saw fahrenheit 9/11 which was what? >> of the movie about -- i

didn't see it it was michael more's movie and had a splash but in terms of who actually saw. >> 17 to 18 million people. >> people who listen to rush limbaugh last week of 15 to 16 people. the daily audience for fox news, 3.3 million. .74 million carried the vote in iowa, plant 2 million, democratic turnout for the caucuses in iowa. .6 million, howard dean and .69 million of admited owners. why do you keep that chart in here? >> to show how small the political class is. the people who run for office to leave the interest groups etc..

but let me give you some statistics from the last primary fight which was the leader every week. the night that rick santorum become a national contender by winning three contests he won in minnesota. it was one in 200, one in 100 in colorado and one in 200 minnesota and one in 700 misery to the portion of people turning out and voting was so small and yet they were driving the process. that's going on all of the

country the people participating were highly unrepresentative segment of the population. one of the points i made in the argument is that the 60 million or so votes that that romney got depravity in washington said it did you see this and you worry about things to be the year just over the head. most people aren't watching. >> so professor, is there a solution, should there be a solution because as using in your book disconnect, politicians figure of these are the issues that motivate the segments of the voters. >> every time i write something they want me to have something positive to say and i don't. i've been a professor for 40 years and i've never been more concerned about the future of the rice the american leadership

class. we will muddle through. i just don't see what is. they will hurt the they are just unlikely to new. at some point we are going to see another david brooks had a column that says summer there is a from the common sense senator that shakes things up that is our only hope. spec with duty chair of stanford? >> i've talked about that for 35 years now and that certain seminars. >> are your students different today than they were 30 years ago.

the students today are not politically -- my sense is we were coming out of vietnam. there was a reason to be politically concerned in the 60's. i think there is a sense in which they are disillusioned from politics. there is an understanding. one of the things i think republicans are missing is that they have problems among the young and it's because of the social issues and yet when i find the young students might find a sense of openness to the new economic policies they know they aren't working more sustainable. it's not worried, it's too far away but they suspect it won't be here for them and they know medicare is unsustainable in its present form so i think they are open to a new set of economic

appeals but the conservative social issues of the republican party make it unacceptable. that is going to drive change. there's only so long before. you have a party that's gotten off course relative to the american public and loses one after another and finally there will come a bill clinton. it may take awhile. it took the democrats 20 years because we are partly through the cycles of we will see if you can -- >> they announced they are going to office in another office in san francisco. >> he's an optimist. >> that's all you've got for us? >> that's all i've got to atiyeh >> we've been talking with pro local science professor at

stanford university. as well as this book disconnect the breakdown of representation in american politics. you're watching booktv on c-span2. >> my book happens to be in a

book that i was honored to have written the foreword for. robert smalls was born in south carolina, beaufort self carolina and in 1849, he died in 1915. now the reason i'm spending time on this book this year is because i see what is happening here and in the country at the federal and state levels as being somewhat reminiscent of what happened during the life of

robert smalls. robert smalls after getting his freedom by delivering [inaudible] along with other family members. so they went to the union forces and given a cash, we took and he became a delegate to the constitutional convention in side of south carolina that codified with the sleeves with

the emancipation proclamation in 1863. robert smalls at the time of the convention became a member of congress and spent five terms in the congress. islamic before they are likely in 1992. now to the state constitutional convention of 1895 and in 1995, all of those rights and

privileges that had been given granted with the team 66 were all taken away in 1895 and if you look at low was taking place, between 1866i guess basically 1876 because it was the presidential election that created the opportunity and the atmosphere that led to the ending of reconstruction and eventually to the creation of what i call the pop had in the

southern united states of america. so if you look. in a 20 year period we saw the beginning of the end of the full citizenship in the country. so by the time robert smalls died, [inaudible] and died a financially not near as well off as he once was. and so i have spent a lot of time talking about the history.

you'd figure this out before it would happen again. and you can see all of the speculation about what it's going to do. the most important civil rights act of 1965 and most experts think that that's about to come to a specific end. programs of the affirmative action means you can't be passing. you have to take positive steps to overcome the current defect of past discrimination. it isn't going to happen by itself. if you bring that to a close,

and there are people letter speculating that is about to happen. i saw one of the legal scholars and the country who was saying that he believes chief justice roberts to aid to the civil rights movement as we know it i don't know if anybody can look at the numbers and see that unemployment in the coming and he runs of what it does in no community and we are still earning 72%.

the glass is media will but more than half full. there is still a lot of work to do and i don't know if we are going to successfully navigate through this. he said if the people fail to learn their lessons they are bound to repeat them and i'm trying to sound an alarm to make sure people who have been some significant wealth remind them the life of robert smalls agency that with the stroke of a pen

could be in the trash can at history every once in awhile.

we ask what are you reading this summer. here is what some of you had to say. ♪ ♪

♪ ..