>> certainly -- i don't know. he was nefs the mode of the progressive presidents. they have evolved considerably since that time. i wonder, what dou you think yor grandfather, david, and your father, julie, would think of the current crops of gop candidates for presidents. that's what you call a loaded question. >> but aren't they amazing in the sense that think of the pressure they're under with the debates. they can still get out there and answer complicated questions week after week. we've never put candidates through this before. it's gruelling. right.

no, yes. no. yes. not all of them. [ laughter ] [ applause ] no, they all well intentioned. no i really don't -- here's what i -- no seriously -- i really believe this. i really think politicians are to be admired for the most part because you don't run unless you really believe in things and you're willing to put something on the line. and you have to admire that. it takes courage. >> sure. >> eni'll say something that we're all picking up on partisan divisions. and we're picking up on kind of a tone or a frantic quality and so forth at least in the early phase of the campaign. one thing that is different about politics today thean some years ago, and it's something we have to think about is the

parties are very evenly balanced. one reason that dwight eisenhower and lyndon johnson and richard nixon and lyndon johnson and all these people were able to collaborate if a way is because you had an undisputed majority party in the 1950s and 1960s. you had an undisputed majority party. therefore there's an incentive for the minority party to find common ground. often the leader had to reach out for minority support as he did in passing the civil rights act in 1964. i think he got three quarters of the republican house supported a bill that divided the democratic caucus 50/50. because ov the unwielding size of the national majority. i think the incentives right now in our national politics we're going through a phase where the incentives are not to reach across the aisle, but to

mobilize your own people, bring your own people to the polls. we don't have answer for that except for i think the american people over the last number of elections have really not rendered a clear cut decision in the way so many of our elections were decided back then. if you look at eisenhower in '52, this is a decisive victory. '56 is a landslide. '60 is narrow. '68, narrow. '72, huge landslide. in other words. we had decisive elections by comparison with the ones that we've had since '84 or '88. '92 buzz close. '96, relatively close. 2004 very close for an incumbent president. 2008, an apparent majority, but immediately taken back by the republicans.

americans haven't quite resolved the exclaims yet. that's what is going to happen this year. both became elder statesmen in their recent years. what council would they give them today given the state of the party? the other is something happens when you resume responsibility for the direction of the great country. we've all had an experience where it actually occurred to us walking into the white house that people are a great nation really relying on the judgment

of the administration assembling washington to do this. that's the direction i think this campaign is going to take. i've noticed in the debates that in substance the republicans are talking about far more, many more interesting ideas are on the table now than were there five to six months ago. this process has brought forth ideas. i think it's brought forth much more constructive approach to ideas. we're discussing things now that was an id logical manner five or six months ago. i think this election is rounding into form. i think we'll have a great debate. >> i also think they really want to see more bipartisanship. just presidents trying to put

people of the other party perhaps in positions of power as happened in the past or working together as the democrats and republicans did in the '50s and '60s more. sure we want to be stand on our principles, but it's a little disturbing when republican party or the democrats go just down party lines. no one is allowed to veer off. most people i talked to, the ones who want to fall into line just want to get the sense that we have a lot of difficult problems out there. so let's have some more creative ways to do it. that suggests moderation as well.

do you two have a favorite candidate in this race? >> not really, no. i really mean it when i say i'm impressed by the knowledge of these. >> every election we've ever had has always been the most important to date. but there is a special feeling about this election. and i think we're all riveted. we're finding ways to discuss the future direction of the country in an interesting way. and i think what we're looking for is some kind of verdict to allow us to understand what year we're living in now. i think that when that happens, and that did happen during the new deal.

it accounts for much of our statesmanship in that period. i think that we understood the direction that our country was going in. we had a sense for the relationship between the federal government and the private sector. and for america's responsibilities in the world. we had a consensus in this period, and the consensus is something that grew out of the party. we need it now. >> well, we have some questions from the audience.

and we have one questions that asks if david, you would care to speculate about how your grandfather, president eisenhower, what he would think about vast sums of money and politics today. >> well, i think i would be, geez, it's difficult. we haven't resolved the issue. political contributions were not well regulated in the area. we have to regulate expenditures and president's campaign awareness of that developed during the eisenhower years. i think it's difficult to imagine what an individual 40 or 50 years ago would try to make of the circumstances he's in now. i'll paraphrase a famous -- or i would say paraphrase what i live

by. and that's history is never a guide to the future. i don't think what he may have thought or done or said is in any way binding on america to date. but the fact that his leadership generation overcame the challenges of their time should give us confidence that we should overcome the challenges of our time. we're still a free nation that we were 50 years ago. we have an open process. ideas contained in the country and they all get a fair hearing. and we can all vote. and so we're going to work on them. >> perhaps one of the most famous speeches your grandfather made as president was his farewell address warning the american people about the power, the growing power of the military industrial complex.

how does that speech look to you from your perspective over the years? do you think he was misunderstood? do you think he didn't get it right? >> i think he was misunderstood. i think a lot of people thought he was suddenly challenging the direction of national government and in a basic way. in fact, what he was doing, and this is the beauty of presidential libraries, by the way, i send students to the library to study how they were crafted and put together. it tells an interesting story about the genesis of that idea. that's a speech that underwent about 40 drafts. this is one of the greatest speeches by a president.

i saw the drafts in the eisenhower library reflect the disappointment that the eisenhower white house felt about losing the narrow election in 1960. and so it's sort of kind of criticism of the incoming administration or staking out positions that will give the republicans hope and keep them alive as an opposition force. soon he gets to the president and more or less says you can't do that. your job is to make your successor's job easier. not harder. so the effort becomes something else. they become something to take back and qualify the. then finally the entire focus of the farewell shifts to no longer looking forward but now reflecting back on 50 years of

service. the united states addressing the riddle that they faced the leadership of that time. that su how can we develop as rapidly economically as we have? how can we reconcile this matchless technological progress that we have made with the horrors of the 20th century? with the depression, with world war i, with world war ii. is there something in contemporary life that places our processes beyond our control? are we losing the ability to govern ourselves and to guide our countries down the right path? this is a country throughout the 1930s. europe went politically insane in the 1930s. how do you account for this? and the answer that we see today.

there is no way of trying to instruct americans 25 or 30 years from now what policies they should adopt or how big a pentagon ought to be. the main thing is american democracy will always rely on the alert citizenry. that is people who care about national politics take a part in it. join in our national dialogue and our debate. i would say the internet is making that possible. there's a degree of participation now which is the highest i've seen. at least over the last 20 years, perhaps higher earlier. but i think that was the timeless lesson derived from the experience of the leadership generation. and i don't think it necessarily applies to anything. but it does mean, and i'll never forget in our government and our great institution, and i the he meant this is a military industrial complex.

this is a governmental, nongovernmental complex. in the final analysis, american citizens must never be diverted from the idea that these institutions serve us. they spring from the beliefs of the american people, and they're accountable to us. >> well, we have one time, one more question. and it's both of you. it's for the two of you from the audience here. do you have plans to write another book together. and tell us a little bit about what you're doing now. >> we are going to write another book together.

it's a phenomenal book. that book not only had the working title. not only has an outline, but it also exists in about 1300 pages. >> but anyway, in other words -- that's why i'm coeditor. but we enjoyed working together. it was really fun. we had a lot of laughs. >> yes. yes. we had a lot of laughs and -- >> we want the thank you for your hospitality. >> thank you for bringing us to the lyndon johnson library. i tell my students every semester and we have a program that sends people to libraries. >> this is a lively place. >> i am grateful to the staff here at the lyndon johnson library. i think it's a great research experience as people can have

the in the united states. this is a terrific institution. we feel close to it because we feel close to this era and the people who are part of it. and it's been a genuine pleasure to be received here tonight. thank you. [ applause ] >> you are old friends of this library, and you are very dear friends of this library. i want to thank you all for coming. i want to thank david and julie once again for coming. don, thank you so much. thank you. >> explaining the constitution and encouraging students to have an interest in america's founding can be difficult for many teachers. next, radio talk show host diane ream moderates a panel discussion on the issues and challenges surrounding the teaching of constitutional history. david mccullough join the panel

at this event from a day-long teach-in at america's founding at the university of oklahoma. this is a little over an hour. [ applause ] plan. >> you know, i think we should begin by thanking david boren for this extraordinary day. [ applause ] he simply picks up the phone and says to david mccullough, come out to the university of oklahoma, we need you to do this. -- any of these wonderful minds sitting here on the stage.

as david had said our focus is teaching the u.s. constitutional history in the 21st century. i love the story of having his 6-year-old learn the names of the presidents. we had our son do exactly the same thing. the great way to start. i also loved his idea of having each one of us go to wikipedia to look through the names of each of our presidents to learn one fact about each of those. i find myself thinking that we

are phased with a group of constitutional scholars who adore scholars who adore what they do and adore the constitution. all of its inclusions and everything that was left out from most of us. at least i speak for myself. growing up in high school if somebody mentioned learning about the constitution, it was a big yawn. we are now here in the 21st century where there is a great deal of talk about democracy and exporting the sense of freedom that this country developed over

these 225 years and here we are learning today from scholars. perhaps not know iing very much ourselves. i start with each of you, asking you, considering the fact that you are so excited about your topic. what has happened to the interest in learning about the constitution? where have we as adults and where have professors and teachers and somehow fallen down

on the job and how can we in the 21st century make it something exciting? i'm going to start with a person you have not idea heard from and will hear from this evening at dinner and that's david. >> thank you. very much. history is human. three words and i sincerely believe that that is the essence. teaching and understanding history. i also believe firmly that our teacher are the most important people in our society. they are doing the work. >> me too!

>> so i do not blame our teachers. i object to anything proposed or enacted or becomes acceptable socially that makes the difficulties of teaching greater still. we should be doing everything we can to support our teachers and to give them our appreciation. i think history and a love of history begins truly literally at home. i think if there is a problem with education in the country, it's with us. we who are fathers and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers. . >> if i were teaching a course

in high school in the constitution, i would begin by stressing the very presence of george washington that it was a major reason for why it succeeded and yet he said very little. you have to understand that. the constitution centered in philadelphia which was a huge undertaking. attendance is not good. they are really struggling and they made it a huge electronic game show affair. i don't think that's the way to do it. it's about people. you have to understand the human beings. i think that's true about teaching any aspect of american history or any history. >> i will pick up on that.

>> the humanity of the founders and identifying with what they did and the studies, one is they have been dominated by lawyers and i think they are going to agree. it also is something that we set aside when i was a boy and many. this was the stuff that was so boring. it's because it wasn't part of our history. we need to take it back into histor have their share of blame heres hav founding. i blame wood for that because his book was so great that nobody bothered to study the subject anymore. i think we have broken through

and there is actually a lively constitutional scholarship that hasn't made it to the schools yet. i picked up on something they said earlier. the first thing to say is everybody knows we live in an interconnected world now. we need to think about the constitution in its own time in a world context. what is happening geopolitically? war plains a lot. he talks about 1776, a state of war that moment of origins. i think we need to and a way they are related to their world. it's something that they can do and takes the generations for them to trickle down.

>> a new way of thinking about the founders and the challengers they face abroad and at home. the reality of war and the american revolution is a 50-year period of war in the world. that's what frames everything from 1775 through 1815. the civil war is another episode. i think you can make it compelling. we began in war and it's in this context that we can begin to recover. what the human beings did, they are great achievements and great failures. >> i will turn to the director of the institute for american constitutional teritage. me your approach.

>> one of the exciting things about peaching college is you are teaching adults. you are not just teaching them facts and memorize when an amendment was ratified. you are teaching them to be citizens. you can not only achieve greater results, but excite them and engage them into their lives and citizens. that means creating debate in ways that make them realize that they impact religious freedom or privacy. these are issues with a history and history matter when is it comes to the constitution and history in a way that profoundly

shape the world they live in. giving them a chance not only to recognize that and make it come alive and ask them to develop their voice. it isn't just lecturing at them, but develop as citizens in the classroom and take it out of the classroom. >> do you begin by showing them what was left out? >> them. there so many from my -- >> can you old that microphone. >> from a my 6-year-old to under graduates, there is different audiences when they get out to meet ordinary folks. here's the multiprong approach. it's very auto bigraph cal. my parents when i was a young