. >> [inaudible conversations] [applause] [applause] . >> thank you for that wonderful introduction.

thank you for being here i just want to jump right in to get as many questions and then get to your wonderful questions. i am also told this is the first stop on the book tour. [applause] . >> that means i have not heard these before so i will not be ready. [laughter] so the beginning is a great place to start some of this dialogue is occurring it is so fundamental returning to the true complexity or contradictions.

>> that is a large question i will try to give you a succinct answer. we don't know how to talk to each other anymore. i have seen it in my own lifetime you think the internet would be a source of communication instead of isolation. the more i look at it the better part of our nature looks like a naïve idea. we live in a trouble time when people watch fox or msnbc and listen to their different apps. and you have to be very mindful talking to this audience or that audience. and the kind of civic center this embodies is really rare a

place of different persuasions of background and race and income can come together on equal terms. in some sense the title of the book means we need to learn how to talk to each other but most we need to learn how to argue. but in the end of the founders succeeded in part because they were a diverse group not racially diverse but intellectually or temperamental and ideological diverse. the picture of the american revolution of the american founding is a group portrait if jefferson alone was in charge we would have ended up

in an anarchy. if hamilton were in charge we would end up in the autocracy. the same way the checks and balances are built into the constitution it was built into the generation the greatest examples between 1812 and 1826 the north and south of the american revolution and we begin by saying we ought not to die until we have explained ourselves to each other. so there is a model in the same way when the founders went back to jefferson madison hamilton, i should do hamilton

it would be commercially viable. [laughter] my daughter said why not? washington and who is the other person? jefferson and adams and madison in washington. also historians are not supposed to do this. they are not supposed to consciously pose questions of the past formed in the present that is called presentism. everybody's doing it. and i'm joining in. [laughter] . >> so now let's go back to a figure that you mentioned auspicious historians of this. in philadelphia perhaps you

particularly thomas jefferson with the declaration of independence he is not document are such a quandary to us. i keep going back to the same words when i read the word paradox and irony. >> if that's what comes to you then i winning. [laughter] so with that paradox of jefferson in that document can you elaborate what confounds us quick. >> yes that's a big one. on seventh and market street on the second floor apartment on a portable desk for - - built by a slave in june 1776 jefferson wrote the magic words of american history we hold these truths to be self-evident all men are created equal. endowed by their creator with

certain unalienable rights including life liberty pursuit of happiness this is the american creed. the cataclysmic foundation of the liberal tradition in the united states. it is the reason why supreme court justices when testifying say i'm just an empire i call the balls and strikes. i say first of all, baseball did not exist in 1787 in the strike zone has been expanding the last 200 years. and it has been expanding and we could talk a lot about that that is a whole seminar. but jefferson simultaneously firmly believed that blacks and whites could not live together in the same society. and the reason why with that

emancipation policy to do that with the president that he genuinely believes once the slaves were free they had to be - - play somewhere else. he could not envision a biracial society and any biracial society and his judgment would become a society that corrupted the anglo-saxon race. that's what he thought and never assume that leadership position on slavery because he believed until we come up with a plan to support him, to think the american west but then said that's not good. that's where we will put the native americans.

liberia may be but that's the last word he better change his mind. and it's so important because in this moment with and american society that they same that one to share that same prejudice that arc of the moral universe it's true we don't live in the moral universe in the united states. and in my judgment i devote two chapters to this the chapter on race is the pattern with the liberal view is gradual improvement over time.

that's true but we are down here. and a significant portion never understanding the full implications of the civil rights and not just people of the former confederacy that this is ripe stuff as we approach 2045 and the white population is scheduled to become a statistical minority even though retaining the book of the economic and political power, we could fully expect demagogues total ground for demagogues. in the end getting there would

be hard. and a struggle and like cancer will keep getting better but never cure it. but this starts with the last line from the great gatsby and is populated that i was so fascinated with james baldwin. how do you see him? how do you see him and then with that generation as a gay

guy that was also dismissed for the last 40 years of his life. and those three black guys that were the most interesting w e-beat a boy and a sociologist but what baldwin does is to say something that was truly prophetic.

so while the great achievement and challenge of american history is the creation of a democracy in the status population and that pales in compound - - comparison to share that democracy with black men. so the belief in the biracial society with the mid- idea none of the founders could imagine jefferson included when it makes it even more hypocritical.

partly because to be on different sides of gender and racial identities and americans will solve the racial problem and that speaks to us. . >> i know and it shines through. but to be so canonized and speaking as the 99 percent and here's what we don't necessarily think about it was

ludicrous to believe all men are created equal so can you discuss that irony quick. >> yes. adams has come back in the scholarly world because his papers are coming out to be interesting in the most fully revealed in the washington diaries that for the last day of the presidency one of the great faults are washington in

179625 degrees so adams always talks about the weather about the storms but there are other reasons to find it interesting only one of the founders that predicts that says a quality in the marketplace will lead to inequality social and political. based on reading adam smith , the scottish philosophers and that philosopher is dominated by the ideology.

with the science and the delusion because you can imagine something in your mind it is possible in the world. this is the delusion that leads to the guillotine and the firing squad. and he believes everyone comes into the world as equal in terms of human beings with rights but to be fundamentally different with different opportunities and of course, that's true that jefferson can anticipate to the aristocracy of wealth. and to have that natural aristocracy it will be a

plutocracy and to take over the government and once that happens it will be difficult to dislodge. we are there again. and he doesn't have an answer. 's answers are curious to put all the aristocrats in the senate because that's when they have power for god sakes. but one thing is not an answer. of supply-side economics. trickle down will not work although there are a lot of people in america that continue to believe it. once you have income inequality in major ways you have plutocracy. we had it.

both parties with primary constituencies. when the second amendment with legislation after sandy hook and with background checks. 90 percent you can get 90 percent to agree on anything. and never had a chance. and adam said that to be my kind of guy he is a contrary and. the greatest benefit was the election of 1800. because i lost it because i

did the right thing. i knew if i did that i would risk election how many politicians today would cost them the election? i cannot think of a single one. that you as a candidate have to have your own election at the highest priority. that the founders understand this at all. if that's the case count me out. that is prostitution as far as they are concerned. and most irreverent.

i could spend the next half hour his thoughts but a couple other topics and one is so incendiary. >> i know where this is going. with that constitution by the supreme court and to talk about that notion of original is him and to one supreme court justic justice. >> but most recently appointed the one that is deceased mister scalia?

i have two chapters on the law on the founder side when i follow his career with the mental process to create and then defend the constitution to draft the bill of rights by the way nobody called at the bill of rights it wasn't called the bill of rights until the 20th century. was called the first ten amendments. he tried to put them into the document to cram them in. he couldn't figure out where to put it he did not believe in it. of the democratic majorities want to do something they will override these paper principles. i am doing this to encourage people who are reluctant to join the new nation those

anti- federalist. they wanted the bill of rights. original is him. that is a judicial doctrine first created by robert bork in chicago in the seventies in chicago believes of the great books philosophy to the law and those eternal truths so this is a judicial doctrine as a brief measure of success so

with those liberal principles because as the originalist claim those original intentions of the framers now they change that to the original meaning but the difference between those things what is more verbal than real? but that mentality of the people at that moment. and this, to me is utterly preposterous. it isn't that i completely agre agree, are you kidding me?

you are on my turf. and you can play here. you don't know what they were saying. you have not read it. this is all a device and i do a close analysis of scalia's opinion which he regards as his masterpiece of original is and then i suggest it is a trip through "alice in wonderland". and there is a law school history that's interesting remember if you're a lawyer you give your client your job is to mount the evidence to suppress the evidence is bad. that is what scalia does. historians cannot do that.

they are not allowed to do that. historians on the one hand or on the other hand. it doesn't have to come out the verdict. it shouldn't. so this is perfectly okay - - perfectly okay who lands on the triple word score then you reach your own conclusion but in my judgment the judgment of original is him is what claims to be the only detached approach of the constitution. and in fact, the most ideological privileged of all. >> and irony that jefferson reputed back in his home one - - own lifetime.

>> yes where he says for you to try what we did from what he wore as a child. actually he said he believes that should re-read done every generation, every 21 years. >> so before we get to your questions, it is so elusive and purposefully so that is george washington one of my favorite things there are no - - the words written on yes there are no words written on the washington monument tellingly. [laughter] and with his papers he had very few close confidants.

>> just the letters. not the papers. >> host: but those who are interested know of washington's farewell address there is material in there if you know, about that context to take on the new layers in the first architect of american foreign policy was george washington. can you talk about how he is specifically addressing that in the farewell address the farewell address is a document to achieve a certain level of stature as the prescription for american isolation commercial relations with all the world the diplomatic relations. in the future for america is the west not across the atlantic but the opening up of this continent which happens

to be occupied by the native americans. in washington thinks about that by the way i will answer questions about that but that particular verdict was based on geographic and demographic considerations in the realist edition that washington is a realist. jefferson is the idealist. washington believes interest drives decisions that is the reason why he abandons the french. they saved our bacon in the american revolution but that was then and this is now. we sell them out in 1796 hour interest has shifted and for jefferson ideals are the reality and if you pursue that far enough you end up at the guillotine. robespierre et cetera.

but washington's prescription for isolation dies in the late h century and early 20th century to become the major economic power and that attempt to implement in the war years is a catastrophe as we walk away from status what happens with the rise of hitler and mussolini? so we know but if you attempt to apply jefferson's realism to our situation now, the verdict i offer is we are perfectly positioned as a superpower just between the atlantic and the pacific go both ways and in that interdisciplinary approach isolation is impossible. it doesn't exist anymore. the question is and if we are a superpower but what kind?

and on that score, a couple things that remember we began as a period of power. what would washington do about iraq? said first of all, he would not know where iraq was. second he would say how did they get to be the british? second, we are the first republic with a democratic foundation that believes the answer is consensus and empire believes the ultimate is coercion republic cannot be an empire what does that mean?

because we are a democracy for all american commitments and eventually they will lose favor. exceptionalism to washington means exactly the opposite what it means to most people now. now it means god takes care of men women children in the united states and we are the chosen people washington said no. press icily because we have a unique set of conditions when we started, the land the distance, our experience is not transportable to other countries. in his time he meant france. in our time he would mean the middle east. anybody that thinks they will put jeffersonian seeds of democracy in the sands of the middle east need to have his or her head examined. that will not work certain

places in the world that will not work and we should not try and we should know that. left for him, city on the hill is a good idea perfection of her own society as a model rather than the attempt to promote that by military power. >> have two more questions. it is a delightful anecdote today that leads to my second question how a lot of people since their destiny but it's important to note that george washington himself was a victim of fake news can you talk about that? it is so crazy and raunchy in the book. >> the second term he was criticized a major newspaper

of the republican opposition the jeffersonian party benjamin franklin franklin's grandson is the editor said we have uncovered secret papers which turned out to be forgeries that he was a british spy throughout the war. [laughter] and he was intending to turn on us but benedict arnold beat him to the punch. these are actually british documents they distributed to undermine washington. in his farewell address it is called the loadings of a sick mind. we devoutly pray for your imminent death. this is washington. so there are all kinds of crazy things going on then as

well as there is now. fake news bitter party warfare. and the internet has given greater range. but i don't think they would be that surprised at fake news. or what is called that. and in that sense what's helpful to us while they are really different they are not totally different there is enough there to see ourselves and to learn from. washington said we cannot stop being that power the current president will never have that the number one economic military power in the world.

geographic position but is what kind of power. >> philadelphians never take it easy on people like franklins grandfather. so one last question that comes up time and again in the book the mythologizing of these men in their lifetime afterwards turned into marble and those in particular and i think in this book you beautifully turn them back into people and don't struggle. >> to put adams on mount rushmore. [laughter] . >> i suppose and you can answer this question as a historian or personally but

why is it so important to turn these people back into flesh and blood? . >> because if they are really gods and what can we learn from them? i have not seen anybody here, i'm know that i'm not the fact that they are flawed is what makes an important and relevant those who struggles we can learn from. it is probably inevitable all nations create mythical heroes. rome has romulus england has king arthur. but all of those are fictional characters. these guys are real. and they cared so much about the fact we would be speaking about them they would imagine

2018 but have a couple hundred people talking about them. they were the audience you are the audience we are the audience they were performing for. they did not believe in life after death. many of them. washington didn't adams different, franklin didn't adams said if you could ever be shown complicit there is no way my advice to every man woman and child on the planet is to take opium. [laughter] . >> that is a wonderful time to take your questions. [applause] a great majority of you know, how this works. raise your hand please keep your questions brief to get to as many as possible. >> you indicated that jefferson did not really

believe in the vibrational society. . >> but he created just that society in monticello. >> look at every president between lincoln and eisenhower and do you think any of them actually believed in the biracial society but did they take steps to achieve that? . >> the only one is truman. the only one. >> do you think that citizens united distorts the political process? if you agree with that with the new makeup of the court what is the workaround to get us back on track? [laughter] . >> is simple we only need

100 million frontal lobotomies. [laughter] i think citizens united is probably the worst supreme court decision since dred scott. and it won't be overturned until we face a crisis that forces us to reconsider certain assumptions that are rooted in capitalism. which i believe in capitalism by the way. and by the way socialist and use of government power is often described as socialist by people on the right you can look it up it is government

ownership of the means of production it means the end of private property there are very few socialist other than bernie sanders in the united states talking about regulating capitalism i think leadership only emerges in crisis. it doesn't mean it will emerge if there is a crisis but it won't without one and the crisis that i see that is coming faster and force us to face things that will make citizens united that is the wrong direction. but if i was to predict i

think we will respond to climate change the same way we respond to slavery. it was the way to end it if we caught it early by the early 19h century but once i got past that the cotton kingdom was too valuable for the slaves than that meant a war and i think that's what's will happen on climate change. we will know too late and then it will be evacuate the coast and i don't know how that plays out. . >> you thought my questions were tough. [laughter] . >> i made that question up. >> i hope he doesn't mind

that. . >> i wish everybody to listen. you mentioned they were judging us as an audience i'm not sure that's accurate you can have adams without the other so without going all the way down to fake news? . >> yes he's talking about the people that wrote about them at the time that what i am saying is that they left us a legacy of writing because they knew we would be here they preserve their work and their writing and letters that no other political leader in recorded history have done you have more record than any other group and reported history the adams papers are in 87 volumes and now washington 70 some so we know much about them.

now they cannot come to us. they are busy being dead. [laughter] but we can go to them because they left it there. so i woman can go back to read abigail adams march 31st , 1776 letter and start to think about feminism as something that is serious. but in that sense they still speak to us with the documents that they left us and that's really important. >> with that perspective right there. . >> could you speak on how you wrote to this book? obviously you are a contemporary aspect is a little different than your historical one did you just

sit in a room and link about it or talk to people involved in the more pressing contemporary issues? . >> i don't write on the typewriter you are right the difference between the chapters with material that i have read all the founders papers that moving into now now you are in journalist territory. so what i try to do is write about them historically to see the patterns of race over time so if i am attempting to write about the present with a

historian assumption i talk to a lot of people who are journalist and friends of mine that work on "the new york times" but mostly i read stuff if you want to know what's going on that is beyond winding george baker? but another new yorker dark money, but then a lot of offense and bibliographies in the book on what i read. i struggle with it my process

of thinking is digestion to try to write and it's a struggle in the way my other books are not. even though the nose is up against the window and trumped land i want to step back because that is showing us who we really are so i started to work on this before he was on the name throughout the land. so that economic quality problems with the law i didn't go into stuff like let's get

rid of the electoral college they would be amazed we still have that. they thought it was a disaster the day after they did it and it was a compromise. let's figure out a way to equalize voting in the senate. north and south dakota have four senators. dakota population is less than los angeles. figure that out. we need a second constitutional convention. the founders would be amazed this has lasted as long as it has. madison said in 1829 the last another 100 years it will be a miracle. think if it ended in 1929 during the depression. it is impossible to imagine a constitutional convention almost anything i want to have happen is impossible to imagine.

i want mandatory national service between 18 and 25 for everybody if we could control the congress we could get that through. but we are in that kind of moment i expect to see leadership coming from outside mainstream politics martin luther king could never have been elected. anybody in mainstream politics now will eventually be swallowed up by the plutocracy. >>. >> i saw that you don't use research assistance so take that for you tenured academics he won - - that rely on for graduates. [laughter] . >> i don't know how to supervise them.

they say what should i look at? i don't know until i look at it myself. [laughter] one time i discovered washington sent general, his dog on the battlefield and sent it back i said if i had a research assistant they never would have noticed that so there are these little raisins in the dow that that is what you do research for split to be the one that i told you. [laughter] . >> so with washington's view of the rest of the continent. >> washington was born into the world native americans were powerful and he

understood better than any of the founders. and this is something a lot of people don't know. people don't even talk about it but washington made the native american question his major domestic policy issue in the first term of his presidency. he wanted to negotiate a treaty with the native americans with certain tribes to create a series of homelands east of the mississippi to avoid indian removal. he thought that was a violation of the values on which the revolution were based. his artillery commander was prompting him on this. if you don't do this right and

avoid indian removal it will be a stain on your legacy and people not come to hear a lecture one - - lectures but as those native american chiefs there is 27 of them living next to abigail and john to make current honorary indian and they sign this treaty the only moment of possibility of american indian relations because you cannot enforce that and simply will

not recognize the davidian rights and what washington foresaw is a series of homelands east of the mississippi bypassed by american settlers. and over time they grow smaller as they are not hunter and gatherers but farming societies and eventually over the century they would be assimilated. jefferson never thought the blacks could be assimilated he thought the indians could. he made a heroic effort and it failed the biggest failure of his presidency and regretted it to the end of his life the only way is to build the chinese wall before there was drums while there was washington's wall to protect the indians.

but it failed. . >> a last question from a female perspective since they were not listen to in that era. raise your hand. . >> we had a couple women's questions. >>. >> given your general pessimism what makes you feel the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice? . >> we needed that after tonight. [laughter] . >> given my pessimism on many issues articulated what makes me think it bends towards justice? [laughter] my book ends with a quote of

day tocqueville i am full of apprehension and hope because i have to, because i will die in 20 years i don't want to die unhappy. because i think you want to hear it. [laughter] because maybe it's true. what happened in europe so there is a lot of precedent going against us. so i don't have an answer. it's just hope.

i don't believe in god. but i do believe there is such a thing as morality and the pattern over time in american history is greater racial acceptance. that makes me feel better and anybody that doesn't recognize that is nuts. so for all these reasons. but there is a pattern that suggests that after we finish this downturn we are going up again. [laughter] [applause] . >> he may not have all the answers nobody does but opposes fascinating questions. what a wonderful dialogue with me i appreciate it ladies and gentlemen, one more round of applause. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]