something every day or read a least a little bit if i have a book i'm reading and knock off ten or 20 pages. i don't trouble over without a buck. >> to find out what other members of congress are reading by visiting booktv.org and searching what are you reading. >> good evening and think you will for coming out. welcome to the bookstore we are really pleased to have allison'n steger. she has a new book out called whistleblowers honesty and america from washington to trump which traces the support towards

whistleblowers. please welcome me allison steg r i want you to be aware there has been controversy about this event and how does our community feel very strongly that it should not go on, were an independent bookstore and we believe very strongly it's a responsibly to make sure both authors and books are represented regarding of the ideas are the values that they have in we hope if there is disagreement we can have those discussions in a respectful and civilized manner. >> what is argument against? >> we will get to that. [laughter] anyway you are no stranger to

protest, you got involved in one and middle barry sometime ago. >> that is correct. i am a fierce defender of freedom of expression, i really believe the progress the problem of the country were not having calm fact-based discussions about the important issues facing the country. so i actually was injured for green to engage with charles murray was an influential figure in republican circles and i thought it was important that my students hear alternative points of view and i wound up with whiplash and a concussion not because i want you to cry a river for me but i want you to understand i am a professor, that means my job is to speak the truth. my job is not to spin, is to

listen to perspectives and try to say what might best judgment the truth is. i hope you can listen to what i have to say about whistleblowers with that in mind and if there are people in the community who think what i'm saying is biased or unfair, let's have a discussion. >> you have been talking about whistleblowing for some time and writing about it. what is or what isn't a whistleblower, you have defined it fairly narrowly. >> there's a lot of confusion out in the public today and that's not surprising. given that we have a 24/7 cycle and there's all sorts of spin, really anxiety provoking to understand what is going on on the contemporary climate. but whistleblowers is not a person issue, is really an american issue.

america has the first whistleblower protection law in the world that passed in 1778, that is before the constitution of the united states was ratified. we can talk more about that later. but properly understood it is definitely not partisan but something that is an attempt to keep honest and reveal things that need to come to light. >> in the 1778 caught in a congress decision, they were very clear that this was not a right, it was a duty. >> that's right, the first law says it's your duty as a citizen and a public servant to report misconduct when you see it, no matter who is doing it. and that is because the founders felt really strongly that britain was a corrupt democracy. that they believed in things

associated to the rule of law and they were not applying them to the colonies. in the colonies were unequal and there is a very strong sense and the founders that they wanted a clean break with corrupt written in the republican would be found in way that would not let that corruption flourish the way it had there. and that's why they had this law which basically stands firmly against using your public office for private gain in the story which i tell you if you're interested. would you like a story? it happens because the first commodore of the u.s. navy a man basically was kind of an unsavory character all around,

he was from rhode island, he was involved in the slave trade and most of rhode island's economy at the time was very much want up in the commercial enterprise and he tortured british prisoners of war in ten sailors blew the whistle on him for that. it's really extraordinary when you thing about it, it was unacceptable to the sailors that even wartime you would torture the enemy. but that was really just the tip of the iceberg and i did additional research of my book to dig around in digital archive searching on keywords and i found that the real thing going on was that hopkins was abusing his public office for private gain. . . .

>> and if you get confused about that you are not going anyplace so congress wound up passing the law. and got the founders through another jail they paid their legal fees and also said all the records had been made available to the public which is why we tell that story today it is an illuminating case. >> it come so early in our history despite this long history and leading into our own fabric of what is right and just whistleblowers today

are consider tattle tales. why are we so conflicted clicks there are a number of layers to that question. it is only a concept of democracy so to see that upheld. to say wait there is this rule it is not acceptable. in that they don't agree with them. and that challenging thing even in the united states and in other countries that are not democracies you find that

it has totally negative connotations. and then to invent new words because if the regime is oppressive there are no ideals to be upheld by whistleblowing. and that's why instinctively american. >> despite the lots of the attention it is terribly high. that there is some naïveté. >> you are absolutely right to encourage again and again that

whistleblowers start out that they report this wrongdoing to the superior and to say cannot believe that's going on. but then the rules for principal they don't agree with that in internally. but what they often find that they don't want to hear this for a variety of reasons. and then they end up quite jaded because then they lose everything, time and time again. we really do celebrate whistleblowers in theory but that is why both democrats and republicans unanimously agreed to turn whistleblower complaints over to congress but now the practice is when that goes elsewhere that's

when they lose everything their careers and jobs and families all retaliated against that we can do better by whistleblowers in my view. >> but then get into post- 9/11 and back to the drawing board it's almost as if there was an earlier and simple her world of whistleblowing that's more complicated so what has changed quick. >> a couple things that john points out in this note in case happened half of this book was completed and then i thought i have to start over. [laughter] what is this guy cracks i have to figure it out so hundreds

of pages of carefully polished on the cutting room floor of the terrible example how to write a book but i do like the finished project for the finished product but the two things that have changed and the reason why i divided into the two parts before the internet and after the internet but the other thing is that national security state develop after world war ii which makes us different from many other countries with an remiss national security almost like any other free nation so that's where we have

the whole idea of a national security whistleblower which is problematic for all sorts of reasons so to be one you have to break the rules or the rule of law and that is very complicate complicated. >> so that old wine out of vietnam war you have to destroy it to to save it so whistleblowers have to criminalize themselves to protect our rights to privacy in the constitution. the other thing the other changes is issue of the national security system support that further cloud the issue. >> that is right because out of my previous book was called one nation under contract it was the privatization of american national security. contractors are being increasingly used instead of government employees in realms

of national security. not a partisan issue both democrats and republicans did this. there was a real believe if you can outsource to the private sector, it's better on every front. more efficient, get the job done, lower cost which in the book i scrutinize which turns out not necessarily to be true but we have really blurred the line between business and government in an unusual way that led to the influence economy with this revolving door between the government and the private sector if you left that 30 years ago that used to be called selling out. now it's called cashing in.

[laughter] and it is completely acceptable this is problematic because if you blur that line too much that government doesn't have a purpose because milton friedman was a very important economist with a free market economy need the government to provide. schools and all these things. but we really lost that sense and for me you cannot turn the clock back you cannot nationalize industry in the united states so what do you do cracks so behind closed doors to do the right thing for the american people the

founders wouldn't have done that. that separation of power. so how do we keep it honest and that privatized world that i came up with a topic of whistleblowers. that's when the system is functioning. >> but then the whistleblowers from these private sectors are not protected because of further whistleblowing. >> yes that creates additional problems because i don't want to bore you with a survey of all the law surrounded whistleblowing but i will tell you we have a patchwork

because it's such an old concept and you need a lawyer if you are a whistleblower to navigate that labyrinth. it is a real problem but then the contractors. remember edward snowden as a contractor at the time. they don't have protection. it is a weird situation they do the work of government but they are not government so trade secrets but then also national security creates a potential problematic mix. i trust i want to believe that it is serving us to keep us safe at the same time we need oversight to ensure that that happens. >> people were startled at the pervasiveness of the scrutiny.

that is irrespective if it is untoward or not. >> that is what edward snowden. all the nsa whistleblowers including edward snowden. also leadership of the nsa. there's two sides to every story. so i want to examine both and then say try to let the nsa officials speak for themselves. general alexander is a character and let the whistleblower speak for themselves and then i try to keep out of those narratives for the truth. but also to have for yourself but snowden is an interesting case because if you look at what he reveals those links and violated the law to reveal that information, he showed

that the nsa after 9/11 had adopted emergency procedures because we had been attacked on american soil. the world trade center, pentagon. the plate in pennsylvania. those are justified in my view. we want to prevent another attack. but what happened those emergency procedures became business as usual without any discussion or if that's at the american people wanted. and snowden forced that discussion and as a result we got change. the patriot act was changed. so i wrote one day he could be considered first trader patriot. [laughter] because he provided a public service but he also broke the law to do it. >> you mentioned the internet

earlier but the issue seems specifically to be moving so quickly that the process they don't have the ability to keep up with reasonable sound legislation. >> yes. that's a good observation because what you see from technology today is there is a lag. because it's not illegal in this gray area but that is what the nsa was doing. they were not necessarily breaking the law but exploiting the loopholes in the law that have since been addressed. >> almost what you write about is predictive in terms of the

way you jettison traditional ways and this sounds partisan but this was almost predetermined the way things were flowing. >> this book went into production one year ago. and i wrote it as an exercise to understand what's going on in the trump years of some kind of time - - context and it's very clear to me from the trump election with the intelligence with the nsa whistleblowers that they are behaving in the unusual way with this. and they were doing it, i

could see because they saw him as a national security threat. they don't normally behave this way. anybody in the intelligence community i don't know if you have friends or family with national security jobs, they really believe that even the most innocuous piece of information could be the missing jigsaw puzzle - - puzzle piece to allow them to put something together. it is totally unlike them to be leaking as they are doing but they do because they swear an oath like the president to preserve and defend the constitution of the united states. and i think they see his behavior as somehow violating

everything they do. because if you are a government you're not doing it for the money. you can make a lot more money somewhere else. they believe they are serving their country and their job is to provide the unvarnished truth and then the politicians decide what to do with that and that is what they see being turned on its head. red flag alert when campaign officials are having repeated interactions with russian operatives. that never happened before in the united states and we have a law just to understand it bette better. it's the two hop rule. that basically means if you are interacting with an enemy of the united states two steps removed. if you are a legitimate candidate for surveillance. for example i pass the one hop

rule. i'm a candidate for surveillance because i am interacting with james snowden who was charged under the espionage act. they had legitimate right to spy on me. go ahead for ago i'm not that interesting. [laughter] but for that reason when they see campaign officials meet with operatives the alert goes off and he went to investigate. it sounds partisan but it isn't. the system itself serves both republicans and democrats. then i'm happy to elaborate further. but that's the way i see it.

>> to see those secrets as anti- pedicle how do you balance the need whistleblowers against the need for secrecy crack. >> it's important also wet whistleblowers have been seeing is not a team player. it's not their motive not their personality. they can be quirky people i think some of the most interesting people are not ordinary people. and look at the content of their complaint. what is it they are revealing? is just the beginning and then you have to investigate. in the book you will see the vast overwhelming majority don't see the light of day and

is not settled in the whistleblowers favor and most are thrown out. it's not something that is easy to do and what arises to that level somebody says this is urgent and credible then be obligated to investigate. >> are you off the domestic or pessimistic people will continue to come forward as whistleblowers crack. >> im optimistic because as you can see in my book to understand our history that we place things into historical context comparatively to other countries you feel very hopeful of where we are and where we can go because you see time and time again that people are interested they have been in confused circumstances before if you

look at the first gilded age that is fascinating. with a totally corrupt democrat. that is handing it out to his cronies then the whistle is blown on him for that. so things were getting done and when corruption was exposed it was an outcry. he was thrown in jail and he died in jail. he did not try to defend what he did. so to be confused what is shameful or not what is corrupt or not it is because of the privatization of how

you serve your country. you can serve your country by making a lot of money to create jobs. don't get me wrong. bet not to the public servant and serving yourself. and thinking about the country and the american people and the common good at large. it is something we can get back. but that inspector general system where this rose to congress because believe me it is a miracle. that was built in response to richard nixon's abuse of power. said people look around and say how do we prevent that from happening again? what laws can we be sure that doesn't quick that's why they passed a series of reforms after watergate. and we can do the same thing

now there so many things we can learn from this. i am optimistic. >>. >> there is a phrase called enemy of the people and it tells the story of a whistleblower who in the end basically loses everything but the final line that resonates with a lot of whistleblowers is a confused statement of that i was right. that wright doesn't seem to make a difference. >> right. this is what is so tragic in some ways and beautiful because if you ask why they do it it is interesting with extraordinary people. it was wrong. what they were doing was wrong. there is a sense of right and wrong but i didn't have a

choice. >> i will send you to the audience. >> you can ask me anything. >> have you come across whistleblowers who were not right? maybe have their own sense of right and wrong and maybe doesn't agree with what the law is. because often people think there is something of untoward's behavior that it must be unlawful but maybe it may not be. >> that's a really good question.

the way america law defines whistleblowers is revealing improper conduct with a reasonable belief that what you have seen is wrong. people can't be wrong about that. you don't hear about those because the cases are investigated and you never hear anything more about it. you only hear about whistleblowers if they turn out to be right. so in a sense people may think something is wrong but it actually isn't and you don't hear about it. because we are human. we all have our biases and misconception and some people are playing difficult. >> to find out what a whistleblower is and isn't. >> i wanted to be connected to the american tradition which is more than rule of law that there is a distinction between fact and fiction.

>> so when you write the book any differently today. it is a very painful thing a call on my exercise in redemption for painful suffering. [laughter] but i'm very happy with how it turned out. you have to read it and tell me what you think. because i actually wrote the last chapter of the trump era in the past tense. like what we will do after trump had been dishonored for quite make some judgments about the things we can do.

that's funny i could see something like this coming because i know a lot of people think the deep state is partisan and nefariously plotting to overthrow american leaders. but that's not the intelligence community i encountered in my research. that was a flag the minute that started happening i thought what is james comey doing? i started to pay closer attention and then it was like going crazy. [laughter] but actually what was the difference is that i was talking with the screenwriter who made zero dark 30, the

screenplay. because he was working on a television series program not revealing anything secret. but it's on russian intervention in our elections. and i got asked, this is fun for me to think about as a tv show. because sometimes it feels like we are in a tv show. [laughter] they said put into two pages. who are the main characters? what are their characteristics? what is the overarching narrative? two pages prick i did that for them and that minute and through that it crystallized what this book was about and what i was trying to explain which was how we arrived at this moment and how we should interpret what we should do about it.

i'm happy with it and how it came out. not a good model for my book. don't polish the pros before you are sure the structure is right. [laughter] >> how do we keep west one - - whistleblowers safe quick. >> a very important question now. it is frightening because the president has basically incited his supporters. now we are not worried about his advisors doing something now it is the supporters. in the internet age which changes everything is now people that are unconnected can take justice into their own hands and harm the whistleblowers, terrorize their family, all of this is not good. what we need to do is realize

this is an important part of the american experience to keep democracy alive and insist they are protected. congress will respond they will be protected. so what you see is that the former officials are coming forward. nobody in the united states will let you go on the record with their name. their name. . . . .

>> gary. yes. >> my question professor, i heard you describe some of the federal agency employees, let me see that i'm a a cousin who was in the cia prayers but i know you have a lot more affinity for that. but i culture that idea. i appreciate your thoughts and some of the anemone for them. i thought you describe people that we're making conscious

based leaks. not separate from pursuing legal channels such is whistleblowing. i don't accept the fact that i think you should be conferring sympathy and on the notion that taking all the boston office conference license to break federal law. which i think that's what i heard you see. that is a great question. you are getting really to the heart of what is difficult about whose question. because are right, we don't want an intelligence community behaving whose way. my argument in the book is they are behaving whose way because there in an emergency situation. when the system is at stake. what i see at the end is though, we need to do after whose emergency situation is passed, is we need to not celebrate the leakers, but instead realize

that was a necessary evil if you will. that was to deal with an emergency and we've all got to go back to normal. the intelligence community, we don't want them behaving in whose way. we want to suggest that it is acceptable an emergency situation but definitely not desirable. is an example and you should read my book and tell me what you think. [laughter] winston churchill, after world war ii, dishonored arthur harris. does anybody know who arthur harris is. good. you guys with it. bummer harris. he did the terra bombing. but if you go to the center you will not find his name or the names of his bomber pilots inscribed on the walls of west minister abbey among the "alloween.". you will find the answered, you will not find the bomber pilot and the reason is churchill,

would he need it them to do, these nasty things, because the system itself was a stake. democracy in britain was at stake. but after the war, he need it to dishonor arthur harris to restore and it ended by the war. some are going to do something similar. to move forward. that's going to require both parties to see there been excessive his on both sides and shake hands and see, whose is for the american people whose is for the rock, whose is for free-market and emergency and we are going to make a break with these past behaviors and do better at the future. human beings, are human beings. democracy was restored restored in britain. we can do something similar. make a symbolic break. by dishonoring the behavior that was necessary but should not be

acceptable in ordinary times. some excess. >> hi allison. i do question. are you comfortable with the term whistleblower is it applies to the person who discussed the conversation between the president of ukraine and president trump in regards to from what i've heard, it's mostly secondhand information not first. the person is also anonymous. and regardless of what the future people are discussing, you may bring down the president. does the term whistleblower, do you think that applies in whose case or do you think it is something else. >> is the really great question. i am so glad u.s. that. there's been a lot of that whose

it's not really a whistleblowers parson and i think it is really important to focus on what the law says. and what president trump his own intelligence community inspector general has said. so if you go to the intelligence community and inspector general website, you'll find a letter from michael atkinson who is the trump appointed person. he is the one who says, on the website that whose person is the whistleblower and that the complaint went through all of the proper channels and has got to be investigated. i wasn't really important to realize, for whose first and second hand thing. it doesn't matter, what matters is the content of the plate complaint. whistleblower isn't going to prove, you got to investigate to see if the complaint has any water. that's just people doing, the

whistleblower may not even need it testify because you have a forum officials coming forward and staying that they were onto something important. it is a very good question. it's legitimate that people are confused about whose. is you've heard about whistleblowers before. a couple of weeks ago. all of it. but it's not in the national intelligence community. so it is legitimately confusing but i think my book provides a great context for understanding it. and i wrote it to be readable. it's got a hundred pages of bibliography and footnotes. but it's only 200 pages because i wanted to go from the founding to the present and 200 pages. you be the judge on if i just succeeded in delivering something a youth for

entertaining value. [laughter] question. >> so president trump has claimed that his sixth amendment right should allow him to confront his whistleblower. if whose goes through impeachment proceedings, how would that apply. >> i don't even know what that means. [laughter] i've never heard of a sixth amendment right. it's not, or not in the court of law. if you talk to and a lawyer, we're not in the court of law, where is gathering information to see if there should be a trial. that's what impeachment would be. so it doesn't really apply, regarding whistleblower. >> the point of the question is though once he gets to the proceedings, does that change anything. is it really a trial.

>> no. that's not court trial either. >> the sixth amendment issue, which is to confront your accuser, weather it's at the point that it moves to the senate into actual trial, does it kick in then. but that is not a legal proceeding either. >> area help whose also interesting thing going on to, our legal proceedings with the arrest of julianna his associates, so that is the end or other interesting thing in the stacked returns have been subpoenaed. we are injuring a really interesting moment where a lot could be revealed. i am writing a piece it's going to come out in the atlantic in the next couple of days or so, on whistleblowing you wrote.

you might see why is that relevant to the united states. it is relevant to the united states because their international corruption networks. they have rocked and let them to pass the most comprehensive whistleblower protection laws. anywhere, exceeds the united states and all sorts of ways. that is because there are a number of corruption cases you wrote anima leaks and lock leaks, that led to the death of two investigative journalist investigating corruption. there is a journalist the got killed in malta, by a car bomb. the real centerpiece of all sorts of corrections. they sell passports. guess who buys them. the russians. in the use them to travel freely through europe. nothing was done to prosecute his murder in malta. but in slovakia, a man named john who whose was his fiancée

in there was a huge public outcry that some of you may remember. enormous demonstrations that led to a brawl of the government. in the election of slovakia his first female prime minister. so europe is sort of interesting because these are international corruption networks, additional his, there might be a european whistleblower that reveals information that is relevant to the situation relevant to here in united states. think about it, the rule of law and anticorruption, they are two sides of the same same coin. it's not the sort of capitalism that free-market america celebrates. we pride ourselves on our small business and entrepreneurship. you don't have that with carmine

capitalism. that is why if you support small business, you should really be in favor of anticorruption and also the rule of law. that makes it possible. >> have a pretty loud voice. i've looked into her have you looked into great britain and whistleblowing at all. >> wow, it's a great questioni questioning. cultural differences come out in whose research that are really fascinating. in 2013, transparency and initials came out with a report on was annoying you wrote. they went through all of the words we're whistleblower. the european countries and all of them, we're negative. so the weight that the europeans came about it, whose is an american thing. americans we're very involved in advising the europeans on edit draft whose law. because they have a wealth of expertise, having 200 plus years

of protections. but it really is seasons american concept. then they british adopt laws in 1998 in the common says that is an anglo-american concept. and now is the democratic concept applied across europe. and that's important because if we are going to keep democracy alive, we really dealing need a coalition of civil site correlation. i think to make it so. that's precisely what brought about whistleblower protection directive you wrote. and it is precisely we can keep democracy vibrant in the united states today. the situation where a leaks are being criticized by both the left and the right. for failing to surf ordinary people. that is a serious issue.

whistleblowers help us, get the information we need to confront that. there's a question right here. go ahead and ask it. ask me anything. >> whose has to do with corporations. you teach your higher-ups, if you see nothing is resolved, but you do then and what kind of protection would you have. another was a big monday years ago the case. >> i was in my book two. >> i don't know what happens but what kind of protections to have. >> whose is what's really interesting, the real connection between the first amendment and the whistleblowing. can you see how the might be a connection between the two. so what happens in corporations is the higher-ups don't pay attention to whistleblower tips. it typically goes to the press. that is something is a company

you should not want you should want to resolve it internally because enron, anybody remember enron. [laughter] enron and worldcom how about worldcom if those companies have listened to whistleblowers inside of their organizations, they could have righted the ship before these companies went belly up. if you know a smart ceo, you are going to want to create a climate in which people feel comfortable telling you and something needs to be fixed. and that is hard to do. you gotta be a pretty self-confident human to be able to take that kind of criticism. but there are leaders like that. and they are extraordinary. >> i love hearing questions from chicago. i am from chicago.

>> me to moment. [inaudible conversation] >> i think that's really true. i open the book by talking about that. whistleblowers and has take me to move it because what is happening there, everybody knows that's wrong. there's all these laws of the book. but sometimes the powerful don't want to influence the rules and is in their interests. do not enforce them so whistleblowers really exposes blind spots and for society to confront their hypocrisy. that is the gap between their ideals and their stated ideals and their actual behavior. whose is the very human thing. we all have blind spots are not suggesting that mentor to blame or anyone is to blame but it's useful to really think about what your blind spots are trying to understand alternative points of view.

is with the hashtag me to movement dead. we have debates about various other political instances. the ridges see there that the ideological folks on the left and on the right and the american constitutional democracy it's not an ideal obstacle concept in my view. it is committed to the free and open discussion of ideas and to a citizens all sorts of in all walks of live different political orientations to try to put together a deliberate figure out of the country should go. whistleblowers sort of have a purpose and that initial movement regardless of our think it went where it went there particular cases. i don't think it's important principle. the principle is an important bridge we can have a difference of opinion in the political

application. >> very expensive poison that involves whistleblower in russia who went to indio, can't pronounce his name. it was poisoned i wonder how or is that your book or have you given any thought to the situation. >> i speak russian and i studied russian. my dissertation was actually an sober soviet foreign policy. which is the real funny thing to get through because i defended it and then three mins later there was no soviet foreign policy. [laughter] so i invited a new way of expertise. i'm not going to repeat what you know i kept staying to me, i will see that it is really true. the russians are the best in the business. they have had a police state for a long time. and that is why immediately when

i see from campaign meeting with russians, happy gammagard coming you are in trouble now. they will play you. and i think the intelligence committee, was alarmed by it to but now, it is a dangerous, these networks are dangerous. that's when one of the rule of law because the alternative is kind of mafia contract enforcement. urology the mafia to enforce contracts when nobody trusts institutions. i don't think we're at that.in the united states we need mobs rule. we can resuscitate the rule of law. >> liquor show geese situation. whistleblowers, do we have enough information to consider

him. >> according to the connection between the first amendment and journalists, and whistleblowers. so is the journalist who wrote things that maybe people didn't want written. and he was killed. obviously, i don't support the killing of journalists who are trying to just bring the truth to live. so that is why the complaint to me is so unsettling. i teach american foreign policy. the one thing i know, is that we need a team foreign policy. sam former student from my from my class. you know whose jack right. we need to work together and is very, you have a shadow foreign

policy. whose was happening with ukraine, whose kind of complaint, part of it is that united states official anticorruption foreign policy which was being applied to ukraine and rudy giuliani and attorney general bar and the presidents we're running it shadow foreign policy that was in direct policy, in direct competition. is very edition is very dangerous to stay with the side policy and the actual policy it is very damaging to our anticorruption effort around the world because corruption is run the world if the united states if it isn't the ideal is on the inside corruption side. for example, some of whose terrible corruption and swapped it was revealed through anna.

the bank was wondering a lot of her name. they're going to keep on blundering into the united states senate was a no, that is correct. the bank has to be closed. the bank that closed. was really important for the entire world regarding corruption, the united states doesn't stand against corruption for the rule of law, the cause globally is damaged. so that is what whose tank is in the ukraine issue that's why so monday public severance are wheeling to come forward and see i'm never seen anything like whose. whose is something that i feel compelled to speak out about. >> you commented that you know helpful. would you elaborate on that a

little bit more. >> [laughter] move, i'm looking at you and i'm feeling hopeful. let's face it, we are all in some sense potential. become from particular communities and we think, like what is displayed, these codes might think that the middle of the country is provincial, but they don't realize that they is it too, are prudential, the difference between the middle of the country and the coast is that you really have something distinctive here. the east coast said that they believe that they are not prudential that whose is universal. so why am i hopeful. that might seem kind of an

abstract same thing strange thing to see. i am a big fan of chicago and the midwest. i really think and at new america, which is that think tank i'm involved with in washington, we believe that if you going to renew america, not going to be from the coast. it's going to be from the bottom up in the heartland out. and i really believe that americans know what is right and wrong. they know what corruption is. they know when somebody is surfing themselves rather than their country. and that pressure can make a big difference. i also think is a parent, that it is pretty obvious, any parent nor them can see, are you a trump supporter. do you want your children to have whose president is a role model. do you want them to be solely after themselves over everything else.

i realize that whose is the way capitalism works, perverted understanding that oh my good news, he's just doing something that everybody else does. and he's doing it in a very assertive way. in his speaking the truth and these are good things but it is also pretty clear that he is really selfish. i don't think americans are selfish. i think they want to revive their communities and contribute to them. and don't enjoy whose polarized climate that we are in. we're hurling insults back and forth at each other and we're all americans. so i guess what makes me hopeful and maybe you could do whose for me, i don't know what your political persuasion arbiter monday out here, take someone's discussed the future of whose country. small things like that. can make a difference. and also understand history that

we've been in tough times before and have gotten out of them. i makes me optimistic. so don't give up. >> anybody want to ask the house and ask. >> is make sure i get everyone. >> you also seem pretty optimistic about the free marketplace of ideas within the institutions that we have. can you square that with the recent stuff with facebook. in their positions and trumps new advertisement, which i haven't, whose battling on the subject. do those concrete sort of facts go out and seems like we are in a more subjective era. i am challenging your optimism a little on that.

they would love for you to speak to any of that. jack is my former student and he is really smart. [laughter] so whose is the great question and reason is because and that's in my next book. that's actually what i'm working on whose project back with me in a year. i'm going to do whose real quick. if the structure right before i start polishing things. i'm going to do it right but look, i am an optimistic person by nature. until the very last minute with the charles murray fiasco, i was convinced that if i just stood up there and explain to people why it was important that they engage with people with whom they profoundly discrete, i until the very last minute i would persuade people that was the case. i was unsuccessful. [laughter] so we have some real

challenges in our country but that is something we is individuals can attend to in my view. i am really, i don't know how monday of you go to church. those are pretty inspiring cases. a lot of them because you see people from all walks of live. they all have in different income levels and political solutions, coming together and realizing what they have in common. in my church in vermont, the congregational church, we have the governor of vermont and the republican government in her who vetoed gay marriage. and, we have two lesbians both filed suit resulted in the overturning of the defense of marriage act. place in the same church and talk at the coffee hour and they could be deeply antagonistic but they're not.

so we have it in us to reach out to people who are different who are politically disagreement. whose is the great country. it is unexceptional. it is worth preserving. and it's in our hands to do so. so that's why i'm optimistic. >> allison thank you so much for coming [applause] >> absolutely is been a real pleasure. [applause] >> we don't pay our authors to come. but we don't want them to go home empty-handed. so we do,. [inaudible conversation] >> thank you so much, i love it. we will have you signing books over the table if you want to get a couple of the above, there are up in the front. go ahead and purchase one and you will sign it. tonight i will sign books.

i would also like to hear we think of it. read it and let me know what you think. thank you so much for coming. [applause] >> your watching book tv on c-span. next on both tvs afterwards, republican senator rand paul of kentucky, rising history of socialism. and argues there is a new thread of socialist thinking on the rise in america. he's interviewed by republican congressman matt gates of florida. afterwards, he is the weekly interview program with relevant guesthouse interviewing top nonfiction offered authors about their latest work. senator rand paul, you know one of the most interesting people in american politics and specially the republican p