and our politicians have to do the same thing and so do the people in the media. we must not -- [ applause ] i think it's appalling that we have people on television regularly every day reporting the nation's events and the world's events who, one, can't really properly use the english language -- [ applause ] >> -- and who, two, don't seem to ever read books. [ applause ] it is not coincidental in my view that the strongest, most admirable presidents we've had have all been students of history. many of them have been the

authors of history. when george marshall was first appointed secretary of the state by harry truman, he was asked in a press conference, did you have a good education at vmi, virginia military institute? he said, no, i didn't. they said why not, sir? he said, because they taught no history. a leader has to know history. so we've got to have leaders in the media, leaders in the press, leaders in institutions such as this who take this cause to heart and do something about it. there's nothing wrong with the younger generation. the younger generation is terrific. and any problems they have, any failings they have in what they know and don't know and how they use the english language is not

their fault, it's our fault, and we've got to hold the media responsible. this turning of our political life and our -- and the future of the world into a sports event where it's all about who is ahead and what the polls are and the questions they ask at these so-called debates, inane. it's as if they're playing down the lowest common denominator, and we've got to demand more of them. [ applause ] >> all right. we have two people at the microphone. in fact, we have three. please go ahead with your question. >> first, mr. mccullough, i would like to thank you. i'm a public school elementary teacher here in the state of oklahoma. so thank you for your kind words about what we do in the classroom. i would like to pick your minds

of this esteemed panel, i teach in this state american history in the fifth grade, however, my class, my test does not count that we are not reading or mathematics, however, i fully believe that i am the one that is helping to prepare my students to be citizens and to eventually take care of me. so what are your -- what are your thoughts on what i should do as a professional and what i should do to help make the constitution count in oklahoma? >> peter. [ applause ] >> pete. >> me? this is how to make the constitution compelling for your students? >> no, that i can do. >> oh, okay.

all right. good. [ applause ] >> how do i encourage the powers to be in the state of oklahoma that american history in the elementary level should be counted? >> oh. >> does that clarify my question because this is directly off the top of my head. i'm sorry. >> yeah. so how can we persuade the powers that be that what you're doing has civic significance and therefore should count? >> yes. >> yeah. legislators in the house right now? that's a wonderful, difficult -- david is choamping at the bit t answer it. >> this is a follow-up to david's point about the media. could we generate some media of our own? could, for example, in the state of oklahoma this institution

find a way to recognize and to broadcast the successes that are happening in the classroom? to reward the teachers and the students by that kind of attention partly to educate our other leaders? and also to -- up to encourage a sense of the possibilities of things that really are working in the classroom. >> if i understand your question correctly, one of the problems is that ash and this is everywhere, that because of the emphasis on reading and math they have pretty much not just pushed history to the back burner, they put it off the stove. >> yes. [ applause ] >> but i think there's a very good solution to that, and that is, fine, stress math and reading. could we please, when we think about reading something worthwhile, read the literature of history. >> certainly.

yes. >> read lincoln's second inaugural address. read the letters from a birmingham jail. read the great passages from the classic history that's been written about the country, whether it's something that was written last month or something that was written 100 years ago. and let them discover not just the poll of history but, again, how these people and those moments can come back to life if they convey with a powerful use of our language. and the -- i couldn't agree more about it has to be done early. if you want to get a child interested in the founding fathers, have them read a book called "ben and me" by robert frost. >> we do. >> do you know him? it's about a mouse who lived in ben franklin's attic. >> good, good.

>> i encountered him my first revisionist story when i was 6, and he said that all of ben's great ideas were wonderful, but they weren't ben's, they were his, amos'. >> right, right. >> it's very well researched and it's superbly written. i have used it with my own children, with my own grandchildren. it always works. >> all right. >> these things work generation after generation. always get them to read above their level, and never ask them to read truck, junk. boring, tedious history and forget about memorizing dates. that's what books are for. you can look them up. >> all right. thank you. [ applause ] thank you. pete. >> i do have something i'd like to say in response to this, and is that some of my most satisfying teaching is with teachers in teach american history programs and guilder lerman programs.

and the bad news is that all of these programs, the tah is out and guilder lerman is in trouble. it is that we are too heavily taxed. that's what it comes down to. i don't mean to be offensive. i know it's oklahoma. if you want to invest in the future, that's what it means. this doesn't come for nothing. [ applause ] >> howdy, guys. thank you very much for coming to our great university. thank you very much, diane, for moderating the discussion so beautifully. my question deals with the world. our constitution is our document, but people in every country in the world look at it and look to it. what are the differences in the challenges, the importance, the opportunities of teaching the constitution at peking university or university of cairo or in seoul, south korea

versus teaching it here in our country? and is it even important to do so and if any of you have experience doing so, what were the challenges and what were the surprises that you had? >> i'll take a shot at your question. it's a very interesting question. there's been a recent article suggesting that the american constitution has lost some of its influence abroad. and there's no doubt in the basic structure of our government, that is, the separation of powers versus the parliamentary system, the british system, that our system has not been copied as much as the british system. but it is extraordinary to look around and see how much our constitution has influenced the world. first of all, just the whole idea of a constitution. when you think about a constitution now, it's a written document. if iraq is going to have a constitution, if afghanistan is going to have a constitution, it's going to be a written document. that was our influence. if -- one thing we haven't mentioned, which has been very

influential, is the idea of an independent judiciary. other states, including great britain, you know, britain just created a supreme court. they finally lifted a few of the house of -- members of the house of lords out of the house of lords and said, "you're going to be our supreme court." and that's just been in the last two years. so -- and a bill of rights? other states in europe have adopted bills of rights. independent judiciary, ratification, the whole idea of referendums, these are all things that came out of american experience. so even though our separation of powers, that is to say, we do not allow members of the ministry, the cabinet to simultaneously hold office in the legislature, which is exactly what the british mandate, that system of separation of powers has not been copied.

in all other respects, we've been very, very influential around the world. >> gordon, i'm very glad to hear you say that, because i said something in a very similar -- in a blog post on the national constitution center website in response to a very interesting article in "the new york times" by adam liptak in which he suggested that the rest of the world was not really following the american model, and i said really the headline is, the rest of the world is becoming democratic and american and with a bill of rights and judicial review. and those are the very -- and then the other things are smaller issues of institutional detail and the presidential iist model of a separate president has worked particularly poorly in south america -- in south america. it's led to a sense of gridlock. the legislature is controlled by

one group. the presidency by a different party. there's a perception that things don't get done, presidents get frustrated and so then they start to just govern by executive decree, unilateralism. this has led in south america to coups. you see some possible pathologies in the united states with divided governments, presidents tempted to do all sorts of things by executive order. so there is a very interesting question about -- and this is -- it's not just true of the u.s. constitution. it's true of 50 state constitutions. where governors are elected independently of state legislatures, where the legislature might be controlled by a different party than the governor. and it is a very interesting question, whether that's the better model. it is the american model. >> there is another dimension of american constitutionalism which seems increasingly relevant, and that is federalism. we have a deeply conflicted feeling about our own federal

history, but the fact is that europe is on the verge of failure. the eurozone is going to fall apart, which could have global implications of a disastrous order. and that what they can't do is what's built into our system, a system of burden-sharing and of transfer of payments. i mean, we can handle things that the world will need to handle on an increasingly large scale. >> but isn't there another issue there? i heard governor jerry brown of california say the other day that if the legislature won't the people. and the people can't create a referendum and decide that way. it is truly taking the government or the governing of that state to the people.

how does that fit into the larger picture? >> i think this kind of direct democracy is probably a little dangerous. and our representative system has worked very well, but there are increasing uses of this kind of -- well, it came out of the progressive era, which itself was a period in which politics seemed to be dead, bosses were in control and i think it's very similar to our own time that the gross inequalities of wealth were enormous. and i think a lot of reforms were passed that led to the use of ballot initiatives and referendums. i think we don't really want to go down that path. i know colorado is really suffering from this. they're all over the place. they're having referendums to repeal previous referendums, and

it becomes a very dangerous situation. you know, there is the possibility technically with half a century or maybe shorter where we as a people directly could vote on the budget. you could say every april 15th the people will have internet connection and will decide yes or no on the budget. this kind of direct democracy is possible. whether it's the best way to run a democracy with 300 plus million is, i think, problematic. >> i think we have time for one last question. sir? >> hello, everybody. >> hello. >> sorry for the -- >> i hope you're all right. >> sorry for the interruption, the distraction on the fall. i was a teenager when the franklin roosevelt's new deal got started.

and right early on, a bunch of new deal legislation -- >> please stay close. >> -- got slammed down by the supreme court, and franklin roosevelt's solution was to pack the court. let's get some more people on the court, and then we'll get the majority in favor of the new deal. and another challenge is the warren court and more recently the united citizens where corporations know limits on campaign contributions so that the super pacs now sometimes outpace the regular campaign money.

and my point is that if i were teaching the constitution, i would think it very important historically to come against and explain and discuss those points where the constitution was really challenged. and part of that would be the drama to getting a new amendment. and so i just think -- i think the students would get excited about the challenges. >> all right, all right. thank you. akhil. >> so i liked rosie's suggestion that we could -- rose marie's suggestion that we could ask

students what they think about a constitutional convention. i've gone around to classrooms as young as first graders, and one question i've asked them is a jefferson-like question, what amendment. what do you think should be in the constitution that isn't or is -- forget even a constitutional convention across the board, and i've got to tell you that i learned some amazing things from first graders. i remember once i went, and i said, what would you put in the constitution? and one first grader said, no drugs. >> no what? >> no drugs. and so i thought about that, and i said that's a very good idea. drugs are very bad, and your life is going to be a lot better. then i thought, you know, we did have this with prohibition, and it didn't work so well.

and honestly that was the first time in my life i began to think maybe it's possible this war on drugs, you know, won't end so well. and i'm not taking a strong position on that. i'm saying asking kids, young people something like, what should -- what do you -- a lot of them said e.r.a., and we talked about that. these are first graders and third graders and fifth graders. >> any other comment? >> i'd just like to add something off this topic about resources for studying the constitution. some of you may know about the documentary history of the ratification of the constitution, which is a wonderful documentary project being done at madison, wisconsin. and the documentary edition is now available online with other papers of the founders so that those -- we've

had these wonderful editorial editions that nobody has ever looked at. they're now available, and they're getting wonderful use. for advanced high school and college students, you can now look at the ratification debates. you can do word searches. you can read them, and they're not just available at university libraries. they're available -- now the strip down edition thanks to a mellon grant is available universally and the documentary with all the documentary materials, you can get it through libraries such as ou's library that have rights to do so. but it's a wonderful and democratic move in terms of information availability and accessibility. it's going to be very empowering for future generations of students, and i hope for a future generations of legislators reflecting on our history. >> could i just add to that? because this documentary collection which is now

about -- almost 25 volumes of debates over democracies and also the issues of liberty, representation, federalism, all of these issues are debated, and it's the greatest collection of debates on these issues of democracy in the history of the world. now, it may be that fifth century greeks had a richer debate, but we don't know about it. and maybe 17th century england had a rich debate -- we only know a fragment of what went on. here we have 25 volumes of people, ordinary people in these ratification conventions debating these fundamental issues of how much government should we have? how much liberty? how much freedom? how much representation? what does representation mean? all of these basic issues. and it's all now, as peter says, available online. it's an extraordinary collection and i must say, much neglected by political theorists and h

historians. >> well, thank all of you so much. [ applause ] next a look at our visit to little rock, arkansas, a look at its history and literary culture. you're watching american history television on c-span 3. douglas macarthur, you're actually -- we're filming in the birthplace of douglas macarthur in little rock, arkansas. his father, arthur was in the u.s. military following his service in the civil war and

actually came to little rock, arkansas, in 1959 and spent about 18 months here serving at the arsenal that existed on the site where our building is located. he brought with him to little rock his wife and two sons and actually lived in this building that we're in. and one of the apartments that was contained in this structure. he spent his first six months in this building. six months after his birth his father was transferred outside of arkansas and he only came back one time in his life in 1952 when he was 72 years of age. during that return visit in 1952 here on these grounds for the first time publicly, he acknowledged in a speech to 2,000 people that he was returning to the place of his birth and for us that's a very significant part of our history, of our building's history and

embrace his connection and proudly include him in the name of our museum. 1952 was a very pivotal point in macarthur's career. in fact, that brings us to this room that we're standing in right now. in april of 1951 that spanned three worldwide conflicts, world war i, ii and korea he was abruptly relieved of command by president harry s. truman. i think it's important for to us consider that the contrary conflict occurred five years after the end of world war ii and that was a conflict that had spanned all over our globe millions of people had died lives had been uprooted then here we were five years later getting into another conflict for americans. it was in a country that most people in america had no idea where it was and the united nations forces were led by

general macarthur and he disagreed with the way that the war was conducted and made his disagreement, made his disagreements with the president public and because of that, president truman decided that he needed to relieve him of command and bring him home. >> it is of deepest regret that i have to take this action. the cause of world peace is much more important than any individual. >> at the time macarthur was held as a hero. he returned to this country after very lengthy absence and was roundly received by parades on the west coast and on the east coast he addressed a joint session of congress. >> mr. president, mr. speaker

and distinguished members of the congress, i stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humanity and great pride. >> as i said he was welcomed as a hero. it transcends even the korean war, of civilian war, of the issue of communism and why we were fighting in korea and an overlooked issue, the issue of the conduct of a limited war versus the conduct of a total war which i think really is the crux of what macarthur's dilemma was in fighting the korean conflict. if you look at the way wars had been fought from world war ii prior to that time, the basic philosophy was this, the politicians get us into a war

and send the military figures in to fight, the objective, destroy your enemy and then the politicians negotiate peace and then you try to return to normal. that's what happened in most of the wars up through the end of world war ii, but the advent of nuclearly weaponry changed the way warfare could be conducted. if you went into a conflict with the goal of totally annihilating your enemy with the use of nuclear bombs, you would not only destroy them, but you could also destroy yourself and our entire population so the idea -- the way that wars had traditionally been fought was changing, was evolving, and for someone like macarthur who in 1950, he was 70 years old and you have to understand that macarthur had been training in military tactics of west point back in the early 1900s. and the tactics that he had been trained on how to fight a war

worked in world war i, world war ii but in korea he was having to work under constraints that went totally against how he was trained but yet the realities of conducting a limited war dictating you could not totally go and throw everything you had, your arsenal of weapons at your enemy. you have to credit him for believing in his principles to the point that he was willing to sacrifice his military career for those principles. he had been taught all his life from his father being a military man to his military service that you obeyed your commander in chief and here he was going public with his disagreements with his commander in chief and many would feel that he did so because he felt like he was -- his point was so right that he was willing to sacrifice his career, which he ultimately did. truman fired him, brought him home and the war continued on until its conclusion a few years later. now, we today have the benefit

of hindsight and there are people today who would argue that macarthur had been allowed to pursue the as aggressive astley as he wished, to go on and invade china, that we would not be seeing the geopolitical influences that are there today between north and south korea, but you have to remember at the time that all this was occurring, you know, five years after the end of world war ii and was this country -- was the world ready to go into another potentially worldwide conflict over north and south korea? >> since i took the oath on the plane at west point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but i still remember the refrain of one of the most popular bar rack ballads of