[ laughter ] >> no, yes. no. yes. not all of them. [ laughter ] [ applause ] no, they are 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. >> i'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 than 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 john kennedy 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. the majority was so unwieldy that 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 unwieldy 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 that 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. lyndon johnson, '64 huge landslide. '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 was 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 competing claims yet. that's what is going to happen this year. >> both your father and grandfather became elder statesmen in their winter years. what council would they give members of the gop today given the state of the party? >> be prepared to govern. i think this is -- this is the thing. it's one thing to run for office on a certain basis. the other is something happens when you assume responsibility for the direction of the great country. we've all experienced this. it has actually occurred to us walking into the white house that people are a great nation really relying on the judgment

of the administration of the people 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 in detail now that was an ideological matter 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 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. i don't know. it's almost like right think. 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. we have to solve them together. so let's have some more creative ways to do it. [ applause ] >> that suggests moderation as well.

i wonder do you two have a favorite candidate in this race? [ laughter ] >> not really, no. i really mean it when i say i'm impressed by the knowledge of these candidates in these debates. and i'm just wishing them well and -- >> every election we've ever had has always been the most important to date. but i think there is a special feeling about this election. and i think we're all riveted. we're discussing. 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. the democratic party winning in '32 and '33 for better or worse. that consensus has broken down. we'll forge one. we need it now and we'll forge it. >> 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 the vast sums of money in politics today. >> well, i think i would be, gees, it's difficult. we haven't resolved the issue. political contributions were not well regulated in that era. as far as i know. the idea that we have to regulate expenditures in 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 a maxim of what i live by. and that's history is never a guide to the future. but history gives us confidence in the future. i don't think what dwight eisenhower may have thought or done or said is in anyway 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. the eisenhower speech tells a very interesting story about the genesis of that idea. that's a speech that underwent about 40 drafts. this is one of the most intricate planned speeches by a president and one of the greatest. i think one of the first 13 or

14 drafts, and i saw these drafts in the eisenhower library reflect the disappointment that the eisenhower white house felt about losing the narrow election of 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. people begin to take back and qualify this paragraph and that paragraph. then finally the entire focus of the eisenhower farewell shifts, no longer looking forward but now reflecting back on 50 years of service. the united states addressing the

great riddle that faced the leadership of that time. and that is how can the world grow as fast as we have since 1890. 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 politcal processes beyond our control? are we losing the ability to govern ourselves and to guide our country 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 in american politics 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 that 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 institutions, and i think 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. ultimately they are accountable to us. they answer from ideas that spring from the beliefs of the american people and their accountable to us. >> well, we have one time for one more question. and it's for 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. >> we got several, including

one, i promised harry several years ago. we're working on a book the year 1968. it's a phenomenal book. that book not only had the working title. not only has an outline, but it also exists in about 1,300 pages in draft. >> but anyway, in other words -- that's why i'm co-editor. but we enjoy working together. it was really fun. we had a lot of laughs. >> yes. yes. [ laughter ] we had a lot of laughs and -- >> we want to 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

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. next a look at our recent visit to little rock, arkansas, a look at the city's rich history and literary culture. you're watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend on c-span 3. the historic arkansas museum is located in downtown little

rock. the museum encompasses five antebellum houses situated on their original foundations. the houses are used to interpret 19th-century urban slaves and slave owners. >> this is the brownly house, built by robert brownly for his brother james and james' wife isabelle. they did have two slaves, one of them was named tabby. we don't know the name of the other slave. tabby is the slave spending her time caring for house to and the out buildings. where we are now is the bedroom. this is typical of a middle class bedroom. this is dated approximately 1848 to 1852. we know mrs. brownly did needle work, so we have placed items in here that she might have used working with yarn. mrs. brownly is isabelle brownly who married james when she was

about 14. she came here when she was about 16 years old. so she was a crowning bride. she was away from home. far, far away from home. and was home sick and very unhappy and a bit cyclic as well. so, robert brownly speaks of tabby her slave very briefly in his me moire. he says that isabelle took her passions out on tabby. we don't know exactly what that means except she was treated badly and robert brownly noticed it. we are walking through what would be the breezeway and in the summer this is the coolest part of the house. we open both doors, and most of the family's time would be spent out here. they might even take the dining table and bring it out here to have their meals. this is the parlor. this is where, if mrs. brownly had been inclined to do any entertaining this is where she would have done it.

isabelle brownly was taken from her home when she was so young, she came to arkansas when she was still a teenager and had not been married to james brownly for very long. they arrived in 1848, and they left in 1852. the house was sold in 1852. isabelle felt isolated here and she returned to scotland while her husband james went to california. so a few yards away from the brownly house is one of the out buildings. this is the brownly kitchen. this is where tabby would have had her own bedroom, and would have done most of her work for the brownly family. she was responsible for the laundry. she would have been responsible for cooking all of the meals. she would have tended the garden. and she likely was responsible for any work done in the

smokehouse as well. she was the only slave of the brownly family and so tabby would have been responsible for maintaining the household this is the work area of the kitchen. everything in here is actually reproduction although it is authentic. 1840s, 1850s furniture. a typical day for tabby might have been she gets up in the morning and begins cooking a morning meal. her cooking of the big meal of the day typically would be done by noon or 1:00, then in the afternoon, she would work on perhaps repairing clothing, making clothing, cleaning, things like that. generally, the cooking was done before the hot part of the day. ladies of the house typically worked alongside their slaves, depending on the work to be done. polishing of silver, often, the

cooking might be done right alongside the slaves. since tabby was the only slave, isabel probably worked alongside of her doing most of the tasks that needed to be done. the family was unusual. we were here, to keep the family, but that was not typical here. the talk of the town was that if you were a slave, you would want to be a slave of the ashley family. the ashley family gave their slaves a little more autonomy than some of the other slaves in town would have had. there were many more of them, so their duties were more specific. they were to come and go. not as they pleased, but as needed to take care of the things done in the household, which was true for tabby also. so, as you're cooking, your tasks might include going to the

market to buy more food, which would have been on an account by the family at the store. in general in towns had more autonomy than slaves did. so in that respect, the ashley family was not that unusual, but the ashley family was known to be kinder to their slaves than isabel likely was to tabby. this is tabby's bedroom area. this would have been pretty much her own space. this would have been somewhere to hang her laundry. this is her bed. it will fold up against the wall. she has her own fireplace that she probably would have kept most of the time.

and we do have, little boxes. there were a lot of slaves in the area who aspired to learn to read, especially after learning that the ashley slaves almost all of them, were literate. so tabby was probably one of the slaves who would have attended one of william wallace andrew's prayer meetings. he was a minister and would conduct prayer meetings at his home and during the course of those prayer meetings, he taught the attendees to actually read the words in the bible. i think tabby was probably one of those slaves who would have gone to one of those prayer meetings. i was very surprised by the autonomy the slaves were given. how they were not just permitted, but required to come and go. without constant permission from

the slave master. there were things they were expected to take care of during the and in the course of that, you were required to go to the market, to the river to meet a shipme shipment, you were expected to do that and you didn't have to have a pass to do so. as the slaves on plantations did. slaves on plantations had to have a pass to move from one to another even if they were going to go visit their families. slaves in urban areas were expected to come and go and were not required to have a pass to do so. i think people have a conception of slave lyry, but not so much f the individual people. what we tried to convey here is that the slave experience was as varied for the enslaved people as life would have been for free people. no two slaves had exactly the same experience. find out where cspan's local

content vehicles are going next online at cspan.org. you're watching american history tv all weekend, every weekend on cspan 3. explaining the constitution and encouraging students to have an interest in america's founding can be difficult for many teachers. next, diane rehm moderates a discussion. david mccullough and gordon wood join the panel of five others at this event from a day long teach-in on america's founding at the university of oklahoma. this is a little over an hour. >> you know, i think we should be begin by thanking david for this extraordinary day.

he simply picks up the phone and says to david mccullough, come out to the university of oklahoma. we need you to do this for any of these wonderful minds sitting here on this stage. our focus is teach iing u.s. constitutional history in the 21st century. i love akeel's story. of having his 6-year-old learn the names of the presidents.

we had our son do exactly the same thing. it's a great way to start. i always 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 faced with a group of constitutional scholars who adore what they do. adore the constitution. all of its inclusions, all of everything that was left out. for 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. so, we are now here in the 21st century where there is a great deal of talk of exporting democracy. exporting the sense of freedom that this country has developed over these 225 years and yet, here we are learning today from scholars, but perhaps not knowing very much ourselves. so, i start with each of you asking you considering the fact

that you are so excited about your topic, what has happened to the interests in learning about the constitution? where have we as adults, where have professors, where have teachers, 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've not yet heard from, but will hear from this evening. at dinner. that's david m