somebody for your service you will know what you will thank them for. 's this is the most important book by far. you want to learn something new. you want to learn what the military is all about. 's. >> good evening everyone. william thrilled to welcome you to tonight's virtual program. to the distinguished speakers series which is part of our

program. with those trustees for joining us this evening. and the visionary chairman emeritus. and richard reese and trustees brian kane, but i would also like to thank members of the chairman's counsel for joining us this evening we are grateful to each and every one of you for your encouragement and support during this challenging time. we are pleased to welcome margaret mcmillan professor of history at the university of toronto and emeritus professor of international history at the university of oxford doctor mcmillan previously

before going on at provost at university college and saint anthony college at the university of oxford and the author that was published this past fall in including paris 1919 nixon and now. joining us as moderator this evening professor of jurisprudence at columbia law school. a leading constitutional theorist who has an extensive history of government service serving in all three branches of government joining six administrations republican and democratic including most recently the intelligence program for critical infrastructure for strategic

planning at the national security council. the presentation will last for an hour and your questions could be submitted on your zoom screen. will ask as many questions as time allows. >> you say war is the most organized of human activities. as a constitutional lawyer like me it is said that governments are the most organized that relationship

between more and the emergence of state one of the great strengths of this wonderful and gripping book the need to make war is the driver for organization and we should expand on that. >> a pleasure to be here have very happy memories of the historical society i think we may argue because war and government are so closely intertwined but what i mean is that when you think of what is needed to make war the mobilization but the resources the control of those people and the discipline of those people. to take tremendous organization and as you pointed out this has drove ahead the organization of

state that it became necessary for state to acquire greater power than the more powerful they became. it's difficult to say which came first the level of the high organization of states because they are intertwined. >> you also say government organization persisted in peacetime then need to monetize sources create those structures that these do not disappear with the end of war has there been a mission creep for the state and we shared rollback those powers that are gained in wartime quick. >> in society without considerable authority to the government to give up freedoms

during war but the covid pandemic that people use the language of orbit there is something similar. with the freedom to come and go as we wish we understand there is a greater good at state. and it's the same with large-scale wars for the government to do things they would not approve of in peacetime to make people not to move freely around to use censorship. often some of these are rollback but i'm not saying there is anything malignant but once government has achieved a level of control it's for peaceful purposes the amount of money they take in society that was inconceivable it became something they could do and then of course mission

creep isn't bad word with those resources getting out of society in peacetime so often governments go back so with that authority and the powers to persist after the war is over. >> you say war is one organized group fighting another using violence over the other organize group. this includes gaining warfare or perhaps crime syndicates. this suggests that there has to be a state to have war but with that legal relationship between two or more states to

be intolerable of the idea to have a war and not have the state. in like michael howard maintained at one point. >> i am very sympathetic with that point of view but if you try to get the essence we all have different definitions but i'm trying to distinguish between random violence or a canadian hockey game. this is an organized violence. what i'm trying to get at that organize groups who make war have some sort of thing that keeps them together or a goal and there is a blurred line between large-scale gains to make money as a crime that may have more political preferences. we saw the same in northern ireland with a hard man on

both sides slipped over into criminal activities that had a larger goal in mind. so the notion that you try to do something with whatever force you have not just to have more illicit goods. >> did you acknowledge there is some historical factors demography or geography or technology in those epidemics that are not altered or transformed in decision-making? but you write so powerfully about the historic and cultural consequences of war if they defeated the greeks supposed charles had been defeated if the ottomans had

successfully said the spanish conquest had failed. and these pivot that have change. with those deep moving currents on the surface but there are times you can see the outcome of four does make a difference. we do have to be careful that you just raise them. america would have been different if there were different outcomes to the war. north america could have been different if the british on the independence rather than losing it.

including canada or mexico. so we have to recognize the outcome can determine for generations religion, political organization so to say it's on the surface and doesn't change things very much i more in the side you can see with certain wars if they ended differently the war would be different. >> it is incredible intensity. what is more bring out the best is it simply a matter of risk? >> there is a debate if we are

prone to violence. we could equally argue we are prone to altruism and we see both. you see this in the memoir of which i have not done but they have not felt saying i never felt such comradeship is a felt in the war. i knew they would die for me and usually don't get that feeling. may be firefighters have that sense. it's one of the things we puzzle about. also those signs of human nature. but because it is a complicated but we are attracted to war. and down to the century asian men or women have said could i do it? they want to measure themselves up against it and

in certain cultures that produce to the iliad or test men and why do people do it? we keep thinking about it but that intensity of experience. and they get at that but suddenly to stand out in the sun is very bright you feel life as you are about to lose it. >> robert e. lee said war is terrible but then we fall in love with it. this is a rare book that addresses gender in the history of warfare. are they in the warriors of

cultures? bigger or stronger or more endurance is this evolution? but then i have other questions who do you think is the source? >> the debate over evolution is a long one. it's not mere physical strength. there is a spectrum those i can be as strong as men. and women who are weaker than most men. a lot of it has to do with culture. if you grew up in a world you are brought up to thank you must not show pain or fear and be prepared to follow orders and i have necessary. it's always been men pretty much at the receiving end of

the admonition and the expectations where women expect to be the nurturers to stay home. but we knew - - we do know women fight they behave differently and react differently but they do fight with as much courage as men. so that wonderful book about soviet women in the second world war but they didn't just stay behind the lines they were grillers and slippers and fighter pilots with manned artillery brigade so it is possible to argue women haven't fathers much because of the culture of society of which they have come. i suspect that is changing. and they are in combat roles not just doing things like

logistics are necessary things behind the scenes. >> technology will facilitate this transition. it hasn't been recorded as motivators of war. or objects of tactics serbian rape of bosnian women. i certainly had not realized there is more evidence can you say more about that quick. >> one of the fascinating things is that archaeologist in evolutionary biologist cannot tell much more about ancient skeletons and actually get at ancient dna which was impossible 20 years ago. tools have been found around

one - - tombs were found around the black see that looks like they were killed in a violent struggle. with their armor with the leather or other natural substances and they are women. and identified as women and have been given their burials. and in the water grieves is not of possible to identify the skeletons so it does look as if women had had a role in combat. and an expectation isn't to fight. >> keeping this away from my six-year-old daughter. she already has amazonian tendencies. [laughter] as we got better at killing we got less tolerant. there is little question that nuclear posture of the cold

war but i would like you to discuss this is more a thing of the past for those northern tier countries quick. >> you don't think it is. i don't want to predict because historians are hopeless at predicting the future but it seems to me most of us didn't experience it and i grabbed one of the last days of the second world war in peaceful country canada and i never saw a war in few canadians did unless they went overseas to fight working from countries. 's we got used to the idea were happens elsewhere but not to us. before the first world war europeans thought we would never do that again. that something that others do. 's you never know until you

feel threatened or something happens. at a know how many people were isolationist in the united states before 1940 but a majority. but americans who said they would never fight were also lighting up to volunteer after pearl harbor. >> if it's true and less tolerance but in those extortion by violence quick. >> yes that is a very good question that is a possibility. the enemies of countries like the united states and isis make statements that americans cannot take the pain of losing soldiers so they will give it up. 's have to make it painful for

them and that is a lesson guerrilla groups can fight there much weaker than the united states. and we are very reluctant now and doing a comparison the other day how many british show soldiers died in afghanistan it's around 1400. 20000 people died on the first day of the battle. i don't think we accept that anymore and it's a very good thing. >> on average world war ii 16000 people die every day. >> it would be unacceptable today for us. >> unimaginable. >> but those generations have grown up now those of my students and yours.

the draft ended in the seventies. as a giant step toward the different sorts of order if this is inevitable with the experience of services in a democracy. >> what we don't want to see is a military curse so certainly in canada there has not been a public outcry but not doing enough from those veterans coming back from afghanistan because so few of us knew any. those that have military experience most have not had

direct military experience and if you haven't for the firsthand you cream or casual about going to war. those political leaders were very cautious about going to war you may think oh great. it may be bad for society. >> the annual dinner in washington to give a talk and at the beginning of the dinner the band plays the various anthem of the service and they stand up and it's very rare to see someone stand up. those are composed the very badly treated common soldiers

and also for those that elevated of the ottoman empire. why should be wary of that class? >> it's a good question like to say i don't know that the danger of having a military curse they can see themselves at odds with the rest of society that the rest of society is soft that's the case in germany where the military had the elevated status but felt they were above politics and deserving of the germination it didn't feel any need with political leadership wanted and often from what it was they are

planning and this can be dangerous democratic societies locale control of the military is and it is part of society not to be seen as separate. >> i used to give the opening lecture to colonels and brigadier is and ask them is war the defeat of the enemy? and that is victory in and football that is the achievement of the war aim. do you agree with this? and if you do is the reason we fail to achieve victory in vietnam or afghanistan because our aims were unrealistic or the tactics and methods?

>> it could be both you try to win the war with methods that don't suit a particular type of terrain or struggle. the nations go to war thinking once a defeat the enemy forces, that's it they don't really think about what happens next are how to achieve a lasting peace. saint augustine said it should be peace i think he's right but the danger isn't focusing on military victory there is a book called the allure of battle winning the decisive battle that it doesn't actually settle things and having a plan for what you do when the enemy is ready to talk and too often groups go into wars without thinking what it is they hope to achieve and what they want also the more costly it becomes the more it expands.

and to make up for those. >> it is to say in warfare it is silent. do you agree with this size sense a certain skepticism about the laws of war. >> we keep trying and i think we ought to keep trying but it seems to me an extra everything we control something to become uncontrollable and it's about going all out to win but it is a credit to keep limit the effects of war to say you must not use certain kinds of weapons we attempt through the ages to try to protect the innocent and women and children and those who are not

having any harm but that temptation is to respect the law out the window. >> you mentioned francis lieber during the civil war for the code of world of war. but also seeing the first appearance of total war in the modern era so do you see a relationship between the effort as they attempted with the creation that they initiated? >> the 19th century with the attempt to make laws in a

number of areas to regulate society. that may be driven in part that society was becoming too complex and that distraction was becoming too great. to happen in other times and places that the distinction between those who are fighting or supporting those lines got more blurred general sherman said we must feel what it means to go on fighting so women and children making it impossible for them to survive. so on the one side this attempt that we see in other areas of society the age of great lawmaking with the industrial society but we also see the blurring of the line because it often last longer we are just blurring the lines.

>> discussed for the audience which i think is interested in your answer away from the teaching of diplomatic and military history. >> i am concerned about it. and the own country canada and the history department and the singular most popular undergraduate course is called strategy and statecraft but the department is a bit leery because they are concerned in history has been moving as it should to take in new subjects of groups that have not been written into history and this

is example - - is important but because it has such a profound effect on the lives of people in different societies we need to be aware of it. unfortunately the study of war is people talking about tanks and regiment that's not what war is about. . . . .

>> meant that the that produced history and imperial state. you would agree with this because you give a riveting description of the battle and you quote, you quote to read for our audience he writes, from this place and from this day forth begins new era in the history of the world and you can all say you were present at its birth. would you just describe what he was writing about? >> well the battle was actually one of those historical events which doesn't deserve i think all of the attention and symbolism loaded on to it. it was -- a clash of arms between the french revolutionary troops in 1792 and invading forces from the regimes who, of course, wanted to strangle french revolution as long as they possibly could and forces come into germany i think in austrian

and if you can correct me would turn back or at least didn't come any further as a result of the resistance of the french revolutionary soldiers and offices horrified because french revolutionary soldiers didn't know how to may have and sang songs and order was tarnal it was hard to withstand because they stont and fire in ranks and i think what it meant was a new spirit had taken hold and new moteivating source and not for all people but it was a powerful force in the 19th century and indeed in some parts of the world today. it is like an ideology it is an ideology like a religion or it is like wanting to build a yiewg open ya on earth you will fight and die and kill others -- for the nation. and this abstract concept but i don't think history came to an end because as we know the way

we organize ourselves changes way we fight changes we lev in a different world from that world of the beginning of the 19th century. large part, you write interestingly about the relationship of darwinism on the one hand and imperialism and racism on the other. how did war play into this? >> well how do we think ourselves and how we think about others affectings ways in which we may behave and what social at was nonsense anyway. impossible to distinguish my meaningful way the argument was like species in nature.

so french were like bulldogs british were like poodles and they were distinct speises and it was and then the whole idea of adaptation and survival survival of the fittest this dangerous concept that only those that adapted and were prepared to adapt would survive. and this became in social darwinism immoral if you wrpght prepared to fight for yourself you didn't deserve to survive and stronger more vigorous races should take over and some not all but in some writings and some became racist there were some races so defined in this way -- which were inferior and therefore deserved to be swept away from other races and they didn't deserve to be survive and didn't have moral right to survive that did help to feel imperialism they went around

world as they haven't done with a tremendous amount of self-confidence that they were a superior race and every right to do it and in a funny way and from the less significant of the country came from europe and more important to do empire so he acquired belgium congo but a waying of show you countered. >> yesterday -- culture into the countries are moving it does more multiculture identity certainly great or autonomy, and if this is our future, two questions about war immediately arise. who will be willing to fight or such a state when there's no cohesive national identity? i was driving by tennis camp and

he said -- if war broke out and where i got this idea if war broke out -- what would you go to england? because i still spend a lot of time or i did before the pandemic i said -- i said well i might you and where are mother there and i wouldn't stay here and i told him and people you and i know sent to america as babies during the blitz. and he said why would you come back? and i said well, this was my country. it seemed like a natural imply -- i wonder when he's grown if his would have such and if they don't would they be willing to risk lives and at war? >> well i think, i mean, i would make a distinction which i think george did between patriotism and nationalism and nationalism is this off and on reflecting

sometimes racist sent to be felt as somehow bound by these mystical ties and superior to others. but patriotism is i think simply and i can't -- say you know, my country is not such a bad place, and it is a decent place and like defeat is and not see it taken over by someone hittly and nazis so i will fight for it and patriotism not share on cultural values there has to be some sharing and i don't know we'll have to see what happens in canada because we have moved way beyond being sort of offshoot of britain and france. with the mixture of the indigenous we have multicultural society an something that canadians are proud of and a ingredient in what it is to be canadian as public health system is an ingredient in what it is to be canadian but it may be that groups of people develop other reasons for feeling loyal to the group beyond nationalism.

>> well -- pressure on this but your answer makes me ask myself whether people will be willing to fight for a country who's history they've been taught to despise. let me go on to something else -- rng we can talk a long time about that -- particularly steven pink advance that we were becoming less as a species. skeptical about this myself, but as i say i live with small children so violence is more or less constant of my life. if he's right the applications -- to war, might return to drones and artificial intelligence as a way of hiding of violence or will we actually become pacifist? >> i don't know. it is very hard to predict. i mean, i think this is distinction to be made between

and pinker talks about how society is particularly in develop part of the world. the folks up north have become less violent and less willing to tolerate things like public executions or skepticals and less willing to tolerate violence in the street and not unusual to see people fighting in streets neng ways that you wouldn't perhaps as much now accept perhaps in northern ireland at the moment. but -- where would that mean for going to war again whaing the individual feels like and what the individuals is going to commit is not war making, and i think one of the things that the military does spend and awful lot of time on how to turn ordinary people into civilians into those who fight so much train and preparation so ping -- training in values could make a huge difference in the willingness of people to fight. >> one of the things about this intook your discussion on how

organized violence begins in the human community andth gaered in place bag or cultural groups would you expand on that for a moment? >> well it is highly speculative and i think -- happen sod far back we won't get evidence but seems to me time to gather we know we think we know that actually it was a fair degree of violence people did kill each other this view they had a garden of eden is not realistic at all but once people settle down a number of things happen one they were tiebl produce a surplus as agriculturalist meant that not everyone had to work on land and take part as hay did in in gatherings and preparing and killing the food they were going to need. and it became possible to have class differentiation and possible to support upper class scribes and military, but also once people settled down, of course, it was more difficult to pick up and go away.

you couldn't and you could have done if you would say trouble over the horizon let's get out. and they have chases you wouldn't pick up and go away but you have to build walls and earliest human settlements they've found and, of course, more organize well to do particular groups became the more they were targets to those who want to attack them and capable of attacks others so i think the more organized we became to go back to earlier point about the -- coexistence, the what's the word i want? codevelopment of organization, and fighting, i think, goes back very long way. >> it's, it's fascinating -- i wonder now that the future and just end with this question and perhaps we can go to the anxious to for own questions.

going from my ancient past to near future -- and the prospect of deploying robots and drones and the battlefield. do you think we will build robots that have conscience given algorithms that do the right thing despite the risk of their destruction or do you think more will act decisively than human beings when men and women would gavel at some act? >> i think it depends how much we program them. and what we build in, and there's a considerable debate at the moment about whether autonomist weapon systems, of course, can include next generation of robots should have ethical standards built in or not. and i think there's a lot of resistance to having any sort of

barriers built in because would it make them less effective but danger as we know is that especially as artificial development artificial intelligence develops, that these may begin to program themselves. >> yes. >> they may get out of control and problems with programming that can go wrong. you know, we've seen enough of that. so you know, you program a robot and say don't do any harm to -- women and children. so the robot will kill everyone else. you know, it's not a good example but i think i'm -- i'm worried about the way war is going particularly at the high-tech end. >> well this is fascinating, and that exercise of maximum self-restraighten that makes me adhere to 45 minute deadline so we can go to the audience. i'm suspicious of modern technology because i'm so inept myself but aye managed at least this part here's some questions.

how has compulsory military service affected? >> one is it can make people more patriotic when german army before first world war started training large numbers of men often from the working class and in german society the military upper ranks were very concerned they said we're putting gun in their handle and turn it against us and what seems to have happened left wing -- workers members of trade unions, for example, who did the military service became quite different as a result. and so often military service was a nation building activity dependent again on the country. what also seems to happen and i think it is a good thing is that if you do military service you can have something like a draft. you can be an to people with

least bit like you and i think that's good for a country and people from different parts of the country and different classes and different types of people to get on with each other, and you know they're numbered for military that say you know upper class officers of officers and privilege say i never really talked to working class before and you know, they read poetry and they have ideas. you know this sort of -- bewilderment, in fact, others who they didn't take seriously as citizens did have -- did have their own wants, desires, personals, so i think it can be quite a good thing. >> same question earlier -- from a dark side -- based on your observations have you found there tore a link between compulsory military service and the frequency in which a nation ten engages on conflict? >> i think it depends very much on the nation so i don't think i would go directly link. number of countries in europe have compulsory military service after the second world war and

no major state to state war in europe since 1945. and germans continued to have at least for a time compulsory military service the swiss did -- but don't think it leads in itself to war. and it often i think simply leads to a greater proorks of those who do military service of the country. >> when a person asks there's a general consensus at least in the united states the veteran should be cared for and supported by their government. is this a new idea how has the experience of veterans changed throughout history? >> well it used to be in my armies they would simply discarded. you know they have no pensions they have no one worried about them, you know, took place poetry is very good about this tommy atkins, you know -- they would need us when they have a battle and then at the end they don't give two cents for us. but i think gradually as idea began to spread that people

country would not just subject to ruler but citizens of that country governments began to see they ought to do something and so you've ever been to london pension hospital -- it was established to look after old and often sick soldiers ordinary soldiers -- perhaps in paris -- which was established very much same sort of thing so by the 19th century thing a number of countries particularly the countries that could afford it there was a sense that emplace do something for those who had fought for you and suffered for you. president what do you see between war and class, for example, in who fights wars who dies in war or other considerations from your research? >> i think it depends off on the nature of the society. and so in very high societies those who depend on military strength to maintain their power

they don't want fighting they're in middle ages of the knights in armor and to use foot soldiers or reluctant to have on the ground because they fear for their own dominance and their position on a armor gave them tremendous power. and tremendous authority, but i think again, as i said it depends on the society. you know, you will get society it is in which only few people fight and they come from particular, but in democratic societies, those who fight will often be ordinary people because they're fighting for or they see it for their own society who went to fight in first world war by and large not fighting for ab tract krpghts like czar or emperor or the king. what they were fighting for was their homes and their wives and their children. >> there's a beautiful image when judge describes the -- the original lith wane i confronting on horseback, 7, 8

feet high with a huge metal and compares to seeing a tank -- terrifying you watch but once they learned how to deal with it yeah you start shooting at horses you can do rather well. >> how would you characterize meddling in u.s. elections should we be calling this an account of war cybers pee espionage or something else? >> interesting question isn't it? i think i tend to have a narrow definition of war but there's always agree areas and i think war is moving into a new area of cyberwar and cyberspace. it doesn't involve direct combat or the direct clash of forces. but it can often involve as much damage and as much affection and loss of life as more direct conflict. so i think, you know the ways in

which states or sub state actors use cyberattacks to cause maximum disruption i think can be seen in in cases as an act of war. and we know that it is possible at least for hostile forces to do things like turn on power grids, and the damage from that -- you know destroying dams or making mottled to have water purification plants that can be enormous so i would regard it as an adjunct to war but increasing part of war. les >> another question is will the exception of genocide -- policing side and arm conflict throughout history, typically designated portionings of the population offlimits. what are origins of this standard of decorum and evolve over time? >> i think we don't know for sure and might have been -- embedded in values of a particular society that a society where women and children

were revered as the -- the future of the society meant for killing them both and killing others with a very dreadful thing to do. but i think there's also feeling that those who loss function should be protected for example and many cultures those who are priests have been exempt from being attacked or in theory exempt from being attacked. and also i think there was also a totalitarian motive and so in middle ages you tended not to kill those who would be farming because you knew they were going produce food that you needed even if they belong someone else or someone else's land. >> another question is -- how has the advent of social media -- determined how conflicts are solved and fought and how fighters are recruited in your opinion -- does it get too much credit and

propelling or not enough? >> well, we know i think we're coming to terms with the social media and we know that people recruit themselves and they now have means to do it and it is not a new phenomenon. the assassins who killed recruited themselves, by reading through the national tract and by reading works and they model themselves on other successful assassins but it was much more difficult in those days and then with information were not as instantaneous live spread as they are today so i think we do face a real problem with people who will recruit themselves or also conspiracy theory encourage them to regard those as enemies who are not enemies at all. and i do think this is the problem the other way i think social media is affecting more -- is that increasingly -- for a lot of countries war is afoot under tremendous spotlight and tremendous amount of publicity. and part of fighting war now so make sure your story gets out and other side story doesn't get

out one of the things that cause much trouble or did cause such trouble for the united states in vietnam, was the coverage of the war which reached people at home and made them come to conclusion and many of them come to conclusion this was not a war they were going win. >> i think your -- your readership has expanded far beyond a wonderful new book. you're heard from this question, wants to know could there have been another outcome to treaty of versailles written differently all of you know that mark has written this amazing book about the negotiations of the treaty of versailles, and tell us. what do you think? >> well, you know, i think when i wrote this book and -- i look at what they were actually dealing with. and i saw how much did they have? the major statesman in paris, and they were dealing with

shattered they were dealing with germany that was defeated on battlefield and it is not conclusionive for whatever gentlemen high demand said in 1920s and 30s said germany was defeated in first world war. it was not a affect of surrender and in terms it is surrender so what could allies have done to make things better? what that could have done would have been much more generous to germany but that was politically very difficult indeed. you know if you are living in france, and you know that the whole of the country is devastated which contains, you know, something like industrial plant religious towns, mines, rileways all destroyed often destroyed deliberately as germans are leaving in the summer of 1918, are you going to say well let's be generous? and i think the french prime minister at the time didn't think he could i said i will have to face and being a democratic politician saying he has a next election they might

have been wise to be gentle with germany. but you know, i don't know because you look at the end of the second world war and germany was treated much, much worse. it was divided, it was -- devastated. the soviets took huge amount of reformations out of germany but we don't hear it today and how germany was treated. so i think apartment of what went wrong to give a very short answer after 1919 is a failure of politics in nawmple countries and a failure of international m and might have been great for the great depression but that's something to turn very bad indeed. >> coming up almost to end of our time moving on to a different question now. in the coming decades what issues do you see igniting more conflicts and what parts of the world should we be watching? >> i think and phillip you made this agreement, i think we still see state to state conflict for the potential for state to state

conflict in pakistan -- you know, they have fought i think three times now -- they both possess nuclear weapons india china they fought once and squirmishes up in help and they are possibilities that people are beginning to contemplate they may be wrong and i certainly hope they're wrong. but i think what we're also going to see is a lot more con conflict as we're seeing in fail state and governments for various reasons and states wobbly never built a strong political structure or infrastructure and often destabilized by outside forces see mother of those and see more of those and lots of more yemens and that worries me. well to return to point that we began with -- there's a large body of opinion in america that strong states

drive themselves towards war. that when you give a state more power you take power away from the individual and from the civilian society -- feeling that may not always be true and that -- if you want to prevent war, don't count on a weak state weakest states are the most -- states. but i say this as a prejudice prelude to this maybe next to last question. do you think increasing budgets increase the livelihood it have war? >> not necessarily. i think it depends what you're spending on. i think there's been interesting on the budget recently in "new york times" today actually about it how these budgets take on some of the inertia and military keeps spengsding and they don't really sit down and say do we need all of this and government so i'm going to -- not covid i think this is

just -- [coughing] so always a danger i think when you have a race that feels it is falling behind -- attempted to do something silly. this has been a wonderful evening and we're so grateful to you -- for coming -- and personal level, of course, wonderful to see you. and i hope we're all reunited somewhere -- some time soon. >> thank you. apologize for my cough but thank you all, and wish i were in new york but there we are -- >> i wish you were too. >> thank you for all of those [laughter] ly questions. [coughing] i'll say good evening, gregory and all of our friends in new york. losthanks for coming and thanksr

the tremendous author. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> a look now at books being published this week, best selling author malcolm has precision bombing in the bomber mafia minnesota center amy klobuchar dismantle monopolies in book antitrust. and in stronger, cindy mccain reflecting on her marriage to late senator john mccain. also being published this week,

senior fellow steven explores use of social media and technology to suppress the decent in the rise of digital repression. and in the age of acrimony historian john describes america's volatile political landscape in the late 19th early 20th century. ... and for everyone both as a source of individual human