done? if the things she accomplished that subsequently hindered the agenda than that could be something that would be part of the legacy that is less positive. >> host: so they know where you come from wednesday to back the house of the representatives did you have a smile on your face? [laughter] >> guest: it was not a scalpel but not to a smile. i worked for a democrat he did not lose. it was more of a sign of relief where almost every democrat was in danger of losing it was a wave election. a bit of shock but also intellectual curiosity. now republicans have deterred let's see what

happens next. >> host: what do you teach? >> guest: american politics coming introduction to american politics, u.s. congress and parts of that i have the students play a member of congress to get a bill enacted through the house in the that is a great experience for the students if for no other reason i can play speaker to use the gavel. also power in american politics about different aspects of power in the united states, a power of the president is those are the class's that i teach. >> host: why don't speaker is vote on legislation? at. >> guest: traditionally it is of legacy of the hybrid position. as a partisan leader paul

savas non-partisan if you are non-partisan it means you're not supposed to take part in the issues of the day that puts you on one side or the other. to the extent it can preside over the house people might question their ability to do that so traditional breed they do not but they are not prohibited. but traditionally they do not. but this has not changed over time in the '70s they started to participate more often. gingrich voted quite a bit. so boehner has moved back a little bit he votes very, very very rarely of the house floor as a reflection of his belief the speaker needs to move himself out of the debates and conflict in

order to see in -- you had the whole interest of the whole house apart. >> host: we have been talking toots teeeighteen about his book "the speaker of the house" a study of leadership" published by a yale university press. you are watching booktv on c-span2. >> host: in catholic university professor what is the thesis of your book? activist alliances and into u.s.-based protest. >> guest: the u.s. has senator bases around the world as reported by the

pentagon and over the last years there are more anti-bays protest opposition to military presence abroad -- a broad. so with this activism when do they make a difference or affect policy you second question is our allies on one hand they face pressure of civil society and a domestic level but also pressure from the united states so how do they balance between the two forces domestic and international level. >> host: looking at the 700 + bases around the world , how many are welcome to? >> the majority are. if there are 700 it is more but they cannot be declared war is a secret to.

it is hard to say if they are welcome to but the government has come to expect them. but at least 75% are not contested like germany, or really and japan but a few have been contested seems to cause problems for u.s. diplomats or the u.s. military because those are critical. >> host: where? >> guest: okinawa is a long-running feud where they have been upset about a specific base. in 1985 there was a horrible report a schoolgirl was gay and raped and they demanded justice but under the agreement there were placed under the custody of the american military. as part of the ideal to mess

up relations the u.s. agreed to relocate that base to the northern part of okinawa but that pace still exist in they have not been able to move forward because there's so much opposition about creating a new phase. it is smack in the middle of bay city, schools have to stop for 10 minutes in the past because of the aircraft or helicopters coming in and because of environmental concern, noise pollution, the crime around the base there is the opposition. we have seen this opposition. also the philippines in the

1980's two major bases and database into the air base. >> when it closes there is 14,000 troops. >> and hundreds of thousands of people depend on that pays back the local economy, but there is the domestic economy and because of opposition from activist and nationalist politicians eventually pay gave them the boot so we had to withdraw for all u.s. military by the end of 1992. >> host: professor yeo to think we would still have those bases of the volcano had not exploded? >> a figure would be paid another 10 years for certain but who knows if it would have persisted. there was a lot of damage

with exploding at the time in the air base was not usable but for the naval station and it was the largest base in the pacific outside hawaii. if you listen to congressional testimony they did want to retail and other senator ted years but i do believe it would have continued to exist. >> host: what is said geopolitical revocations of closing that military installation in the philippines? >> guest: this is the pacific command so with those functions dispersed to okay, or why a but the u.s. military is adaptable so they could make do but these

days with the strategic climate right now with china growing maritime assertiveness and tensions with the islands between japan and south korea and southeast asian countries, some are wishing the u.s. would return as we worked out us deal to come on a rotating basis with rumors that the philippine government wants them to come back of my personal take is we will not have permanent forces like in the past but rotating force is covered id and also it is almost like having a contiguous u.s. military presence. >> host: where else have their ben protests? >> guest: in europe, there

are always pockets. added italy there was a tragic death of skiers but where uc larger protest not justin the not in my backyard or the of nimby protest or at least the anti-based opposition at the national level. in italy there was the expansion of the air base in northern italy and protest if it has died down a lot but it is ongoing. we have seen protest in ecuador which is highlighted which eventually closed down as well.

and of course, afghanistan and iraq. it is hard to say if it is activist because you have the insurgents or the islamic extremists that don't like the u.s. military of their soil but we have seen opposition from politicians as well. we did not leave of large presence in iraq because of the government is opposed and afghanistan is up in the year. reduce the opposition not just in asia where my book focuses but it is all corners of the world. >> host: are their locations even the government would like us to leave?

>> guest: national governments? all lots of times when uc receives change -- a regime change like after a revolution u.s. forces have to leave but today it is not as direct. with ecuador 2007 / 2008, the u.s. bases were a major issue in politics. of there you do see certain elements wanting the bases to leave. they can play a the nationalist card with sovereignty from the standpoint of domestic government if i were to flip

it around a fisheye views rather base in the united states and some state happens an accident or crime there would be an outcry. we have military bases all over but of course, there could be opposition even to bases in our own country but it is a whole other level with a foreign base on your soil. so today i'm into japan indicate allah you have the prime minister come to power. he did not want to get rid of all bases.

so hugh doozies politicians and at the end of the day with the comparisons are made to the empire that they cannot reach new agreements it is not usury the big government opposed. >> host: in times of political uncertainty is the u.s. more welcome to? i am thinking of south korea >> that is when the concede the democratic force of unleashing.

if you're regime is highly autocratic. there are no protests. lead in this period of democratization there is said period of instability about basis and the trick is that on one hand we please send a business on stability in to encourage democracy so in their case like south korea there was a benefit of uncertainty but when you had to transition to government

leaders their case is unique with the border across north korea and our national security is almost guaranteed by u.s. military presence. although it does cause consternation with political instability that the u.s. bases to their own national defense that in the long run they could breathe a sigh of relief under those circumstances. >> host: how much

resources or time does the u.s. began building relationships of those countries? period there is no cookie cutter approach so djibouti is a good example. so i am sure in that case there is discussion of military officials and for them it is a quid pro quo to exchange a door foreign aid or monday to have access not to build the base but would never infrastructure exists. so there is much quicker but

over time it kayhan and should develop if they continue using the bases there. four countries that we see a law under presidents we have to cultivate our relationship with these countries become as as i said they require a firm partnership if another country believes if we don't share the same values that it is easy for political leaders to say if we don't have security threats or share the same values then why do we have thousands? let's get rid of them. it does require a lot of diplomatic work in a discourse at the local level

what i try to mention is officials can do more with public relations or out of reach. into infantry's -- and countries these community programs do exist but when tension and ochers when someone is blind sided with the decision or if it is not explained well why you need to have u.s. troops in the community because people forget it is not shared continually you could run into news feed not in my backyard problems that could

escalate with politicians to push of foreign policy issues. >> host: date of the potential effects of the united states pulling back what is the effect? >> there is different views but if you pull them all back in a multiple places even if you're up it is considered stable and we have steve significant cuts in the last 50 years but even for europe and if the europeans would be eager best the command structure is integrated maybe not

their own but with the balkans extend data out word to the middle east there be a lot more nervousness if the u.s. would pullout in to nato members had to foot their own military expenses to meet whatever threats are out there. asia is another case. the united states is the least distrusted actor in the region and so many argue it is the linchpin for stability. again there are different views if it is the source of stability or instability for the region that at the moment even for democracy's

cannot really trust one another. if there were to remove all of our bases the first thing japan wants to do is a self-defense force but don't kid ourselves for them to become a normal nation began how would that make the tidies or the koreans feel? also with some southeast asia and countries like be a nod, indonesia where they have concerns about china's rise in the maritime editions. so having the of the

military there can put a lid on potentially escalating targets spiraling out of control. >> host: how the servicemen are based overseas? >> i have to check the facts right now because it is always changing. >> host: and best of it? >>. >> guest: do not'' the idea of more familiar with asia there is about 50,000 in japan which is the double bass and of course, there is europe but between 200 and 300 abroad added the given time. >> host: are we growing and africa? >> to our presence not with numbers but because we prefer to have agreements we

don't want to leave a heavy footprint. we are establishing more agreements and with the use of drone technology they need to land somewhere so there is a growth of day military presence not in the thousands but that is part of the chichi nature of the 21st century. >> host: published by cambridge university press press, a professor of politics, but professor yeo is the author. think you for torrey the us on booktv. >> guest: takes so much.

and makes it possible for washington to be away eight years fighting a war. >> something about abraham lincoln she saw the potential to encourage and develop it. >> lessons since the etiquette's dining room to

prepare him for society where they invited important people so to talk with the wives of those gentlemen in she's a real little lots of power where he was going. >> the involvement of mrs. roosevelt is right from the beginning to make it much were active in her parole after 1921 when he contracted polio. she would encourage him to continue with his political ambitions.

>> we're not in a post feminist era i am very concerned about the war on women rolling back access to reproductive rights there is no end to the statistics of violence against women in we have not stopped shaving girls about their bodies. so much sexism in the media that applies to have a certain shape to be loved or popular. of problem in defying the feminism it is true what unifies with the globally would have done to women that want to identify it as victimhood that is a very important to critique but empowered feminism says women should be equal in their rights and opportunities. period. where we don't see that we want to push forward to make that possible. there's so much work to do

and globally the statistics are free being with lack of access to education to health and information about their options >> women's history for beginners is the booktv boat club collection for the month of february. you will see a tab that is called book club you can participate in our discussion we will post video, reviews, articles to borrow so the discussion will begin tomorrow also posted a regular basis discussion questions i hope you can purchase a pate body wars women's history for beginners is the february february 2014 book club selection on booktv.

>> i want to see the internet remade free, accessible, open, thou gh blocking, and the discrimination. that is my overall goal. this is now one of the great entrepreneur is of the united states of america. that is our ingenious and ingenuity. that is why i would to continue the way it is. survey not republican because they don't see it my way. i think this is all about the consumer and their experience and what should be retake regardless of who you are, where you live in

the country cover your color, but you do, your economic background it is neutral compared to the internet. . .