next, book tv's monthly in depth program with author and professor. his books include hopes and prospects, consequences of capitalism, and the forthcoming notes on resistance, a collection of interviews on the pandemic, the environment, and economic inequality. ::

major poll just came out from a major agency in which they ask people, they gave people the choice of 15 series problems and ask them to rank them in terms of urgency. republicans and democrats. republicans, the very last one at the bottom was global warming. at the top was illegal immigrants and the debt became a problem last november 4. up until then, the debt was fine. republicans were creating it to enrich very rich people so it was no problem. november 4, biden took it over might use it to help others.

it's not the the people who sit believe it, it's what they hear in the book in which they are contained. the tv station, fox news, the murdoch press, that's what you hear. when you are stuck in that bubble, that's what you believe. the real problems are illegal immigrants, terrible problems. ta problem. at the bottom of the list is destroying the environment, in which life can be sustained. all of these are signs all of these are o signs of the collapse not only of the arena for russian discourse but general social collapse, the social order is collapsing. it's not just happen by itself, it happened because of the plague set in motion 40 years

ago, we discuss it in the book a lot. the plague of brutalism which started in the 70s, but it took off with reagan and thatcher. to look at the prescriptions, it's obvious what's going to happen. reagan's inaugural address said the government is the problem, not the solution, decisions have to be taken out of the hands of the government. where are they going to be made? , which is what corporations are. unaccountable to the public. the government, of course, has a flaw, it is partially accountable to the public and

can be controlled somewhat. but private charities are free, no accountability. the second point was friedman, the -- who pronounced that corporations have one responsibility, to their owners. shareholders. period. nothing else. corporate rights are the gift from the public. there's plenty of advantages that come from incorporating, it is a gift, but they do not have any responsibility. just to themselves. put these two things together and decisions that had to over to private tyrannies who have no responsibility other than to enrich themselves. margaret thatcher comes along and says there is no society, just individuals. somehow managing on the market

that they are supposed to survive in. the first step that both reagan and thatcher took was to destroy any possible defense against this assault. their first steps, first come over to attack labor unions with illegal measures like strikebreakers. that opened to door to corporations to do the same. the one-way way people have to defend themselves, by organizing, taken away. put all this together, you would have to be a genius to figure out what is going to happen. actually, 40 years later it was studied by the rand corporation. super respectable american corporation. they tried to estimate the transfer of wealth robbery, we should call it, the transfer of

wealth from the lower 90% of the population, middle-class and working-class, to the very top, which turns out to be a fraction of 1%. their estimate was about $50 trillion during the 40 years of neoliberalism. that is a vast underestimate that includes other things which are now on the front pages. when reagan came in, he opened the spigot for businesses to do whatever they like. tax havens had been illegal before then. and blocked by the treasury. opened it up, there's probably another tens of trillions of dollars. changed the rules on corporate management, which the government said, allowing ceos to be compensated with stock options instead of salaries.

that means anything you can do to raise the stock, like buybacks, may ruin the corporation but it is good for you to get a higher income. that is the result. also, executives were permitted to pick their own board, the board that would determine their salary. what do you think is going to happen? take a look at the figures. ceos salaries have skyrocketed. carrying all of top management along with them. extended to the public sector, university presidents, hospital -- and so on. meanwhile, the majority of the population gets by from payday to payday in a precarious existence. it is a major assault on the population. it has happened all over the world. australia, europe, not as severe

as in the united states, but severe. people are hager -- people are angry, disillusioned, resentful, easy prey for demagogues of the trump variety who says, i will save you. and it will end in distress for everything. why should i believe with the centers of disease control say about the pandemic echo they are probably just -- pandemic echo they are probably just run by crooks in washington. so, you have a breakdown of the social order. it is happening over much of the world. >> live from his home in tucson, arizona where he is america plus professor at the university of arizona, noam chomsky. professor chomsky, what issues -- what is on your mind these days? noam: well, there are lots of things going on in the world.

right now, one of the major ones is, of course, the war in ukraine. there's many others. there are background issues. we are, like it or not, the human species, racing to imminent disaster. there are two huge problems. one is the growing threat of nuclear war. which would, basically, end modern civilization as we know it. the other is the destruction of the environment. inexorable. we know it has to be done, we are not doing it. if we do not turn that corner soon, we will reach an irreversible tipping point and it will be a matter of slow

moves towards catastrophe, irrevocable catastrophe. that, in addition to what is right on the front pages, the background of it. there is plenty to be on everyone's mind. >> professor chomsky, you have been active for decades on nuclear war, economic policies, social justice, what is the progress you think you have made, or that the world has made? noam: there has been, over long periods, there has been progress. we happen to be -- we happen to have been, for the past 40 years, in a period of serious regression. but, there are ups and downs before. if you think back to what society was say, in 1960, 60

years ago, this was a society in which we literally had laws against miscegenation, which were so extreme that the nazis refused to accept them. the one drop of blood loss. -- laws. the rights of women were still not recognized. it was not until 1975 that women had the legal right, guaranteed legal right to serve on the federal juries. that means, to be regarded as peers, as persons and not property. which they basically were in british common law that the

country to go over. they were, in many respects, minimal rights were not respected. well, that has changed. that is an improvement. beginning in the late 1970's, there was a shift in the nature of the state capitalist system, which was described in the previous comment, the move towards the neoliberal system that has been quite harsh for the general population here, and across the world. an enormous concentration of wealth and a precarious existence for many, which has led to understandable feelings of anger and resentment,

distrust of authority, contempt for institutions. that can take positive forms. let's have changes for the better. there are such elements that can also take very dangerous forms. i am old enough to remember 90 years ago when there was, as today, a very serious threat, the threat of the depression, deep depression, much worse than anything today. my extended family was first immigrated, new increments -- new immigrants, first-generation immigrants, working-class mostly. they were, and this was -- there

were two ways out of the depression. one was taken by the united states. the u.s. led the way towards a social democratic revival, committed to and -- by a revived militant labor movement. organizing, militant labor tactics, led the way to the new deal measures which pioneered postwar social democracy, an enormous lift for the population. that was one way out. the other way out was what happened in europe, which sank to the depths of fascism. those were the ways out. actually, there are residences today -- residences -- it would

be utterly ironic if the united states continues to unravel and move towards a kind of proto-fascism, while europe hangs onto the -- of social democracies that have resisted the neoliberal assault. and perhaps revise these very positive tendencies. it doesn't have to. the choice is in our hands. meanwhile, there are imminent problems. the war in ukraine is on the front page headlines. it is not the only one. literally millions of people are facing starvation in

afghanistan. millions of people facing imminent starvation. people who a little bit of money can't go to the markets where there is food, to buy food for their starving children because the banks are shut. they can't get access to the money. where is the money? new york. the u.s. refuses to release to the people of afghanistan their own money. the banks are supposed to be fiduciary institutions. you place your money in them, with the assurance that it is yours to attain when you need it. not in this case. the u.s. government has stepped in, not just in this case, but others too, to block people from

getting their own money. there is a pretext for this. the pretext is, we have to assure that victims of 9/11 have a right to compensation from afghans who had nothing to do with 9/11. the rural people of afghanistan who are starving had nothing at all to do with 9/11. in fact, those with good memories will recall that the taliban offered total surrender, which would have meant handing over to the united states the suspects in the 9/11 attack, the al qaeda suspects. remember, at the time, they were suspects. the fbi informed the press months later that they suspected

them, but did not have definitive evidence. but, the taliban offered to turn them over. the u.s. reaction was, we do not do surrenders. romney. echoed by george bush. rumsfeld, i am sorry. echoed by george bush. george w. bush. now, the afghan people have to starve to death because we hold their funds. and there are other things happening in the world. thankfully, there seems to have been an agreement for a two month reduction of fighting in yemen. the worst humanitarian disaster in the world, according to the united nations food -- united

nations. the saudi government, which is the main force responsible for the disaster, along with the united arab emirates, saudi arabia had been blockading, intensifying its blockade of the only port in which food and oil can be imported into the starving country. the official death toll last year was 370,000 people. the actual death role is unknown. again, the united nations warns that hundreds of thousands of children are facing imminent starvation. the saudi and emma rossi -- emirate air forces cannot function without u.s. equipment and u.s. intelligence.

u.s. trading. we are assisted by britain, a few others, that the u.s. is in the lead. these things can be changed. the things that can be uppermost in our mind. what can we do? what can we do about suffering, major problems in the world? whether it is existential problems the existence of the species like global warming or nuclear war, or whether it is the terrible, miserable suffering of the people of ukraine, under brutal and violent aggression by the russian army.

people starving to death in afghanistan. or yemen. we can mention other things, but what can we do about all of those things? that is what we have to be asking ourselves. that is what should be on everyone's mind. >> this is your chance to talk with noam chomsky. if you have been interested in public policy for the last 50 or 60 years, chances are you have heard of professor chomsky, perhaps even read some of his hundreds of books. the numbers are on the screen. for those of you of the east and central time zones. 8201 for the mountain and pacific time zones. you can also send a text message. please encode -- please include your first name and your city. we also have several social media ways of getting a hold of us. we will scroll through those on the screen.

i want to quote professor chomsky from one of your most recent books, requiem for the american dream. you say that some of the problems of government in the u.s. today stem from an excess of democracy. why do you say that? noam: actually, i did not say that. i quoted it. the quote was from a very important study, about 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 1975, it is the first study of the trilateral commission. the trilateral commission is an international commission of liberal internationalists. you get a rough idea of their political stances by the fact that the carter administration

was drawn almost completely from within the ranks. so, that group of people in the united states, they -- their counterparts in europe and japan, liberal internationalists were the trilateral commission. they came out with a very important report called, the crisis of democracy. they were responding to the activism of the 1960's, which considerably civilized society. and led to the developments that i mentioned briefly before. the trilateral commission warned that there is a crisis of democracy. the crisis is what you quoted, an excess of democracy. there is too much democracy. what is happening, they described during the 1960's, is

that segments of the population that are supposed to be passive and obedient began to try to enter the political arena to press their own demands. these are what are often called special interests. young people, old people, working people, women, farmers, minorities, these people are not supposed to be making noises in the political arena. there supposed to be quiet, obedient, apathetic, show up every couple of years to push a button, go home. and then go home and let their betters decide for them. what to do. well, that excess of democracy,

they said, is putting too much of a burden on the state. so, we must have, what they call moderation in democracy. people should return to their passivity and obedience. they also talked about particular sectors of society, like the universities. they said the universities and the churches are not doing their job of indoctrination of the young. their phrase, not mine. we have to do better indoctrination of the young so that they are not out there in the streets protesting the vietnam war and calling for civil rights, or women's rights, other things which are too much.

so, that is the liberal internationalists. there's actually another major argument that came out at about the same time also in response to the activism of the 1960's. the powell administration. it was meant to be secret. this was a man who richard nixon appointed to the supreme court, justice powell. powell issued a memorandum to the chamber of commerce, to the business world, and it was in a way similar to the trilateral commission report. but, much harsher. the document was intended to be confidential but it surfaced pretty soon. it is available is -- it is available publicly. this memorandum urged the business community to take up a

forceful reaction to the attack on business that was going on in the 1960's. they said businessmen were being persecuted, the rate of profit is declining. we are under attack. the universities have been taken over by crazed radicals led by herbert marcuse a, who of course nobody had ever heard of. the business world is under attack by ralph nader, who is demanding that automobiles have safety measures built in them. and moving for consumer rights and consumer safety and other domains. so it, the -- so, the business world cannot tolerate these attacks. it went on to say look, we have the resources, we have the money, we can fight back.

we can refuse to accept this attack on our power and privilege. in fact, that resonated. that was part of the background which led to the neoliberal reaction of today. -- as quoted in earlier remarks were for the program, the roughly $50 trillion robbery of the middle-class and working-class that has taken place in the past 40 years, since it started in the late quarter years and escalated under reagan and thatcher. and spread around the world, under u.s. power, structural adjustment programs which were imposed by the imf, which is under u.s. domination.

which had a devastating effect on much of the global south. more than i can talk about now. but, going back to excess of democracy, that was the phrase from the trilateral commission report. which i did write about when it appeared, and have referred to sense. but, those two documents said a kind of -- set an ideological framework. one from the liberal internationalists. another from the business run right-wing. they kind of set the frame in which, over the coming years, the neoliberal programs were developed. imposed. we have been living under that assault for 40 years. with pretty harsh effects.

you're actually harsher effects in other countries. -- there are actually harsher effects in other countries. what actually happened in the late 1970's, there was what was called -- pretty high inflation in the united states. the carter administration responded to it. with a very short rise in interest rates, which increased under the reagan years. well, during the 1970's, countries like mexico, other countries in the south had been urged by the world bank, the u.s. run world bank, they had been urged to take out extensive

loans. mostly from u.s. banks. citibank. citigroup, the conglomerate. many others. they were deep -- they were deeply in debt. when the high interest rates were introduced, their debt is linked to u.s. interest rates. so, they were in deep trouble. they couldn't pay. they began to default. they had to take loans from the international monetary fund, which imposed harsh conditionality's. they had to cut back social spending, cut back efforts and development -- efforts in development, and other similar measures which devastated the populations. it had horrifying effects and

much of the third world. yugoslavia, which had been more or functioning country, fell apart under the impact of the structural programs which intensified ethnic conflicts and laid the background for the horrors that will -- that took place in the early 1990's. the worst case was actually rwanda in the 1970's. there already had been significant conflicts between hutu and tutsi. my friend edward herrmann and i had written about it in the 1970's. in the 1980's, rwanda, like other countries, was hit very hard by the structural adjustment programs.

and the society, which was already very fragile, collapsed. the conflicts that existed were extensively intensified. i won't go into details, but that's part of the background of the horrendous developments that took place a few years later in the 1990's. actions have consequences. maybe you do not anticipate them, but you should. that was the third world, the global south, the rich countries like the united states, it's pretty much what was described by the rand corporation. it is all part of the neoliberal reaction to the former period of what is called sometimes, regimented capitalism. state capitalism based on new deal measures.

it is worth remembering how far we have moved from those days. take dwight eisenhower. the last conservative president, in the traditional sense of the word conservative. eisenhower, if you read his statements, sounds like a flaming radical today. eisenhower said that any person who does not accept new deal measures, the measures of social welfare developed in the new deal, and continued in following years, anyone who does not accept these measures does not belong in our political system. that's eisenhower. anyone who denies working people the right to unionize, a firm essential rights, such a person does not belong in our political system.

well, that was the 1950's. it continued for some years into the 1960's. and then we get into the reaction, which escalated under reagan. compare eisenhower with what you hear today from the remnants of what remains of the party that he represented. it is quite a change. it tells us a lot about the regression of the past 40 years. >> let's get some of our collars involved. let's begin with barbara in oak bluffs, massachusetts. barbara, go ahead and ask your question. caller: thank you, peter. think admit -- thank you mr. chomsky for your amazing career. continuing with president eisenhower, his famous statement about the emergence of the military industrial complex. so, we have watched decades of

grotesque spending on weapons, but now we see this conflict in ukraine where tiny musicians -- munitions like stingers, javelins, switchblade drums, other types of drones, these tiny micro weapons are able to take out the -- macro weapons of the tanks, jet fighters and the naval ships. what do you make of this transition to micro warfare and its implications? >> thank you. noam: it heralds a new era of warfare, which is more dangerous and more threatening to everyone. let me just ask a slightly

different question, if you do not mind. i mentioned before that we should be concerned, constantly, with what we can do and what we should do. well, one thing we should do is send weapons. there is an argument for that. ukraine is under foreign attack from a brutal military force, which has no mercy. they have a right to defend themselves. but, there is another question. what is our goal? do we want to escalate the war? more ukrainians dying? more destruction? or, do we want to move towards a peaceful negotiated settlement? one of the most respected individuals in the u.s. diplomatic corps, ambassador

chas freeman, highly respected individual with a wonderful record. a couple of days ago, he came out in an interview and said, u.s. policy seems to be to fight the russians to the last ukrainian. that is the policy. -- formulated no feasible goals that can lead to an exit from this tragedy. so, we can keep pouring in arms. we are good at that, to escalate the fighting. more ukrainians will day -- will die, more russians will die and it goes nowhere. just further escalation. well, is there a possible diplomatic settlement? yes there is. chas freeman outlined it once again. everyone knows what it is.

the settlement, this has been going on for 30 years, i should say. it didn't just start today. the settlement is, in rough help on, and neutralized ukraine, not part of a military bloc, and an internal settlement that will guarantee the rights of the russian-speaking minority, provided some form of federal solution like switzerland, belgium, others, in which minority groups have a degree of autonomy in their own regions. it is actually formulated in an agreement called minx -- minsk two. some version of that has to be the possible outcome. and as friedman stressed, if we

don't want to just fight to the last ukrainian, we have to offer vladimir putin an escape hatch. he has to have some way to escape from this with what amounts to suicide. if we send our current message, you are going to face war crimes trials, there is nothing you can do about it, sanctions will continue no matter what happens, we are telling him to fight onto the last ukrainian. that might sound bold. a winston churchill impersonation, it sounds heroic. for the ukrainians, it is a death warrant. we have to come out with a proposal.

we have to support, i should say, the proposals that are on the table and have been for a long time. for a settlement that offers putin some kind of escape, like it or not, that is a necessity. it will have to be based on neutralization of ukraine and some kind of diplomatic arrangement for a degree of autonomy for the russian oriented areas. those things are on the table. the u.s. is not supporting them. the u.s. actually has an official policy, unfortunately, it does not seem to have been reported in the united states press. at least, i can find it. but, the policy is there. you can read it in government documents.

i have quoted it repeatedly in things i have been writing. the policy was set in september, 2021. september 1, 2021. there was a joint statement of the u.s. and ukraine. this is months before the russian invasion. the document is basically a policy statement of the united states, reiterating and amplifying the policy that had been in effect for many years. it is worth reading. first it says the door to ukrainian entry in to nato is wide open. we are inviting you to join nato. it says, the united states will intensify the sending of advanced military weapons to ukraine.

it will continue with joint military efforts. in ukraine. it's called nato, but it means the u.s. ukrainian military operations. all of this placing weapons within ukraine, aimed at russia. all of this is part of the enhanced nato admissions program. you should really look at the exact wording, i am paraphrasing. but, it is roughly that. well, that is a call for the horrors that have followed. it did not just start then. it has been going on for 28 years. you look back to the george h w bush administration. the first president bush.

1990, 1991. the soviet union was collapsing. there were intensive discussions with george bush, james baker, secretary of state, his russian counterpart mccalla gorbachev -- mikhail gorbachev. the question was, what would be the shape of the post-cold war world with the soviet union collapsing? well, there were several visions. gorbachev's vision was what he called a common european home. from the atlantic, from lisbon all the way to vladivostok. no military blocs, mutual

accommodation. this was an extension of a program of charles de gaulle in earlier years. that emmanuel macron has recently been pressing something similar, a common european home from the atlantic to the urals, incorporating russia within a european and maybe eurasian, peaceful system with no military blocs. that was one vision. the other one, and disco spec 50 or 60 years, the u.s. vision called atlantis, based on the atlantic alliance, based on nato and europe, which the u.s. dominates and controls.

that is a dip -- that is a deep issue in world affairs that goes back to the second world war. will europe be subordinate to the united states? within the atlantis nato framework? or, will it move towards a european common home, along the lines of the goal of --? gorbachev's proposals in 1990. well, the u.s. had no interest to oppose the european common home. but, it did have a compromised version. and that was what was agreed. bush, baker in the united states , germany, gorbachev in russia, nato -- germany would be unified and would join nato.

which is quite a concession on the part of the russians. recall their history. germany alone had practically destroyed russia several times in the past half-century. to allow a unified germany to join a hostile military alliance was not a small step. gorbachev agreed on a condition. the condition was that nato would not move 1 inch to the east beyond germany. it fact, nato forces would not even go to east germany. that was the condition. perfectly explicit, unambiguous. you want to see the actual wording? look it up in the online national security archives, georgetown university.

which has a record, an authoritative record with the official documents. no ambiguity. well, gorbachev agreed to that. the bush-baker administration adhered to it. they adhered to it. clinton came in years later -- the first to use of diminished -- the first few years of the administration he also agreed. by 1984, with his eye on domestic politics, clinton began to offer hints of east european countries joining nato. in 1997, presumably with his eye on the 1998 vote, clinton invited several east european

countries on the borders of russia to join nato. well, boris yeltsin, then president, was very close to clinton. in fact, clinton had intervened to have him elected in 1996. yeltsin bitterly objected to this. sorted gorbachev. so did every russian leader. u.s. statesman george kennan, jake matlock and former ambassador to russia under reagan, leading russian specialists in the government, numerous others. henry kissinger. numerous others pointed out to washington they are making a terrible mistake. i should say that includes the current cia director william burns. and former cia director

stansfield turner. william perry from secretary of defense under clinton, was so outraged he practically resigned in protest. 50 specialists in russia wrote a warning later -- warning letter to clinton saying, this is extremely dangerous and you should not be doing it. you are just calling on russia to become militant and aggressive instead of accommodating and a common european home. well, clinton went ahead. george w. bush later tore it to shreds. 2008, he invited ukraine to join -- that was actually vitord -- vitoed by germany and france.

everyone i quoted, how u.s. diplomats and russian specialists and so on, understood perfectly that for russia, there are some definite red lines that no russian leader will tolerate. none. yeltsin, gorbachev, anyone. and that is ukraine and georgia, within the russian strategic heartland, joining a hostile military alliance. they will never accept that. the u.s. foraged ahead. september, 2021 policy statement amplifies it. it states it explicitly. we will go ahead and we will continue to arm ukraine. if you want to imagine what that is like from the russian point of view, understood well by high

u.s. level statesman -- high-level u.s. statesman, it is if -- it is as if mexico were to join a chinese run military alliance and carry out joint exercises with the chinese army. place weapons in mexico. aimed at washington. we wouldn't tolerate that. it would never. not mexico, not anywhere in latin america. remember the cuban missile crisis? inconceivable. notice that this is no infringement on the sovereignty of mexico. mexico is essentially neutral. it is not part of any military alliance. it has restrictions. it cannot do what i just described. it cannot join a chinese run military alliance and carry out

military operations with the people's liberation army. get training and advanced weaponry from chinese military experts, place weapons on the border aimed at washington. nobody bothers to say this. it is perfectly well understood. notice that what i have just described is the september 2021 u.s. official policy. well. none of that justifies russian aggression, which is a kind of crime that ranks with the u.s. invasion of iraq, the headlight-stall invasion of poland, other examples of what the nuernberg trails called

supreme international crime. crimes of aggression, not defense. nothing justifies that. but, to understand is not to justify. to understand is important. if we care about ukrainians, and even if we care about world peace. because this thing could escalate, easily, to a major conflict with the u.s. and with nato which could go on to a terminal nuclear war. so, we should try to understand and recognize. understanding is not justifying. the people i mentioned like henry kissinger and william perry, william burns, cia director and many others, are not -- is no longer with us -- would not be justifying russian

aggression when they explain the background for it, and in which we play a role and continue to play a role. by not joining, today, in offering and developing diplomatic options supporting those that going back to ambassador freeman, that was his crucial points as long as their position backed by england is your finished, putin, you're done. permanent sanctions, no way out for you. we are telling putin as freeman said, i'm quoting him, we are going to fight you to the last ukrainian. that's not something we should be doing. we should be moving toward

peace. we spent a lot of time talking about the kinds of weapons we can provide. but the real thing we should be talking about is how can we move toward a peaceful settlement which will end this? >> your watching book tv. on c-span2, joining us, his first appearance on this program has written dozens more books. the next call is from lorene and palms river, new jersey. go ahead. >> i'm a great admirer of yours and it's a pleasure to speak with you. i wondered about your thoughts and any optimism about your iolocation that unionized and nw

the staten island is unionized, do you see that emboldening the people throughout the country to start unionizing and recognizing they can take this power into their own hands? >> let's get a response. in case you didn't understand, was talking about amit amazon unionizing it if you think it's a good sign and your other thoughts on that. >> well, labor has been under bitter attack throughout this whole new liberal. you may recall reagan's first action was to attack unions using lower internationally regarded as illegal means,

permanent replacement.k a bitter attack on the labor movement. margaret thatcher who was carrying out the same programs in england opened the programs the same way, major attack on unions. ... caterpillar and others launcd antiunion activities, using internationally banned measures like scabs. the laws, which were changed to make labor organizing much to make labor organizing much harder. there's an natural labor relations board which is supposed to protect workers rights. bill clinton came along, another major attack on labor.

and nafta, the agreement with mexico and canada was bitterly attacked by the labor movement. actually they were in favor of an agreement but not this one. labor came forthwith a proposal and though labor action committee of proposal for it. most american free trade agreement which would be based on the principle of high wages, high growth. they were seconded at the office of technology assessment. congress is research peril which has since been disbanded. congress doesn't seem to want independent information but it existed then and they came out with a proposal for nafta very similar to the labor movement

proposal, efforts to build a high-growth, high wage system. clinton went through with the corporate-based system, low-wage, low growth. great for-profit. well that was nafta that was later extended to a post called the uruguay world trade organization agreements which have the same properties that go into the details and a bitter attack on the labor movement. we have some evidence of how great of an attack it was. a couple of years after nafta the study was undertaken under nafta rules by a labor historian at cornell university, under nafta rules took us study of the

effect of nafta on union organizing. it turned out the effect was dire. nafta along with the refusal of the government to apply labor laws went through a very sharp reduction in union organizing by illegal means. the business couldn't, if there was an effort at organizing, the business couldn't put up a banner saying transfer operation mexico thatco would call and workers were obligatory meetings or tell them you go ahead with this union organizing and we are going to move to mexico. they didn't intend to do it at the warning was enough. meanwhile a major industry had developed that are now major industries working on what used

to be called scientific methods of strikebreaking, lots of techniques, many of them illegal. but it doesn't matter if you have a criminal state that doesn't enforce the law, the effect of all of this over the years has been a sharp decline in the labor movement. this is happening at a time when workers want to unionize. if the majoritync want to be in unions. unionization declines every year, again last year with unionization declining, under attack from a state corporate program attacking labor. that's what it amounts to. going back to the amazon strike it's a very dramatic despite the enormous advantages that the

corporate business system has been given for the state criminality which is what it is. despite the enormous advantages of its workers in staten island they will be immediately under attack by amazon but the kinds of means i've described that it's's a small victory. there are a couple of others. there are small signs of revival of labor. actually it started in non-unionized areas in red states like my state, arizona and west virginia in the begin with teachers. teachers were not unionized and began to strike not just for higher wages. for better conditions for

children. part of th neoliberal program to defund, the fund education to try to destroy the public education system. in the trumptr years we had the secretary of education who was openly committed to destroying the public education system. public education is one of the great achievements of american democracy. back in the late 19th and early 20th century the united states led the world in developing public education. masks public education with an enormous contribution to democracy and the health of society. it's an american achievement at the university level. the grants for universities and

unfortunately taking away native american land. these land grants will enable the establishments of major universities and the united states is great state universities. m.i.t. was actually a land grant .niversity that was an enormous contribution.. during the neoliberal period it's been under sharp attack.pe i quoted the price of democracy calling for more indoctrination of the bitter attack on the educational system. there was also defunding, funding for state colleges and universities has sharply declined and also at the k-12

level all part of the effort to destroy one of the major contributions of the united states towards democracy and political warfare. it's still continuing. teachers began to strike in the red states of west virginia and arizona calling for better funding for schools so the teacher doesn't have to sit in front of 60 kids unable to teach because there are no resources and no possibility of dealing with the children. teachers were fighting not just for better salaries which they richly deserved. for better conditions for children in school. they got a lot of support. i happen to be living in arizona now and i drive around tucson where you live and there are signs on lawns all over the place supporting the teachers,

signs on businesses that support the teachers. they won referenda. arizona passed a referendum calling for more funding for the schools which they badly need. the republican legislature won't do it so the battle continues that this ist a major growth of labor organizing which extended. has extended to the major labor movement. not enormous statistically speaking but there have been scattered victories. there was a general motors victory and amazon is the latest. there's a long way to go. the national labor relations board needs to be reconstituted so that it actually carries out

its legal responsibility of defending workers from ilea bill attacks by business which have devastated the labor movement since reagan. the biden administration has been trying to do it but it's been blocked by 100%, rocksolid republican opposition joined by a few right-wing democrats. just very recently a very good representative appointment to his prolabor was blocked and there's a big battle to overcome. we should remember as i said i'm old enough to remember thee eary 1930s and it's kind of similar. the labor movement in the 1920s had been crashed. the united states is a very --

has a very violent labor history, much than europe. woodrow wilson red scare, the depression in american history that crashed the vibrant labor movement. in the 1920s that there was almost nothing left. early 1930s in the wake of the depression it began to revive. there were labor actions and sitdown strikes. under that impetus it was a sympathetic administration. you got the new deal measures which have greatly improved the lives of americans, enormously and the labor world too. the post-waroc social democratic movement. maybe it will begin today but it's going to be a battle, a

major battle. at the amazon victory is a striking example of what could be done but it's going to be a long-haul. the attack onnu labor continues right now, relentless, bitter and it will take plenty of dedication and commitment to be able to overcome it. >> host: we have about one are left with art guest noam chomsky this afternoon and we will h continue to take your calls. noam chomsky has appeared on c-span 28 times. national reputation, really sprang forth in 1967 when he wrote responsibility for intellectuals as they in the new york review of looks and it was in 1989 that he gave a lecture on control and american society.

here's a portion of it. >> the title is necessary illusion in a democratic society. the title is intended to be itparadoxical. indoctrination are inconsistent with democracy and therefore one can't have it in a democratic society. there is a standard view about this matter. the standard view is expressed for example by supreme courtme justice powell who speaks of what he calls the societal purpose of the first amendment that is enabling the public to a meaningful control over the political process. i happen to be thinking about the media and their crucial role in affecting the societal purpose and similar remarks could be made or should be made about publishing and about

intellectual life generally that the media is particularly important in providing free access to informationov and opinion and therefore allowing the democratic process to function in a full way. immediate therefore fulfilled what "the new york times" on sunday called their traditional jeffersonian role to counterbalance the government's power and if one takes jefferson seriously, as he may or may not have taken himself, he would presumably have gone further seeking not just the counterbalancing government power. counterbalancing of other powers specifically the kind developed in the post-jeffersonian period. well all of this seems obvious. what else could be the foundations of democracy but it is worth bearing in mind that

there is a contrary view and probably is the dominant view among the liberal democratic. it goes right back to the artisans of modern democracy and they english revelations of the 17th century. at that time great concern was expressed overar popular agitators, itinerant creatures and workers with their little printing presses and pamphlets in their public speeches, which were removing the cloak of mystery behind the parliament and the king were carrying out their much narrower strugglene about which you read in the history book. these people were, in their words, they were people that wanted to be representative not by lords and gentry.me by men of their on kind, men who know the peoples source and

observing their activity. one contemporary historian warned that by revealing the workings of power they will make the people so curious and so that they will never find humility which is ach big probl. after these radical democrats have been crushed by 1660 general locke wrote day labor tradesman must be told what to believe. the greatest bard cannot know and therefore they must believe. now these concerns arose once again during the american revolution as they typically do here in popular revolutions and it was not until the 1780s that the radical democrats were crashed and there was no more thought that people would be

representative by men of their own kind who knows the peoples source. they would be representative by those qualified of whom they work permitted to make a selection, the modern democrati local system which followed the principle laid down by the founding fathers that o those wo own the country ought to govern it, quoting jon jay. all of this comes to the present. it's a rich tradition expressing the same views and comes down to the presence of modern version. reinhold kneedler the foreign-policy analyst he explained this word rationale they belonged to the cool observer. dibecause of the of the average man he follows not reason.

faith in this faith relies upon necessary illusion and i thank him for offering me my title. this relies on necessary illusion and emotional oversimplifications which have to be provided by the myth makers and observers, folks like us guys who don't have power. leichtman the dean of american journalists two years earlier talked about what e he called te manufacture of -- which is become a self-conscious art and the regular practice of democracy and that's appropriate because the common interest vary largely eludes public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class. the same concerns explain a good deal of the fear of radical movements abroad up to the

present. for example in the early 19th century the czar of russia was deeply concerned about the contagion of revolutionary ideas coming from american democracy which might undermine the conservative world order that they were presiding over and essentially later the roles were reversed and the same ideas were expressed. at the time when woodrow wilson sent troops to join western interventions against the bolsheviks the secretary of state echoing earlier warned that the bolsheviks and i'm quoting robert lansing where they and mentally deficient who by their very numbers are urged to become masters. the same idea appears explicitly in the public relations industry,ti the patron saint of

edward bernays who got his training in the krill commission of which he was the number -- a member of and develop the concept of what he called engineeringg consent which is te ncessence of democracy and a something which he practiced for example in demonizing the democratic government of guatemala striking for the united company in the early 50's paving the way for the cia troop the public relations industry described its past is controlling the public mind educating the american people about the economic facts to eensure favorable climate for business and a proper understanding of what he called the common interest. the public mind is the only serious danger confronting the

company and at&t executive commented years ago and those problems have been addressed ever sense. there's also an academic and academic social sciences. one of the leading american political scientists and a major figure in the field of communications or a glass well wrote an interesting commentary on this in 1933 at the international encyclopedia of social sciences on propaganda. those were more on this days and people call them what they were. he explained we must not succumb to democratic dogmatism about men being the best judges of their own interests.e they are not. the best judges are the elites who must be ensured to impose their will for the common good and that means he said are a

whole new technique of control largely through propaganda and itsca necessary to do this becae of the ignorance and superstition of the masses. and then explained why it's particularly important to democracy. it's not the case is the naïve might think that indoctrination is as full line of thinkers observed is the essence of democracy but the point is there's a military or feudal state or a totalitarian state. doesn't much matter what people think because you've got a -- overer their heads and you can control what they do and their behaviors. you control what they do but when the state loses this and they can't control people by force and when the voice of the people overrule you have this problem making people so curious andy so that they don't have te

ability to submit to a simple world therefore you have to control what people think for their own good of course, to ensure they don't get out of control. those good that was noam chomsky in 1989, one of 28 appearances professor chomsky is made on c-span over the years and he joins us now live from his home in tucson arizona and the nextne call for him is from michael in miami. michael, please go ahead and ask your question.n. >> caller: yes, hello and thank you mr. chomsky for your humanity and yourr scholarship. my question, if you answer yes i believe you are doing so because we here in the south from broward county which is probably theob school district under the most attack by a governor and a

force as you've described about people. >> host: michael, what is your question? >> caller: it has to do with my quantic monthly fee wished to conserve covid herd immunity and in order to increase what he viewed as a benefit but when you're pushing something like herd immunity the definition of criminal jim of the -- genocide. >> host: so covid, herd immunity is the question governor desantis in florida. noam chomsky? >> guest: the questions about governor desantis and covid immunity? >> host: covid herd immunity, yes sir.

>> guest: there is unfortunately a powerful anti-vaccination movement in the united states. desantis has played a role in it and is not refusing vaccination. following policies advised by serious health officials in florida and elsewhere and i thin seriously a significant crisis. many americans of bharti died. the hospitals are overflowing with mostly unvaccinated patients. they of course provide pool for

future mutations. we have the means to two if not eradicate to greatly control and diminish the harm caused by the coronavirus infections and also to prevent or limit the possible mutation which could be much more harmful than what it is now. the means exist. if they are not followed there will be more suffering, more pain, more deaths, more crushing of hospitals. hospitals have literally had to suspend normal operations just because of the overflow of

largely- unvaccinated patients filling up the covid ward's. in a minor way i've experienced that myself. i think it's a major problem. there is more to say about this. it's critically important to get vaccinationdv advanced in the large regions of the world which have not had access and only limited access. the rich countries, europe and the united states in the early part in intending to monopolize the vaccines for themselves and

the european record is than the u.s. record and that's why the administration has taken some steps to try to t break through the monopolization, large part of which incidentally goes back to the world trade organization as i mentioned earlier. these are free-trade agreements that are not free trade. they provide extreme protectionist measures to ensure very high profits for pharmaceutical corporations or megamedia corporations are what are called intellectual property rights were zero patent rights which allowed them to way overcharge and make extraordinary profits and in the case of the pharmaceutical industries much of the research

and development is done at public expense and part of the moderna vaccine. but the rules of the mislabeled free-trade agreements allow them to have basically monopoly pricing and the germans have been evenct more adamant in partaking in this and we have but the effect has been to deprive large parts of the world of the vaccines that they need. this is a threat to us as well not just to them. it means again a large pool of van -- unvaccinated people which provide the virus opportunities tos mutate and nobody knows what that experience might be which has so far been kind of lucky that the variants that have

appeared over the years have either been highly lethal but not very contagious and highly contagious but not very lethal like omicron. we can't guarantee that will continue. and going back to what i said before the question is what can we do. what we can do is apply the means that are available intense vaccination and protect its spaces for people who want to be safe from infection and with distancing and masks and many mechanisms that can be used to reduce the spread of infection and to ameliorate the crisis and

largely overcome it, although we have to pursue these measures. florida's unturned -- under desantis has a record of this. >> host: jim in california and jim muir on with noam chomsky. >> caller: thank you for taking my call and professor it's a great honor to talk to you. my question is basically the internet and your thoughts on it. it has not been that long since he came into being, the last 20 or 25 years and since it's taken over the world so thank you very much. >> host: professor? >> guest: i didn't quite catch it, i'm sorry. >> host: the impact of the internet over the last 20 to 25 years. >> guest: the impact of the internet? quitete a story. i was actually present at the origin of what is now the internet in the 1950s.

i was at the research laboratory of electronics at m.i.t. which is where the early ideas were formulated. that became what was called -- that later turned into the internet.. interestingp to remember when e internet was overwhelmingly computers developed on public funding. it was largely publicly created achievement. later it was privatized for-profit but that was many years later. the internet has now become a major from him on a -- phenomenon that has mixed consequences. the internet does allow us to

discover things that we otherwise would not have found. it offers tremendous access to information. for years i have worked on, many years, 50 years, and in fact the article you mention, working on how the media operate as a kind of combination of an information and indoctrination system, combination of both. used to have you used to have to go to the library and look up on microfilm machines to try to find out what was in "the new york times". now i can do it by clicking a button. you can find things that you never would have found and desai

"before the crucially important document in september of 2021 the u.s. government policy statement. you can find that on the internet and you aren't going to find it in thee media. even if you went to libraries it would be gone. now you can pick it up from the white house official page on the internet. it's a tremendous source of potential information and i stress potential. it matters how you use it and unfortunately it's i often usedo limit understanding and to restrict information. there's a natural tendency to understand it impartially share

it turning towards internet sites which reinforce your own positions. i know i'm going to get the kinds of things so i will turn to that. that tents to create bubbles, bubbles of reinforcing doctrines and ideas where people become because they are hearing and being reinforced by what they want to hear. it's a very widespread phenomenon and i think we are all familiar with it and it's's quite dangerous. it's undermining the possibilities of interchange and interaction across society which were our crew requisite for a

functioning democratic society based on an informed electorate aware of the views of others understanding the views of others and that's the basis of a healthy society. that's pretty much what it was like during the exciting period. during the 1960s it was true over a wide range at the time of mostly younger folks. i was in my 40s at the time so i was one of the old folks but e the internet could be a mechanism of liberation and enlightenment it can also be an instrument of control,

indoctrination and divisiveness and thee breakdown of social order. it has all the potential. it's takingmm a hammer. a hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or whether the torture he uses it to hit somebody school.e the law technology is like that. the internet is an example and an enormous force for enlightenment, liberation mutual aid and mutual understanding that wee have to make that decision. the internet is not going to make it for us. >> host: john is calling in from el paso, texas. these go ahead john, you were on

booktv. >> i was going to ask at if the united nations could solve the problems in yemen and afghanistan and ukraine but not really concerned with whether or not you think the economicn sanctions are an act of war? plus could did you catch that are festered? >> guest: is worth remembering that sanctions, if sanctions are carried out by the united nations they are legal. we can ask whether they are advisable but they are at least legal. most of the sanctions are carried out by the united states. more than half the worlds population is now under one or another form of u.s. sanctions.

and there is no legal authority. it's using sanctions to punish people,, sometimes with some justification and maybe sometimes not that we do not want a world or at least i don't want a world in which one power which happens to have enormous force behind it is capable of deciding who gets sanctions. it's not a livable world. sometimes the sanctions are grotesque like cuba. for 60 years cuba has been under direct attack by the united states. began with the kennedy administration. kennedy carried out a major terrorist war against cuba not

much discussed but it was real and serious and part of what led to the missilee crisis. harsh sanctions were imposed and they continued when russian support was withdrawn in cuba faced serious problems because the was the limited support it was getting under the u.s. sanctions regime. at that moment bill clinton outflank the republicans on the right. increasing the sanctions and increasing the torture and then came the -- and made it even. u.s. sanctions were called third-party sanctions. others have to adhere to u.s. sanctions even if they have opposed them.

in the case of cuba dramatically the whole world opposes them. take a look at the annual votes in the united nations on cuba sanctions. they are condemned every year. by now they are condemned. last vote was 184-2, two were the united statesni and israel which has to follow u.s. orders.s and it doesn't even observe the sanctions. why do other countries observe u.s. sanctions even though they oppose them? because they are afraid of the united states. it's a frightening country. europe opposes the sanctions. it opposes the iran sanctions

vigorously but it has to go along. you't can't step up to the unitd united states. its dangers and in fact the united states has the capacity to throw countries out of the international financial system which mostly runs the new york. nobody is willing to face it so countries can't provide medical equipment and they can't sell something that uses something imported from cuba. what is the reason for this? one of the good things about the united states is it's quite an open society, much more so than others. we have a lot of information about what our governmentr is doing. it's not perfect but a lot of

material gets declassified, unlike other countries. so we can look back to the records of the kennedy and johnson administrations in the 1960s and ask why the torture of cuba and it is torture. well, the reason is and i'm quoting, successful defiance of u.s. policies going back to the 1820s is the monroe doctrine which established the u.s. right to dominate the hemisphere. they turned the hemisphere into a sphere of influence has its call for the united states. back in 1820s the 1820s the united states wasn't powerful enough to implement it and it wash much more powerful in impeding the u.s.. over timeov as predicted by u.s.

leaders john quincy adams of british power waned as the american government increased on the view us as able to impose that the doctrine. cuba was acting in successful appliance of the dominate the hemisphere and to determine what happens here. make them suffer bitterly and brutally and europe joins in and the whole world joins and it is they are afraid of the united states. the same with the sanctions on iran. there was an agreement, jcpoa the joint agreement signed under the obama administration in 2015. iran but thatt too it leaking

u.s. intelligence confirmed iran completely lived up to the agreement. itit sharply limited iran's capacity to develop nuclear systems whether they intended to develop nuclear weapons we don't no, maybe they were. president trump dismantled it and tore it to shreds. security council had ordered that all countries maintained the jcpoa and trump decided i don't like it and i'm going to tear it apart. and then he punished iran for the u.s. violation of security council orders by imposing harsh sanctions on iran. europe bitterly opposed them

that they have to conform for the reasons i mentioned. that is now maintained by the biden administration. there was a chance that we might be able to restore the agreement. we can look to the rest of the world. sanctions there are any sanctions and you can debate whether they are right or wrong. at least they are legitimate. the u.s. sanctions have no legitimacy nor those of other countries if other countries were capable of imposing them to a limited extent. we should look into them closely. there are some of which we have

extensive evidence that they want to learn to take the clinton administration, clinton blair u.s. uk sanctions on iraq in the 1990s. very harsh sanctions that were administered through the u.n. but they were basically u.s. sanctions. there were distinguished international d diplomats who administered the sanctions. the first was an irish diplomat dennis holliday. he resigned in protest because he said the sanctions were genocidal. he said they are bitterly harming iraqi civilians and hundreds of thousands of children are dying and economies are being destroyed.

the population is suffering and has to shelter under the umbrella of the brutal government and strengthening the tyrant, arming the population to the point where it's genocidal so he resigned. it was replaced by another distinguished international diplomat. he had researchers all over the country observing what was happening. he resigned in protest because as he put it the sanctions are genocidal. he reiterated and strengthened what dennis halliday had said

also published an important book of a different kind of war in which he described in detail the brutality and sadism of the u.s. british sanctions and what they were doing to the population while they were strengthening the title. we are not a fascist country so the book isn't technically banned. try to find it. i don't think there's a single one in the united states or britain. it's their and worth reading. you can find out in detail what sanctions are like when they are applied in a brutal andnd manne. and you can't prove it but it suggests in the believe there's some plausibility to this that the sanctions may -- saved from

being overthrown from within. that happened to a lot of tyrants, brutal u.s.-backed tyrants and the philippines and in haiti and romania, the of the gangsters in the soviet system and very strongly supported by the united states until virtually the day of the soviet soviet -- one after another they were toppled by internal revolts. the same thing happened in south korea. possibly it could have happened in iraq but not under the conditions of the sanctions. we so punished the population and the moralize them and force

them to shelter under the umbrella and there was no possibility to overthrow the government. that's one case of sanctions where we can learn a great deal. the book is very detailed and destructive. we can only learn it if we try. if we just want to accept the indoctrination, okay that then it doesn't matter that it's a free country. there are other cases you can look at the usual discussion of sanctions is do they achieve their ends so a discussion and there's a lot of criticism of the iran sanctions, public criticism in the united states because they didn't work. they didn't force iran to accept

u.s. demands. it's not the right question. the right question is what right does the united states have two destroy the agreement in violation of the security council orders to punish iran because we destroyed the agreement. thaten is the question that shod be asked. what right do we have to compel others to adhere to our decision to punish iranians through the agreement. those are the questions weth cod be asking and similar questions can be asked in another case. cuba is ther obvious one. venezuela and others. remember u.s. sanctions or so widespread t that they reach ovr half the worlds population. before in the early part of this discussion i quoted chas freeman

in one of the most highly-regarded members of the h u.s. diplomatic corps. he also in the same interview i described goes into illegality and the cruelty of the sanctions. let's go in and professor chomsky's book who rules the world there is a chapter entitled -- we have five minutes left with our guest. in albuquerque, go ahead. stay i think you. the one issue that weighs heavily on my mind is immigration and i think it's only going to get because of thc climate and global warming. i don't know there's anything we can do to make it better. i don't know if we should turn these people away in their

desperate situation. and i don't know if you agree that it's going to get because it's global warming and what we can do. thank you. >> thank you maam. >> guest: i'm not sure i got it completely. could you repeat the essence? >> host: she's concerned about the climate and if it's going to get because of climate change? one thing we might do is look at the u.s. record on immigration. the u.s. is in an unusual position. has extraordinary advantages very lowow population density, enormous resources, huge empty spaces. so what is our history on immigration? up until the 20th century

immigrants were welcomed from europe. why? it's not a pretty story. we were wiping out in exterminating the indigenous populationsla. the country was being opened up for settlement with lots of faces to come in and settle it. in 1920 the orientals were blocked. it was the oriental exclusion act of 1882 and in 1924 the u.s. imposed its first strict immigration restriction. the words were not used. in effect it was aimed at italians and people. that's the effect in the design of the immigration actf of 192. many people ended up in

extermination camps and it happens to include the remnants of my extended family and that's not the least of it. this law stayed until 1965. other arrangements were made which arert worth discussing. we have no time for it. today the u.s. has -- in europe is even. europe isre even more brutal wih immigration policies than the united states. europe has centuries devastatingg in destroying africa. it's now working hard to ensure that people trying to escape the wreckage of the european savagery can make it to the european shores. europe even has military installations in central africa

nagy are to try to pretend -- prevent miserable refugees from making the mediterranean where they might enter european shores so if you want to feel good about that europe is even. their policies are harangued as people who are fleeing from the destruction of their societies by u.s. terror under reagan in the 1980s. murderous terror operations killed hundreds of thousands of people. s hundreds of thousands of refugees and orphans. much of it has extended and people are trying to escape and in the honduras there was a military coup in 2009 condemned by the almost the entireli

continent except obama and hillary clinton who basically supported it turning the honduras into more of a -- somewhat of a bend and we have now turneded them back at the border or separated parents from children at the border under trump. it's the pope, pope francis appropriately said the refugee crisis is not a refugee crisis, it's a moral crisis of the wealthy and of o the rich. and it's going to get much more extreme. we are now intensifying the threat of danger of global warming whichwh will be devastating and it will lead to huge blight. countries like bangladesh are

going to become unlivable. most of south asia is literally going to become virtually unlivable and large parts of africa. what are the people going to do? they will have to flee. hundreds of millions of people will need to flee. it's notot so great here either. in arizona were a live there's a long drought that may have very severe consequences in the poor countries of the world are going to be shattered by this. there'll be enormous immigration problems. did way to deal with it is to stop our assault on the environment. we are just destroying the environment which can't sustain life on earth. we must start immediately

following the strong advice of the scientific community ipcc that we cut back fossil fuels right away and a certain percentage every year right away and the use of fossil fuels owithin a couple of decades. we are finished. the p scope or fester chomsky we have that ended up and i want to close with this quick text message to you. yo speak and in have spoken for decades withth conscience throughout their remarks and writings in the manner. professor chomsky has two new books coming out this year. one is chomsky and new world in our hearts -- both coming out this year. noam chomsky has been our guest for the past two hours on "in depth."

>> there was a great advance to know what it was like to an education is such an important issue both for a governor but also for the president. that was very helpful to me. >> i'm very much the kind of person who believes that you should say what you mean a a new ac and take the consequences. thanks c-span's on line video library will feature first ladies in the lady bird johnson betty ford rosalynn carter nancy reagan hillary clinton laura bush michelle obama and melania trump. watch first ladies in their own words saturdays at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2 or listen to the

series in the podcast on the c-span now free mobile app wherever you get your podcasts.