republican-owned issue like foreign policy during the george w. bush administration. that is, individual republicans running for congress tried to run away from that policy, and democrats were sure to tag them with it. so because the parties have such strong, as we say, brands -- that is, one democrat is now much more similar to another democrat in congress than, say, that was true 30 or 40 years ago -- it's become very difficult for politicians to individual wait themselves and separate themselves from the parties. >> host: so if you are a pro-choice republican or a pro-life democrat, where are you on the political spectrum? what happens -- [laughter] >> guest: right. you're pretty unusual, first of all. so, you know, we could probably have count on maybe two hands the number of politicians in congress that could be described that way. and one of the problems that those kinds of politicians face

is in their parties' primaries. if you are seen as being unorthodox can, as you were saying, or as party loyalists would say unfaithful to the party's positions on these issues, you tend to get interest groups who come after you with funds. they will often mount a primary opponent that makes your life difficult. and there are all kinds of institutions now in place and resources in place that really keep the parties' politicians towing a very ideological line on these issues. so more and more that's become quite unusual in american politics. >> host: all right. subtitle, "how issue ownership drives and distorts american politics." what's the distortion? >> guest: the distortion that i find in the book is the theme with which we've led our conversation, which is that i find lots of instances where the

parties actually pay less attention to what the public wants on the issues they own than on the issues they don't. so, again, the affordable care act is a great example. this is a policy that is pursued headlong by president obama and particularly nancy pelosi, actually, when she was speaker of the house in the first, in obama's first term. it is pursued despite the fact that all of the polls are running against this policy, that at every turn, you know, this policy's clearly unpopular, there are aspects of it that certainly americans like, but when it comes down to particularly the mandate that you have to obtain health insurance and also increase taxes that are being put on various parts of the system to pay for the expansion of health care, this is a pretty unpopular policy. and the democrats pursue it

anyway. and the reason they do so is they've got party loyalists for whom this is a once-the in-a-generation opportunity that they want which is something close to universal health care. the same thing is true on the republican side. if you look at george w. bush's tax cuts, participants of that policy -- parts of that policy was very popular which is that he enacted tax cuts for the middle class. and in that sense it was firmly in line with the party's ownership of the issue of taxation. but, you know, the bulk of those tax cuts can came from relatively big cuts to the most wealthy americans. and in poll after poll after poll those cuts were very, very unpopular, and they remain so.

>> guest: promises to those groups that have been historically excluded from their coalitions. so, you know, here's an example which is president obama was going to have a big evangelical preacher at his first inauguration as a gesture, extending a gesture to

evangelical christians who have historically -- recently, for sure, not been part of the democratic party's bloc. immediately, that leads to an outcry from his liberal wing who says this guy's against gay rights, he's pro-life, we have a big problem with him. and sure enough, he gets scratched from the inauguration. [laughter] you see the very same thing happening on the other side whenever any republican tries to extend a happened on gay rights. so senator rob portman whose son came out as gay and led the senator to become one of the few republican supporters of marriage equality now faces, you know, when he made that announcement, faced a big uproar from his party's conservative wing saying that he was portraying their principles, etc. so these extensions to the other side in, again, in our polarized era are risky for politicians and up don't have a whole lot of upside. and so unfortunately, they're

very difficult to do, and i think they're becoming less and less frequent. >> host: patrick eagan, new york university "partisan priorities." thanks for being with us on booktv. >> guest: thank you for having me. great being here. >> every weekend booktv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2. keep watching for more television for serious readers. >> next on booktv, president george w. bush discusses his biography of his father, president george h.w. bush with andy card who served as white house chief of staff for president bush 43 and secretary of transportation for president bush 41. this is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> today is a very special day in the life of the george bush

presidential library foundation. it is special because we gather for the national book launch of "41: a portrait of my father." fittingly on veterans day. today we have both the author and subject, son and father, the 43rd and the 41st presidents of the united states here at the bush library center. this morning will consist of a moderated discussion about "41." our moderator served as deputy chief of staff to the 41st president and later at the 11th united states secretary of transportation. he also served as chief of staff to the 43rd president of the united states and most recently as acting dean of the george bush school of government and public service here at texas a&m university. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the honorable andrew card. andy? [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the 46th governor of the state of texas and the 43rd president of the united states, the honorable george w. bush. [applause] >> thank you all. mother. [laughter] thanks, mother and dad, for being here. thank you all for coming today for this distinguished author series. [laughter] i don't qualify. [laughter] [applause] anyway, yeah, i have written a book. kind of a surprise to people in

parts of our country that i can write, much less read. [laughter] but i thank you for your interest. i will just tell you right up front that this is a love story. it's not an objective analysis. of president bush. this is a story about an extraordinary man who, in my judgment, is the finest one-term president our country's ever had. and -- [applause] anyway, my old pal, andy card's, going to ask, i'm sure, difficult questions. [laughter] and i'm thrilled to be here, proud to be here with fred mcclure here too. and, ryan, thank you very much for serving. i see we've got some ambassadors. thank you all for being here. thank you for serving our country as well. >> mr. president, it is a thrill to have you on the campus of texas a&m and the bush school, the bush library, the bush museum, all exciting for us because, believe it or not, we've got tremendous pride in

you and your dad and your entire family. and this book that you wrote is, it's more than a love story. it's actually a story written about how to fall in love. not only with people, but with public service and the bush school, which is the greatest legacy that your dad has left for the future, is actually a place where the invitation to be a noble public servant is offered, trained and formed. and so it's great to have you on the campus of texas a&m at the bush school. but why did you write this book when you did? >> guest: well, i wrote it when i did because i wanted dad to be alive. [laughter] to be able to see how much not only i care for him, but a lot of people care for him. secondly, his presidency in many ways was overshadowed by his predecessor, and that's understandable.

people are beginning to reassess the presidency of 41, and is i wanted to be a part of that process. and i wanted him to know that the process was going to take place. this guy was a great president. and since the beginning of people understanding that, i wrote it because david mccullough's daughter planted the seed. she told me one time at the ranch, you know, i wish my dad always wished he could have read a book by john q. adams about his father, john adams. i can do that. [laughter] and so that's why i wrote it. and thank you very much for your interest in it. it's a pretty good read. we've got a big print version for some of you. [laughter] >> it's funny you should mention john adams, john quincy adams.

your dad was actually born in massachusetts -- >> yeah. on adams street. >> on add also street. >> interesting. >> named for both of the adams. >> yeah. >> and your grandfather had a tremendous influence on your dad that ended up being an influence on you. >> correct. >> so could you tell me what you think the legacy of love gave to your dad that i allowed you to give the legacy of love that made -- >> well, it's that public service matters, that we're blessed to be americans and that part of that blessing requires us to serve others. and it's a real lesson. plus, that if you're a lousy golfer, play fast. [laughter] he was a great golfer. dad was a good golfer. i'm not a good golfer. any rate, prescott bush, very successful wall street guy. ends up being the town moderator

in greenwich, connecticut. so a lot of his buddies were probably drinking martinis and playing gin at the country club, he's working on behalf of others. i'm confident that set a profound example for dad, and his service set an example for his children. of which i was one. >> it was funny, i remember when your dad was first running for president in 1979, he held a press conference right around when he announced his candidacy. he was in boston. i remember a reporter saying why were you born in milton, massachusetts? and i was impressed with his response. he said i i wanted to be close to my mother. >> yeah. [laughter] >> that's kind of funny, because

>> they were very close. she's an angelic person. very competitive, needless to say. runs heavily in our gene pool, competition. [laughter] but, yeah, she's a sweet, sweet lady. you know, i was fortunate to get to know her and, of course, dad was really fortunate to be raised by her. >> well, and you were fortunate to be raised as well -- >> by mother?

well, you don't know, andy, you're stretching it a little bit there. [laughter] you know, i used to say in these campaigns i had my daddy's eyes and my mother's mouth, and you're learning why i said that. [laughter] >> but i was touched early in the book, you describe how your dad wrote a letter to his girlfriend, and he said i want you to basically be the mother of my children. >> yeah. >> and what wonderful children they produced. >> well, i'm glad. [laughter] no, that's right. dad, there's letters that dad had written scattered throughout the book. he's a great letter writer. and it seems to be a lost art, so maybe one of the things this book will do is remind people how important writing letters are. but it's -- and so scattered throughout the book is a series of letters, some of which he

wrote mom, some of which he wrote to all of us, some of which he wrote me when i was president. and it marrieded. andy was there -- it mattered to get these notes from dad or phone calls. in that he was president, he knew what the pressures of the job were like, and he knew moments could be, you know, very trying. and to have him interject some humor and/or a love note really made a huge difference during my presidency. you know, look, i recognize there's a lot of psychobabble about our relationship, and it's not exactly our long suit here in this family, but anyway, it's -- there was, people can't possibly comprehend. hopefully this book, one reason i've written it is to help people understand better that when you admire somebody as much as all of us admired george h.w. bush, and he offers help and/or comfort, it means more than any advice he could possibly give. i've been asked, you know, about

my presidency, and during the presidency they say, well, are you calling him for advice? and in the book i make it clear that, you know, not really. and it shocks people to hear that, and one reason why is had i said, help, i need your advice, he would have said send your briefers. this is a man who had made presidential decisions. he knows you don't know presidential decisions off the cuff. as andy will testify, we got plenty of opinions off the cuff. [laughter] you want to listen to people who know what the hell they're talking about, like ryan crocker, for example. when you're president, you've got enormous resources at your disposal to help you make decisions. george h.w. bush knew that better than anybody, so his great contribution to my presidency was the comfort he provided. and by the way, i had to comfort him at times, because our roles got reversed. i was miserable at times when he was president and didn't handle it very well.

and mother used to call me and say you need to call your dad. and i'd say, why? because he just read some editorial, and he's upset. so i'd call him, and he'd say can you believe what they said about you? i'd say, dad, don't worry about it, i'm doing fine. i'm doing fine. so our roles got reversed in kind of a you week way, and this book, i think -- i unique way, and this book, i think, will bring the life of a presidency from a father and son perspective to you in a story that only one person can tell. >> this book is a biography of your dad -- >> yeah. >> a little bit of a biography of your mother. it's an autobiography of you, but it is also a unique story about how to carry burdens, how to deal with failure, how to be humble in success. and your participants had a --

parents had a lot of failure, they had a lot of struggle. >> yeah, they did. >> and that had an impact on you growing up, losing a sister -- >> yeah. >> -- being involved in the challenges of moving and different jobs and whatever. could you talk about some of that aspect in the book that you -- >> well, so here's a guy who runs for senator of texas twice and loses and runs for president of the united states in a primary against ronald reagan in the state of texas and loses andened up being president. and ends up being president. and all the time was still a great father. in other words, defeat didn't define george bush. there's something greater in life than, you know, chalking up political victories or political losses. it taught me, and i'm confident it taught jeb that, you know, you don't need to fear failure. if you fear failure, you know, it'll cause you to make decisions that, you know, probably prevent you from living life to the fullest. and george bush is a great risk

taker. i mean, running for the senate in '64 was risky. nobody had even heard of the guy, you know? he's coming out of houston running against ralph yarborough. of course, there's a lot of races you can't win. kind of like golf, if you don't get enough strokes, you can't win the contest at the first tee. the goldwater landslide, he couldn't win in retrospect. nevertheless, he ran. and then, you know, here's the thing that fascinates me about dad. a lot of things fascinate him about me, but catch this. so he is all world at yale. phi beta kappa in two and a half years, that part of the gene pool got polluted. [laughter] he's the captain of the yale baseball team. they came in second in the nation. he's married with a kid, he's, you know, bigtime on campus.

his father's wall street, his grandfather's wall street, and everybody says, wall street. and he moves to odessa. [laughter] i mean, it's an extraordinary person to make that kind of decision. by the way, it's an extraordinary woman to have said i'm with ya. and -- [applause] so as i say in the book, we get out there, and dad finds us a place to live. and it's a duplex. [laughter] on seventh street with one of the few indoor bathrooms on the street. a bathroom we shared with two ladies of the night. [laughter] so much for the silver spoon stuff. [laughter] see what happens is people develop myths about you in

public life and, you know, i'm sure there's people, you know, have an image of dad that is not even close to reality. this book will help people understand what he's like. and is it objective? not at all. not even close. [laughter] >> well, there is a pretty objective part about little toy soldiers -- [laughter] tell us about the toy soldiers. >> well, throughout the book i try to explain how he disciplined me. and by the way, in contrast with mother. one time she caught me urinating in the hedges and washed my mouth out with soap. [laughter] dad, on the other hand, i'm playing with these little feeble-looking little toy soldiers, and he said where'd you get those? and i didn't have a very good

answer because i'd stolen them. [laughter] and the next thing i know, i'm marching back -- he's taking me back. now keep in mind, i'm about 6, by the way, not 26. [laughter] the anyway, so we go back to the store, and i per his instructions walk in and apologize to the manager. it wasn't simply not just putting them back in this little bowl i'd taken them out of, it was apologizing. and, you know, learning responsibility. and that was it. there was no follow up, no harsh follow up, no you'll be confined to your room, none of this. it was like this is what we expect, but his way he disciplined was instructive to me as a future father, but it also meant we stayed very close to him. we tested their patience, i can assure you. [laughter] i can't speak for my brothers and sister, but one of my

favorite stories is not in the book which speaks to dad's leadership is the time mother says to me your dad and i would like to talk you to dinner. i'm 18 years old. this does not really happen that much. so i'm saying to myself, okay, let's see, dinner with mother and dad, sure, let's go. we get there, she can barely contain herself, and she says i discovered an ashtray under your bed, you smoke! [laughter] and dad looked at her and said, so do you. [laughter] and that was the end of the conversation. [laughter] i mean, very wise. think about that anecdote for a while. it's, you know? he's a solid guy. >> well, your dad has had a

remarkable experience in life where he has, you know, joined the military right out of and over, on his birthday he goes off to war, and the story of your dad writing letters back to barb, the story of your dad losing a friend, and it ended up being the first of many letters that he had to send and that you had to send that you never wish you had to send once, never mind thousands of times. >> yeah. >> tell us a little bit about that. >> well, first of all, you're the guy that whispered in my ear second plane's hit the second tower, america's under attack. i mean, you were there. no one wants to be a wartime president. nobody should hope to be a wartime president. but i watched this good man become a great commander in chief because first and foremost he cared deeply about the troops that served underneath him and their families which is essential if you end up having to be the commander in chief.

and he wrote letters, a lot of them -- great letter writer. one of my favorite stories in the book, so jenna asked him on his 90 birthday, you might remember that moment when he dives out of a helicopter at age 90, amazing feat, says do you still think about the people with whom you served? he said he thinks about delaney and white all the time, those are the two guys on the airplane that died when he got shot down. it's amazing, isn't it? 70 something years later, he still thinks about delaney and white all the time. what i didn't realize until i researched this book is that dad had invited delaney and white's sisters to the oval office when he became president. in other words, they were still on his mind. he's still thinking about how to help, you know, heal the wounds of these sisters that never really got to know their brothers. and, yeah, that's just one of

difficult aspects of the presidency, is to be the comforter in chief. and i learned at the knee of a master. >> well, here we are on veterans day, and we pay respect to all of those who did make sacrifices for us. but i also know that the burdens of the presidency are pretty great. you helped your dad carry burdens. how did your dad help you carry the burden? >> well, first of all, he served as a great example. in other words, i -- look, you never know what it's like to be president until you get in there. but i had a sense of what it was like particularly on our family. the biggest burden, by the way -- it's not a burden to serve something you love. i love america. that's not a burden. it's just maybe you don't sleep as well as you should at times. but it's not a burden. secondly, if there was a worry, it was about barb and jenna. i put in the book that when dad

decided to run for president one of the things he never had to worry about, mother being able to handle the job. and laura gave me the same gift. it's a liberating feeling, just so you know. and for me, andrew, the burdens were how the experience would affect our girls. and they were not very happy about the fact that i was going to run for president. you've ruined our life! [laughter] you can't win. [laughter] you are not as cool as you think you are. [laughter] i heard it all. [laughter] but, you know, i had seen family grow stronger, and i knew that would be the case. so that burden wasn't a burden. in terms of dealing with the pressures, he helped a lot by just checking in on occasion. but i also know that when you surround yourself with competent, compassionate, decent people, it helps do the job.

chief of staff of a fine staff. by the way, a very tough job, he had, but he handled it with great grace, and people loved andy in the white house. >> that's a good transition to an uncomfortable time. [applause] >> yeah. on september 11th after i whispered in your ear those fateful words, a second plane hit the second tower, america is under attack -- >> yeah. >> -- and you rose to phenomenal responsibility, and you led decisively with optimism, i remember being on the plane, and you were telling us we were going to go back to washington, d.c., and i was suggesting that you really didn't want to make that decision at that time. and you -- >> i was hot. >> yes, you were pretty hot. >> i made it clear i didn't like your recommendation. >> correct. [laughter] >> however, i took it. >> but i remember the phenomenal concern you had for your

parents. >> yeah. >> and you ended up -- we ended up tracking your parents down, and they were in wisconsin or minnesota -- >> wisconsin. ..

i needed to laugh at that moment. and i think that he was in the room when i needed that. one of the things dad taught me is you have to laugh in life. and i am convinced one reason both have a wonderful sense of humor is they don't take themselves so seriously. they are not burdened by doubt and i don't know if you remember it said they soar because they

take themselves lightly. and i don't remember but anyway i think that it was a bathroom at. [laughter] very thoughtful. [laughter] >> i have witnessed or have been the brunt of many jokes that i learned. i was surprised to read in your book about a rubber onion. >> so there was a guy that went to yale and he was a very formal kind of guy from pennsylvania actually known and he's used to love to take his martini and take the toothpick out. so he pushed a rubber all live

in it. [laughter] very funny man. >> you inherited the same trait. >> he would come to them and humor really helps. bv that are not in spite of the pressure, we laughed and enjoyed each other a lot. for those of you running the organization for thinking about running an organization i would strongly suggest making sure there is a sense of levity where you work. i can't remember what it was that he gets this e-mail and says this is from your father. a guy gets arrested for stealing a canopy and he and his wife go before the judge and says how

many peaches in the can and he's had six. a fine six months in prison. before he could leave the wife raised her hand and he stole a can of peas. [laughter] one thing you said when you were commander in chief that quite frankly surprised me is when you didn't want us to talk about the greatest generation as much you said we shouldn't use those terms. what was your thinking on that? >> refresh my memory. of course they were the greatest generation. i don't remember that.

>> new set of the greatest generation is ahead in the country and there are servants out there every day. we celebrated those who were being great everyday. >> my memory is fading. >> in your book you describe some of the traits of decision-making that you learned from your dad and some of the decisions you learned because of your dad. if you want to talk about some of the tough decisions that have to be made? >> first and foremost you have to know where you are going to lead. you can't can't be difficult or doubtful. there has to be a certainty and vision and claire eddy. he had a.

he said this shall not stand and i remember it was the invasion of kuwait and i knew he meant it and the purpose of course was to defend an ally and he defined that in the national interest and it was clear his position and it didn't waver. curiously enough when it came time for the congressional authorization which neither of us needed frankly it's the decision to do so. it was a close senate vote at 52-48 something like that. it wasn't overwhelming, the sentiment to supporting this shall not stand. but they went. to show you how things have changed in the post-9/11 world,

like dad we decided to go to the congress. unlike the vote when he was proposing to get saddam hussein out of iraq or vote was overwhelming. as a matter of fact and other people in the administration were strong supporters of that. technically i learned a lot from them is strategically i learned a lot. you've got to understand the national interest to find them and act on them. tactically you have to learn how to achieve objectives and tactics are necessary to achieve the goal. and in the book you will see that there is a constant comparison between the types of decisions that we make and ascends that are learned in making those decisions.

>> one of the great experiences that hope to give you a better perspective is your involvement in your dad's run for presidency you had independent engaged in the public campaign since. it was a two-man race. >> but you played a significant role on the campaign. in the book you talk about some of the roles that you played. >> what happened as i emerged my independent oil exploration company. dad had a big meeting to introduce us to the campaign staff in 1987 so i flew up there very thoughtful.

so she's got the family they are making sure everybody is included in the process, and so we add water, the hotshot political consultant i have been reading about how they may be elsewhere that he finished his presentations. any questions? how can we trust you? what he's saying is if there is a grenade we want you on it first. [laughter] and it was loyalty matters and purpose matters. so he wisely approached and said if you are worried why don't one of you come up here and i mentioned it to him and he thought it was a good idea so we moved up and i was in the

campaign, no title. proximity to power that's the way that it is in the white house. so i was there as a loyalty enforcer, surrogate. i did a lot of things and was a great experience. >> if anybody ever wonders how to become the nominee of the party. reagan lost eight seats in 86. i put in the buck.

to distance himself that he would never do that to a friend. but he also had the wisdom necessary to know in the campaign he wanted to make sure that it was as strong as possible going into the general election. >> understanding the human nature and politics. >> when your dad's term as president and did and he moved back to texas that was the

beginning of the transition for you as well and you start to think about what you might be doing. tell us of loss of the conversation entering the political arena and i know you ran for congress. >> that's right there wasn't much of a conversation that he knew that on the decision like this whether it be for governor or president you have to make up your own mind. and there is no question. i have to try to convince him that running for office is the right thing to do and his attitude is think about it and once you make up your mind i'm not going to tell you what he wants to do once you make up your mind i'm with you 100%. on the other hand when i told my mom i'm going to run against and richard she said he won't be able to be tertius to popular. [laughter] he leaves the office and i said this in the book i couldn't have

run for governor if he hadn't been re- elected. imagine trying to beat a popular incumbent and i would have been spending as much time if not most of the time defending the decisions he made in distancing himself and the decisions made that had been very difficult to get the kind of traction that one needs to draw the contrast and so in an interesting way is to feed us was to run for office. >> and that is the year that he ran and you ran into the expectations were different than some people thought. >> i don't know. i don't pay attention to that. i thought i could win, i really did. and i was hoping that he would win but yeah people draw conclusions for different reasons.

anyway, i called him and is that i'm getting ready to go declare victory and he said congratulations your mom and i are proud of you but it's clear that his heart was in florida. and one shouldn't be surprised once you get to know george bush reading this book shouldn't surprise you that he cares more for the person hurting them the one that's winning. >> it's training can make a big deal out of. it reflects some kind of love for one of the theater in the expectation. but you get a better feel for what you're talking about. >> family makes all the difference in the world. they are the best example of unconditional love and the experience of unconditional love

from your parents especially dad. tell me how you see that impacting how you love your children. >> it was a great example. but you never know what it means until your daughters turn into teenagers. [laughter] but then you learn. in the book i put this. i love you. there's nothing you can do to make me stop loving you, so stop trying. [laughter] the >> that was a great quote. [applause] you're not going to ask this but i'm going to tell you anyway but it's another great quote in the book. it's about george bush and his faith. if necessary, use words.

>> there was a debate taking place now in america that you have been party to and your mother has been party to come and it relates to a very close. >> remember she's the one that said you're not going to win, she's too popular. keep that in mind when you're talking about her wisdom. [laughter] >> do you want to share any insight into what is happening today >> you have to run for president [applause] on the other hand, like the secretary clinton there is an insight into what it's like to

be president and these are the two most qualified people being able to tell you what it's like to be president. and so he is making a very personal decision. and you know, we can pressure him always want and it all you want and it isn't going to matter. because he knows the consequences of his decision. first of all on the failure or success. as he said he's going to make sure that it's the right thing for his family. and that should be his player ready. so he is going to make a very informed decision. so they say pressuring to run. you can't pressure somebody on such an important decision. it's not going to cause them to think negatively if we harass them. only he can decide and that is what he is in the process of doing. and i don't know the timetable. we will see. it would be awesome if he runs into t. doesn't, we all love

him. >> one time i heard him say he doesn't like the idea of a political class which speaks to his great integrity. bush, clinton. [laughter] the point is you don't get to pick the environment in which you run. >> you and your family have had a long history of nicknames for a lot of people and your dads nickname kind of growing up was have half. >> mine was all half.

the >> because he was at the circus and and the elephants went wild or something like that. he was the chairman of the party. >> he came out unscathed. this was a narrative that code amazing book over baby boomers. i was going to harvard the time when your dad is the head of the republican party during watergate. >> you and the party chairman and cia, no president has ever had one of the jobs.

>> eagles wrote a letter to president nixon and it was a courageous letter for a chairman of the republican party. >> and of course with such general returns. the conditions would be recognized at that the letter was time for you to go. it would have been easy to say i told him to go because it was a great double to us time and it would have been expedient. he wouldn't do that of course. it's not in his nature but ultimately history sort things out and the truth becomes revealed and this is part of the process of getting people to see the truth of his presidency.

>> your dad also frequently was invited by presidents to take on responsibilities. and sometimes those rates possibilities ran counter to the expectation. people were suggesting maybe you shouldn't do things like that. but i was struck in the book how the mobile servant gives the invitation that if the president wants to you should find a way to say yes and that seems to be how he lived his life had practiced. >> if he were riding their bikes in china and in beijing and a messenger comes up and it turns out that it was gerald ford asking george bush to come back and run the cia. this was an ugly period for the agency post-watergate, a lot of acrimony and very low morale.

as i understand, my mother wept. the person she loved was heading back in. but in the book it was a letter that she to kissinger and talked about if the president asks. and i asked to run the suit on the release and they did. and it did well by the way and it ended up in one of the most unique friendships in history. the guy that beat george bush in 92 with tell you that his dad had become like a father figure to him. which speaks volumes for both a great respect for george h. w. bush and george h. w. bush's

great humility that he would allow to intercede in what is a unique friendship. i think it's remarkable. i think it is an amazing story. [applause] have that friendship spilled over to you? is it simply rivalry? >> we get along fine. we are the only two and you know, he was born in august of 46 and i was going july of 46. the governors of southern southwestern states. we both like retail politics. we both can talk a lot.

now we are both grandfathers. we have a lot in common and we both remember. >> and we both love george w. bush. >> i've been a witness to that. we set up a delegation. the official delegation, like an alternate. [laughter] since you set the manifest. it was a good experience. it's safe to say.

spank the relationship that your dad has had with a fellow that is not only the political ladder series and the dialogue that the half has become so respectfully and loving it's a great example of bush be happening today. is there any chance that america will get back today? >> like it is in the anonymity in the blogosphere in terms of responsibility. but yes it has to. it's kind of hard to watch only because you want to make sure that decent people say that public service is worthy. it's not a sacrifice. and i'm afraid a lot of people look at the harshness and say why would i want to do that or put my family through that for

the good of the country. >> you are a living example of the legacy that your dad gave to america by allowing you to answer the call of public service. i was impressed in the book about how the roots from that trade started with your grandfather and grandmother. >> i never would have got to be governor of texas. >> it's a great gift and we are thankful that you told us the story of not only 41 but your dad and your mother and love for this great country and you gave a chance which more than we are

willing to acknowledge. vazquez be [applause] >> there was the engagement of people that are in political positions up on the hill. 435 members of congress, members

of the senate all from different parts of the country. some are smart, some are not smart, some are honest, some are dishonest. someone to do the right things. it's a mixture. it's a cross-section of america that is represented. and there are a lot of people. the challenge is to engage people. it's the logic of an issue and people should embrace it. the difference between bill clinton and barack obama work extremely bright. the quick studies when you

breathe them in terms of understanding the issues they ask great questions and keep down, both want to do the right thing for the country. made no mistake about it. the difference is that bill clinton loved the bill clinton loves the political engagement and the process of rolling up your sleeves and dealing with individuals. he loved politics and dealing with members. he knew every member's district and the members would come in and he would say to them you are running the wrong campaign. your running on the wrong issues. but they tell you what you ought to run on terri as she was engaged in that process and that makes a difference. i think president obama isn't into that kind of personal political engagement. he wants to work with people on the issues. but to get it done it's like

everything else. it is knowing people, listening to them, understanding what their needs are, understanding how you can convince them of what is in their interest to do the right thing. it's the entire process that ultimately result in getting things done and that's where the president has to engage in terms of dealing with the issues. >> you are watching the tv on c-span2. here's our primetime lineup for tonight.

in the civil rights and the making of the modern american state, meg and francis examines how the civil rights movement and the naacp perfected to the american political landscape in the early 20th century. this event recorded at ucla is one hour.

>> i'm going to introduce bag -- megan. megan ming francis as an assistant professor at the department of political science at the university of washington in seattle. she earned her ba in science and economics at rice university in 2003 and soon after in 2008 she and her doctrine and politics at princeton university and with cornell west. she killed two postdoctoral agreements in chicago and indiana university school of law and before joining at pepperdine university where she was an assistant for four years and garnered quite the politics and the law and society are work at the intersection of american politics, race, constitutional

law and she's particularly interested in the conception of rights and citizenship, political activism and politics of populism. she's the author of civil rights and the making of the modern american state which is published just this year on the cambridge university press. as of so this argues the naacp played a pivotal role in the federal court power in the criminal procedure and subsequently in the civil rights by helping the court wrestle away the jurisdiction from the state courts in the first 20th century. so this way i would argue i can see her work as a deeply archival project project in line with the historic work reactions are radical free management to start earlier and enacting that as a counterbalance that it's situated historically in 1960s and 70s. so that is something that she will talk more about and she is

currently working on a second book project that examines the role to the criminal justice system and the rebuilding of the southern political and economic power and activists that were. on a personal level, i've known megan for 15 years which is shocking to say. we graduated together on opposite sides of the campus and we've also worked alongside each other in various facets of activism including the recruitment of retention, campus programming, a quality and a dancing diversity she served as president for the need for cultural exchange. we both have the routes of success and to our parents initial dismay chose to receive a phd rather than go to law school or med school at the respective institutions at equal distance and over the years the

kind of regroup and nurture each other through the process. i'm surprised that after five years and five winters we both ended up in los angeles and got each other through the first years. so now in my fifth year i can say unequivocally that a large measure is owed to these team plus years and specifically the concept from when she lived here or in santa monica. it's with a great pleasure i introduce her for this talk today. [applause] >> that was wonderful. let me set my watch so i don't go over like i do in my classes. okay. so thank you so much for coming in hearing me speak between the

hour of noon and 1 p.m. about my book project. first i want to thank the center for the invitation to talk today about my book. i really appreciate it and it is especially great to be asked ucla where i think a lot of exciting work around african-american studies is actually being done and it is an exciting place, one of the most exciting places in the country. this is all so i think a really great place for me to give a talk for two other reasons. one that i used to live in la and i could still consider it home that i just left in june and i haven't seen the sun for a long time so it takes me very happy to be here. and then second because i have a number of friends in the area and in particular i want to thank you for that generous introduction. i met him 15 years ago as a wide-eyed freshman in the university.

then somehow we went to the institutions in jail and princeton and then as you said in new york we had fabulous dinners and discussed the jury process but the graduate school and then somehow in 2010 we both moved to los angeles together. and so he has seen me through the kind of process of the dissertation and in the book more than anybody else. and though we both do not have husbands has become the closest to me to being one in terms of the court so thank you. talking about the graduate stories coming of the already started late, let's talk about my book which sounds very weird to me but it's my book and it's called civil rights and the making -- it's called the civil rights and the making -- we are going to do this on the prompter for everybody.

civil rights and the making of the modern american state. i want to start by saying that the different things inspire us to write and research. for me it is the telling of the stories we think we already know that we don't really intelligent of them and retelling them in different ways. so what that says, what i want to do is begin with the story about a transformative civil rights struggle waged by the naacp and the landmark of the supreme court decision that resulted from it. the struggle that began was heard in the same court centered on helping african-americans to secure the same citizenship rights that are enjoyed on the forms of the jim crow campaign that translated into the legal argument they delivered before the supreme court.

and the violation of the 14th amendment of the naacp would go to argue that african-americans were denied their constitutional right. it is a case that changed the operation of jim crow in the south and by doing so simultaneously and reached even the 50 fold african-americans frustrated with the undermining of the citizenship. after the decision in this case, the naacp leaders wrote, and i am quoting here the supreme court's decision in this notable case is become one of the milestones in the fight for justice and achievement in the signing of the emancipation proclamation. moving forward, the naacp v-victor e. in this case fueled a struggle for the struggle for equal citizenship that defied african-american politics in the 20th century. more importantly could reshape

the constitutional landscape it earned the highest respect in the nation trade with this description it could be used to describe the landmark victory in what i'm referring to is the legal victory in the case that decided more than 30 years before the infamous pork decision by the supreme court and 54 it constituted a turning point in the judiciary expansion of its power and its role in the criminal procedure. the case involved 12 african-american sharecroppers from philip county in arkansas to the sentence to die by the electric chair. they each received a trial that was less than 15 minutes in a courtroom occupied by the mob that threatened them if they didn't sentence them to death in

the jury would send them. >> after losing the case they convicted and were sent free. the dominated trioval violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment. when they handed down wendy handed down the decision many people found it shocking because the sentences per african-americans had been widely accepted in the south ever since the legal slavery is a today when we talk about the kind of supreme court protections in the area of the procedure we understand a lot of them. we know that you can't torture somebody into a profession right. we know you can't put them in an electric chair and have a mob in the courtroom, that kind of early on that 20th century these were new ways that the government was coming into the state's telling them kind of what actually defined with a fair trial is.

it marked a turning point in the discourse about the constitutional rights due to the ability to get the supreme court involved in the criminal court proceedings. after the case the court continued to expand its powers and go forward in the 20th century creating the new constitutional law and standards of fairness. i argue it represents a critical moment when the power of the federal court expanded in less than a century we've gone from a nation with a week judiciary and a strong individual state court power to the country with weak local control and state power. they now understood as a venue to civil rights and civil liberties go to be resolved. if the case of descriptive and raised a number of questions that i could not get answer in

the available literature on the naacp civil rights and constitutional development that i had read in graduate school. i came upon this case early in my graduate study. so there are three questions that were in my project that i had been wrestling with over the past ten years. the first one is in the federal court system in the united states and the 21st century especially in the area of criminal procedure. why did the supreme court decided to be in wrestling power away from state courts in the area from the law with dempsey and perhaps the most important question can civil rights organization impacted the development to the american states so as it stands it paints the naacp as focused on legal victory. it is near the end of the naacp and the imagination right now.

today the decision in brown v. board of education is the most well-known supreme court case public opinion poll after public opinion poll revealed. many of us to follow civil rights know the naacp was also active in how the discrimination lawsuits and voter disenfranchisement cases. under the contemporary political leaders that echoed this sentiment barack obama wowed the senate and remarked on a radio show one of the tragedies in the civil rights movement was because of the civil rights movement became so court focused. i think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of power. along similar lines jerry rosenberg and it's his belief that they are constrained and unable to bring about significant change.

these arguments i think reflects a common perspective of many political science and also history civil rights movement would have a chance of greater success and organization to focus more energy on the victory in the protest were through the political process instead of through court. the organization's privilege the tactics on the outset and largely ignore the political and social arena for the social equality. i'm writing against this narrative as i find it lacking those that unfolded on the grounds of the work that i do is very much based on the archival research and so in the midst of a number of different archives. it is housed as harvard university.

the project is in the existing literature placing the naacp at the crux of understanding the building of the 20th century american states. i developed a three-part argument. first i argue the naacp campaign against the lynching arcs the beginning of a long civil rights movement and not be board of education and begin debate or movement in the 30s and the 40s. a second i argue that the change through the state formation in the account of political developments needed to the center the institution into the elite state actors in the political science literature. to politicize at the federal level at the time when previous scholarships suggested the organization.

in the federal court power and subsequently the civil rights by helping the supreme court wrestled away the jurisdiction in the first quarter of the 20th century. the book focuses on the extent of the efforts to shift public opinion and that the executive branch is in the federal government in the direction that i argue they were not yet willing to go. they failed to produce the naacp redirected its efforts to the supreme court when they took up dempsey. on another important the book is about well-established incomplete narratives and the voices and political agency that is then reproduced in and far too often published in the scholarship.

so a bit of a critique for the academics in and the audience in terms of the intervention. so in terms of the argument showed they are not very likely to be found in the american political development of the legal system in the 20th century i think that it should. so if you can stay with me i promise there is something on the other side. the focus on the political head of the legal institutions for the american political development have drawn attention to arrange a structural transformation of how to define the american system of government. some of the most famous work in the political development produced the studies linking institutional governments to the industrialization, party development and social policy formation. by having to explain this to my

students that if we understand the power of the presidency and how they exist in 2014 those are not the same that existed at the founding. they try to explain how it's spent. we address the political questions. they are a big question about the institution, how the institutions form. despite broadening the understanding of the way that the political authority works and the way that they have narrated the formation of an american civil rights tradition have overlooked the role that individuals and grassroots organizations have played in shaping the legislative, judicial and executive branch

government. it's not that the scholars have so much ignored the civil rights organizations. numerous political development scholars investigated the role of the community level civil rights mobilization and its impact on the development of the american state and the post world war ii era. but the scholarship is a top-down focus narrative and usually it identifies the transformation in the united states foreign-policy and party politics as an explanation for the formation of the domestic civil rights agenda. this perspective has so much power and attraction but it's often called the cold war civil rights theory and it stands to this framework civil-rights organizations are considered too weak for the political constitutional development during the early and mid-20th century from the perspective of the national security concern and not civil rights mobilization ultimately it gave

the federal government the incentive to protect the lives of african-americans in the civil rights movement. for the most part the cold war civil rights pretty much set the debate for the last decade. after the literature in the public law and constitutional law that addresses the court and the involvement in the criminal procedure cases of offenses the supreme court responds to the southern injustice in a way that the legal's daughters married legals golfers married at the beginning as a kind of groundwork of modern criminal procedure is for example there was a egregious and the fact that 12 african-american men were going to be heading to die if course the supreme court had to. it was just a game in this characterization of justice. it's very much the notion of american democracy and liberalism that i think is incomplete.

so what about the impact of the civil rights organizations on the period of the development before the cold war? it is the most silent supported by scholarship and african-american studies that provided the narrative of the african-american political activism and national politics that are in the balance of reconstruction and in the period of the post-1950s. the period in the middle and that my book is concerned with is considered to be african-american and action on the national political scene. and it's often considered to be a time of race relations. the traditional account of the african-american freedom circle follows roughly along these lines after the abolition of slavery and the period of reconstruction and where they were active participants in the political and social rights of the nation. however, they soon overtook the

southern democrats troops and strict african-americans of their political come economic and social rights. they were then introduced and finally the dominant narrative continued on the condition and propelled by the brown v. board of education decision african americans in the south took to the street and protest and finally force the government to pay attention to their plight. they are assumed to have turned inward towards their interest for african-american institutions such as the church and other organizations. numerous social historians of beautifully have beautifully documented of course how african-americans resisted jim crow at the local and state level but not at the national level. political science for the most part accepted the narrative of african-american political

activism. so i think these two strands are of course mutually reinforcing and important changes in the development of the american state urged you to do to the overarching structure, not the citizen agency. african-americans by default are not even considered important enough to wrestle with the narrative of the political development and political science in the 20th century. simply put african-americans were sidelined in the national politics in the first half of the 20th century. so of course they have no role of shaping the elements in this period. but when we look at african-american politics and constitutional development there is a source of research that predates a blind spot that skewers the very important moment in the construction of the american state. yet it is precisely at the site of the silence that i think we should pull deeper into the understanding of the interactions between african-american politics and

american political and constitutional development. the scholarship on civil rights and african-americans is on one side of the spectrum into science and the literature on the development is on the other. i would like to think that my work is right in the middle of the debate and i think that it challenges both fields of scholarship and it puts it together in many ways. and it does that by examining the activities of the naacp in the first quarter of the 20th century. and again working in the public opinion. and also, lobbying the presidents woodrow wilson and warren g. harding and then also in trying to pass the bill in congress. the broad theoretical contribution of the project is the idea of how to think about american political development. in the previous research it is a demonstration of the important role as civil rights organizations played in the national state building project. my research revealed that by taking a step back and examining

the change in the political and social environment and we will see the role that the naacp place. at this point i think that it's necessary to establish why the naacp puts so much muscle behind the issue of the racial violence. so if the book focuses on the naacp campaign against violence and the institutions in the federal government, it is important to understand why they did so. from the beginning, the violence was at the top of the naacp agenda. since it was considered to be the greatest obstacle in the north and south to gain a quality in america and in response to criticism from another board member in 1916 the naacp program program advancement wasn't radical enough that it didn't also address other areas that we now associate with civil rights such as lee burke of education and

housing. one of the naacp leaders explained and i'm quoting here all of them wanted a chance to live without a rope around his neck. the naacp believed to prefer the organization could appropriately address other problematic areas of the civil rights that it was necessary to focus on anti-lynchings of african-americans actually enjoy the benefits of the struggle. so, what you see on the slide is the naacp from 1911 which is the first year which the naacp kept their minutes every month of until 1923 which is the case they decided the purpose was to compare the frequency of other areas that we now in the post-civil rights era associate with civil rights such as of course education, labor and voting with issues of the criminal justice to what i did is that which related to the criminal justice into the mob

violence and education and labor and also voting. what i found that that was interesting to me trying to expect with the naacp actually cared about in the first ten or 20 years of the organization. there are concerns about the mob violence and lynching and the agenda from the outset. it's for the e. quality that would ultimately come to define so much of its agenda. and the volume of literature that has been written about the rights and constitutional law exists not one account that has a detail at length and up campaign against the racist violence. this neglect means that the

explanation focuses on describing the constitutional and civil rights development are often incomplete. i am going to very quickly go through two of the case studies that i have that occupy different chapters and then circle back to the supreme court chapter and end with what are some implications of the research. one of chapters focuses on the naacp work around the public opinion and also around the presidency. the strategy against the mob of violence targeted the executive branch as a possible institution in the federal government whereby the civil rights program or agenda could be entrenched and what is interesting about the naacp without the benefit of retrospect that would now have is that in 1909 through what to say 1916 the naacp was focused on the public opinion campaign and belief that if they just needed to clear, the reality is

that african-americans and the staff were facing and then they would realize the way and everything but miraculously change. ..

>> >> no man who loves america our through cares for favored and donner and character for food is truly loyal to the institution can justify mob action and the government of the state and the nation are ready and able to do their duty. you also have others in exchange also a party in that says to make this statement to congress with a

barbaric lynchings with the banner said freehand orderly of a democracy. with mob violence and lynching and as we know that did not have been. but at the tail end of the statement the focus of the federal legislation to protect the lives of african-americans. in a document the naacp's work it is a massive campaign to force passed legislation for those who are accused did convicted of lynching african americans to justice. but then it is abandoned and

has urged people with the upper grades to focus through civil action. and also the dissolution. to have the public opinion front that the lynches are not stopping. the tavis statement from the president. then in congress ultimately the piece of legislation is defeated. >> what is interesting meet on my studies with the naacp how do they protect the

lives of african-americans? was of violent incidents in arkansas. beginning in 1981 a small group of african american farmers hastily gathered in a church meeting to strategizing of how to break free from the sharecropping system if you know, about labor in the south and african-americans are taking the advantage of how to break free from the system. is not for this gathering a small group of law-enforcement officials are arrived at the church hoping to kill a number of these labor organizers. the fire was returned by mortar fire in one man was killed.

the leader for those who understand very specific racial dynamics that are happening, and 1919 in arkansas the idea that they have guns it is a very dangerous idea and there was the need for many citizens in this area to put this down. what ensued was the worst display of racial violence up to that point over 300 african american men and women were hunted and shot down over the course of three days. thousands were driven from their homes and the town was looted and destroyed. what happened after words is 72 african-american men were arrested many were tortured to procure them to give the narrative. is buried from sun being put

into the electric chair and a would-be turnon as they did not say what the interrogators wanted to hear but then the men who were tried with that mob domination and then sentenced to die. with the litigation is strategy developed was focused on getting the national government evolved in a trial. but it is in the process to be swept under the rug. naacp headquarters got a letter walter wright was an african-american but very fair skin and. blue eyes and interviewed a number of the whites. soviet-backed use the naacp that they had to get

involved. so they set up a fund and contacted an attorney and began the process to defend the men. from the beginning the attorneys were aware of any of the courts in arkansas would set the men free. at the time it was a hostile of environments most of the residents are still fuming. the olympic possible prospect was to take the case outside arkansas but how could they do that? the organization planned to file motions in arkansas to go so far as the united states supreme court. the naacp that off to american democracy could be to the federal court. established from the beginning with the

persistence of the naacp defense council to the course of the legal battle. three times this case was lost in state court by the united states supreme court from two different occasions if they continue to appeal this case emotionally exhausting and working with the defense counsel and strategizing how to get the federal government involved. into the united states supreme court it was granted. in the interest of the 14th amendment to process protection by the state of

arkansas and made a strong case the implements of the mob prevented the dependents -- defendants are receiving a fair trial. the naacp argued that lost the jurisdiction for the 70 cut through and the verdict was of mob berndt -- verdict because none other would have been tolerated. in a separate corporate deliver the decision that relies on the claims for the rights of due process that were violated. and he writes with the

council jury and judge and failing to correct the wrong and they make the trial loyal. so this brings me to the final part of my talk is why did the supreme court decision whole so much significance not just for the naacp before the legal system as i have alleged? in the case that not many people know about but the effects of long ranging implications. and the answer is it in the litigation strategy to fight for civil rights in the

20th century and more important a the revolution rid the supreme court expanded its powers it a criminal law to define what constitutes a fair trial. it is important to a understand the expertise of the naacp to play the role that it did during the era of civil rights was a tavern by defense. brown did not just happen in the '30's or 40's. and we a understand in view understand the protection with a long career trajectory for constitutional change. it is the battleground racial violence benghazi

understanding how to successfully fight. and the wasted no time to use them as leverage for the goal department. weld the figure does not see much it is a 600 percent increase of one year. however not just the naacp leadership but the supporters were acutely aware of the impact of the case and the year after they noted for legal aid these cases reject a total of 476 for about it reported to take action in those cases.

meeting away from the trajectory with the judiciary to litigates to build up the power of a federal a judiciary the first case of the modern era for a new procedural rights through the mob dominated trials. 17 aa city -- once the naacp had jurisdiction and no longer balanced. the supreme court tried to intervene on the behalf of african american defendants. with the final analysis what it teaches us is the american state does not hold a monopoly on the use of

force and the institution is for state actors and marginalized groups. but its initial development between powerful actors and those to critique from what they seek to implement. the naacp but a strong case with its involvement of the issues of racial violence. it culminated in a landmark supreme court decision to exemplify the naacp to create opportunities to challenge jim-crow and how the organization ultimately push the federal government in a new direction. these are ordinary african american citizens and willing to use it by a those that are equipped end they contested of what it meant to live in a democracy which

government cares for all of its citizens. the supreme court decision would chip away at the system of the southern states to be the sole architects for recovery and justice. i went a little bit over. i apologize. [applause] questions? >> i am very interested in reading the book. though one question i had coming from a political science prospective as well as a series of political culture that the ordinariness of the citizens

, there is a question about the ideas of popular culture of those who are interested in political action would perform them in the matter that you describe them? what made it the pursuit of political action counted as political as opposed to the aggrandizement of popular sentiment? i gave political? for those for the intervention with the other forms of activities. >> in terms of people that

are involved with that letter writing campaign to your question and why do i consider this a political action? >> it is about intervening and reestablishing. >> an excellent question at the heart is what constitutes the agency and also political engagement and political process. the push back is though one that i understand the letter writing as the forms of citizen engagement with the stage.

civic those are other african-american activities. >> that i actually think those all clauses to different forms of political activity. part of the book project in the critique is centered on development. it is one in which with a state institution is moved. justice regular everyday citizens it is how is it to shed its behavior but to what i doing i a the get a particular way.

the way they have to engage politically is a wonderful array. bi focus specifically on letter-writing for the work around the legal case. so as a mainstream or tradition and political science there is no way the harlem renaissance had a role in development. it to change an apolitical institution? what i try to getting at is even if i take that antiquated notion fed there still should be the way the african-americans are acting so it is a slice of much

larger pie. >> i tried to get a clear understanding of the take away that you emphasize that relates to the previous scholarships so with the book that does talk about the way they organize and to deal with segregation and a talking about other types of activity with that analysis that that period has not been analyzed or is that something different for that period? >> yes and no. an excellent question so one of my critiques with the

work that focuses on the of later time period especially round of the naacp focus is on the leader period. and then to focus on what happens before there is an established body of literature that says the old somali it did not shake anything so it is against national security concerns to say this forces people to move so to focus on a much earlier period if all the literature of political science focuses on post 45

so we could extend that analysis much earlier. and for what they're doing around the issue of racial violence the way it has spent discounted that narrative does not exist. >> so i want to show the is the procedural revolution. for litigation without the naacp did you cannot understand they're all cases the supreme court has been of all.

this is the first case that they get involved. where i read about this was a constitutional law book there was always a criminal pursuits of doctrine that i got to the archives and i said i was right a dissertation how they forgot about criminal-justice. and to do archival research. there is the kid and they're totally involved. but the big case is brown. but there is not the story about criminal procedure also not a story the naacp

is not as a litigation focused organization and through the presidency that they were hollow than the courts. >> a great presentation. do you draw any historical connection to where we are now or are you thinking in that direction? because it seems that ground level organizing maybe what people are calling for. >> fate q.. -- think you. but in terms of the implications of my work 82

or three but in terms of organizing in the back of my mind with some of those protests for the stop and frisk that have been in your. so how do organizations successfully organized to have changed against the political system? so i would like to think the implications of my work is to rethink to organize a change i will turn around but what i teach my class is of course, . if you have this idea to seek a change to protest it

is that we get around lgbt writes. but what the story says is we don't have that memory of the forties and fifties. how do we fight for rights? so we will do public opinion. they do make inroads to say we will do the political system. and wilson and harding don't change said came. then they go to the court. one of the takeaways for the justice and the contemporary area but here is the naacp.

garett here it is in 1909 not just on one but maybe it will have a breakthrough. they would go with whoever. there has to be some type of protection let's just focus on legislation. there is very little resources in the movements today need to focus on the bridges. thank you.

[applause] you guys are great. i had fun. >> but i did not envision until recently. but the fundamental nature of the book they're fairly common but then some people what my day job think is that is understood john some

levels. so my quest is very passionate is to break those communications. to have a full discourse what is that fundamental nature? why what are we here and how will it end? and tried to explain that in the universe. [laughter] i work with artists and designers that tried to

encapsulate with that pinball machine that represented dash -- a level not tell you that's but it is to talk about my science but also a to speak to people's hearts. sometimes just plain hard work.