opportunities and promoting and opening up new dialogs to really address the long-term consequences of racism, discrimination, and income class and inequality in the united states. >> i'm wondering if there is any possibility of moving forward unless there is some kind of an acknowledgment that 1865 didn't end everything and simply evolve after that and that there have been no suggestions of any reconciliation or any kind of national conversations. and i'm wondering if where that might fit into your excellent book. >> i think it is something that is completely necessary. that is one of the things that is exciting about finishing this

research and revising the book over the past year. it's what has been going on in the communities it's the fact that hillary clinton talks about the mission o mission of her pry should she become elected is very promising. so these conversations are opening up. harry tubman is going to be on the 20-dollar bill. the question is whether they will move beyond these conversations in this room and elsewhere to the concrete change in the kind of kind of a growis for the change of consciousness about who gets to be a citizen and who doesn't, who should be included, and how much opportunity we should provide citizens that have been systematically and historically

excluded the basic resources including in the case of the water that is in place and. i wanted to ask a historical question. what was the maximum participation argument how much of this decline in the appeal of that ideal do you think turned on the robust participation of the militancy and community control programs and community programming? how much do you put on the blackout were insurgents into this uncertainty and number two,

this is difficult but how would you even suggest a johnson administration, nixon administration to be capable of navigating that dilemma for the organized control programs. >> that is an excellent question and you're right it is difficult to answer. answer. and maximum feasible participation, johnson almost immediately after the federal government begins funding these grassroots organizations like in chicago which is involved in making the disciples and memberships the question is to what extent, and it was aimed johnson administration to local officials oppose this because they didn't want to feed their power to the grassroots organizations eventually as kind of a way to remedy the situation. johnson bough not only institutionalized many of the

programs but also gives local authorities do levels of oversight and power within b's community organizations. local officials charged that this was kind of a voter registration drives and johnson increasingly backed off. but even more in control if kind of rocks johnson and liberal sympathizers further and further away from these more transformative notions of liberal reform or the uprising in the 60s beginning with harlem and 64, philadelphia, brooklyn, rochester new york and they continue to escalate every single year as more and more resources are being allocated towards the war on crime.

so, johnson and his advisers b's were somehow political in nature. they recognized issues of unemployment and lack of access to education and the same grievances that have inspired these collective group in violence but yet instead of saying okay we can respond to these issues when actually we obviously haven't gone far enough with the war on poverty maybe we really do need a structural solution if we want to prevent future uprising from happening. instead, they back away from the war on poverty programs and turned towards the climate and really turned the war on poverty and war on crime as a way to suppress the militancy for the future uprising. >> i didn't answer the second question but that's okay.

>> for those of us are old enough and have been around, what do you do with the black power peace and then the corruption i'm old enough to remember a lot of these community-based programs so you had an interesting accommodation in the family all operating in concert. so it's a context where the narrative gets a little stickier and more complicated because it actually is corruption. moynahan responds in part to that in the philadelphia case and they are pretty remarkable. in the case in chicago it was a

faith-based program led by the churches in the area. what do we do with that? part of the difficulty is the element in the left and my discussion they never quite knew what to do with. then there's the complicated nature of the militants that had a criminal weight to it. so my question is how do you fit that into your analysis, i'm trying to complicate the analysis. copies of that element into your analyst? >> when you are talking about corruption in the period during the nixon administration there is corruption running through. the way that the programs are implemented on a local level in

some ways there's corruption in the organizations that are getting funded and the ways the programs are even selected to be funded and things like that, that is a problem with the kind of bureaucracy in some ways it is created. we see this at the highest level taking off during the nixon administration so there is corruption among federal policymakers and the way they are being allocated dc it is very much reflected in the ways in which the friends and supporters get the grants and similar things happen with the war on poverty when the federal government introduces and begins funding and we see that it creates new channels as a favorable than the groups will emerge. the problem is that especially when you are dealing with these kind of more transformative

programs with less oversight from the state officials, these programs are cut off before they are given a chance to work. one thing the book does well if we are going to talk about corruption and you did a good job giving an evenhanded amount of democrats and republicans, and i just wanted to have you comment a bit about what i perceive to be an issue of the disenfranchisement as a voting bloc in the government whether it is at the local level or the national level how has that sort of contributed to an inability from the part of ordinary

citizens to actually get bigger leaders to respond to them in the clientele relationship where they are being taken as given? >> for the last half century and before, the party has taken for granted african-american voters, latino voters, and it's able to kind of make these rhetorical gestures without necessarily enacting policies that address the issues most important to them so we see very much not only with the crime bill that exacerbated the kind of bubbling prison population so we get that and it increases the death penalty. two years later we get the

welfare reform bill. there will be campaign speeches that the black middle class in the '90s and the number living in extreme poverty actually increase drastically during the clinton administration. so part of it is i think that again how the new social movements and the discussions that are being opened up by groups like black lights matter are putting pressure on the democratic party to address issues of the police communities and educational disparities, mass incarceration and entry that will provide people with housing and education and things like that and it's up to us to keep that pressure going perhaps because it looks like a huge surprise we are not going to get another black president.

perhaps they will be able to address the racial issues head on in a way that barack obama being the first black president can't. so i am hopeful. it's not as if these changes are just going to come out of the goodness of policymakers hearts. we have to keep the pressure on them [inaudible] we know what brought out the triangulation sort of middle ground type of governance. as even with all these pressures, the party is having to face the decline and respond to that which they might --

>> i am not a political pundit, but i do think that's where we are right now, what we are seeing in terms of the way that it's unfolded already reflects the fact that we still remain in many ways widening the civil rights war on poverty because it did not involve a major structural transformation is never what congress intended it to be. and the ways in which it's played in a psychological wedge keeping peoples interest shared and opposed to one another we are seeing the long-term consequences of that beginning to play out. i hope that as we begin to have the conversations and think about the choices and domestic policies to reckon with our history that perhaps the new coalition and maybe even new political parties will form out of this at this moment that we are in right now.

.. >> >>