television provider. >> next on american history tv, enthusiasts and u.s. senate finance committee michael evans discusses how shakespear has been invoked in historic political debates and the lessons from he is plays. this lasts about an hour. >> today is very special. mike evans comes to us a graduate of salem state university where he was just granted an honorary dock rate for his significant contributions to public service so we can now call him dr. evans. and then he went to a small law school called harvard. from there he took all of that education and he became a public

servant. he was the democratic chief council and deputy staff director. and he has been a senate staffer for more than 25 years. but he is not here to talk about the senate. or to talk about the senate finance committee. usually known as the "the powerful senate finance committee." but instead he is here to talk about his passion. he has writing and reading and researching shakespeare and congress. sha sha shakespeares guide to tax policy. before he became chief council and deputy staff director, he worked as the senate environment

and public works committee. so his experience and committee leadership is fast and broad. he is now working on a book called -- that is tentatively titled shakespeare's good to american politics. so we're fortunate to have mike talk about how it has been influenced by shakespeare. >>. >> thank you, jane, and thank you to all at the historical facili facility. there is no sword play, for those of you hoping to get me to

recommend some shakespearens insults, i'm going to stay away from that and stick to the history. my interest in shakespeare came relatively late. i red some of the plays in high school and college but i never really got it. the plots were hard to follow and 20 years ago i decided to gi give shakespeare another try. i quickly became entranced. i was struck by ho profound and thoroughly enjoyable the plays

were. and i was struck by how much shakespeare focuses on political leadership. it is not his biggest theme, but it is there. many of the plays are about how a leader achieves, maintains, or loses power. throughout english history, which traced the struggle for the crown that begins, it is classical histories that tell how julius caesar loses power and how they contend on it. each aking or a prince who loses power taking this all in, i wondered whether or notshake spear can teach something to

those of us that work in and around congress. after all,shake spear was one of our greatest thinkers. when he talks about politics we may want to pay close attention. i sub nate there is, indeed, thatch shakespeare can teach us. first i want to wet your appetite with a mystery. why is the greatestshake spear library in the world not in london or strike that ford, but in washington dc. it is on the capitol hill campus. you may have walked right past it into two questions, first again, why is the library here? second, why does it matter? why is it important that the world's greatest shakespeare

library is in washington dc. and i should know the wonderful theater downtown. why does it mat nearshake spear is in our midst. let me start by giving you background with shakespeare and american politics. they came from shakespears world. when the english settlement began here he was at the height of his london career. as his works became increasingly popular in great britain, his popularity carried over to colonial america. he was in the first american performance, it was in 1750 and there was many soon after that in new york, philadelphia, and williams burg. as the american nation grouped

the influence grew. first the two distinctive novelists were heavily influenced by shakespeare. mark twain was an avid reader. he was a great avid read heer f ofshake spear. a slapstick of mangled passages from various plays. and the humor depends on the readers familiarity with shakespeares original material. his plays dominated the american theater. at american -- you could do this

in 1849. it wasn't just the eastern elites. a settlement moved west and shake conspiracy went along. there is hardly a pioneer's hut that does not contain a few odd volumes of shakespeare. his influence extended to politics. the leaders of the evolution were steeped in his work which they relied on to continue their rhetoric. they visited shakespeares birthplace. soon they would be bitter enmys.

they turned to shakespeare's plays to express themselves during debate. they are deciding whether or not to exsponge their senturing. they acknowledged that those that wished to exsponge it appeared to have the votes. like the bloodstaining the hands of the guilty mcbeth, all ocean's water wills never wash away. another example occurred in 18466. the new kansas government in the terms of the recently enacted kansas and nebraska act p.

a pro slavery politician was the first delegate. but proponents argued that it was based on fraud. they called for a special election to investigation. as the debate unfolded, a congressman from ohio sam july galaway spiced up his argument with a quote from mcbeth. he said let that hour stand cursed on the calendar. later that day, congressman john millson of virginia took the floor. millson also knew his shakespeare. it is a explanation. he quoted from the scene in which they express their exaggerated grief at death by

leaping into their grave. they said do you come here to wine? to out race me leaping into her grave? i will rant as well as thow. the most noteble use of the example occurred in 1830 between the famous debate between senators and daniel webster of massachusetts. but it is public lands policy, it is about the relationship between the northern and the southern states. after webster gave a speech about public lands policy, they argued that webster's stated subject was a smoke screen. the real problem, he said, was the desint graduation of a

coalition that webster hoped to establish between the north and the south. the ghost of the murdered appears but is invisible to the others sitting with them at a banquet table. senator hayne asked has the gentleman's distempered fancy before disturbed by gloomy forebodings. has the ghost of the murdered coalition come back like the coast to sere the eyeballs of the gentleman? will it not down at his bidding, our dock visions of broken hopes and honors lost forever? still floating before his heated imagine nation?

that was hane. the next day webster responded. he said the honorable gentleman was not happy to history ri of his murder and his ghost. turning the tables, he explained that the ghost was an honest ghost turning it does turned no nip lan, but appeared to the sanctions. by identifying with those that saw the ghost, webster argued that hane lipped up. he unintentionally revealed his own sinister moe fives. after more lines of the play, they said what did those who murdered him win by it?

substantial good? permanent power? or disappointment? mortification? dust and ashes? the continue faint of vaulting ambition over leaping itself. then he said i need to pursue the illusion no further. there are other examples. a hours clerk welcome a somethinger compared johnson's cabinet members to amled. and by my count, between 1833 and 1873 there was one more.

. another fun fact aboutshake spear and congress. one of the earliest was julian verplank of new york. chairman of the house wanes and means committee in the battles of the first 1830s. todaysha today shakespeare continues to be invoked in congress. in the time i was in the senate there is one person that may give committee chairman verplank a run for his money. senator robert bird read shakespeare throughout his life and he usesshake spear to make a

point in senate floor debate. senator bird quoted from each of shakespeares 36 plays. even the bad ones, but senator birdie, aside, there is a difference. when he drivered his reply, he knew his audience would decide the cast on current events. here was a signcentral part of rich, shared public culture. contemporary politicians invoke shakespeare and they're liking to do so super officially. they are adding a sheen of sophistication to their argument. i suggest that if we loseshake conspiracy we lose something

important to our political life. the foldger library is here to remind us of this. so why is the lie brebrary here. henry folger and his wife amassed the world's finest collection of shakespeare's work, scholarship, and related argument fa artifacts. they owned a quarter of the first folios in existence. all of this piled up in their townhouse. eventually they decided to accomplish a library to make the collection available. after considering several locations including london and stratford, he concluded they would give it to washington for

i am an american. excuse me. over eight years, henry folger quietly purchased a block of townhouses near the capital building. but there was a problem. it turned out that the federal government was about to acquire the same property by emanant doma domain. foldger sprang to work saying it would benefit the nation. in 1928 while considering a property for the library of congress they modified the bill to allow him to retain the property at 2nd and e street with the understanding that he would construct his library there. it was, to use current terminology, special interest

legislation. although of a very positive kind nap is why it is on capitol hill. but why does it patter? why is it important, particularly to those of us in and around congress that it is in our midst. i suggest two things. first the practical. i have a handout that i think we made available or that we will make available, i -- the green paper, okay. i list practical lessons that i believe shakespeare teaches about politics. some stress the lessons of good strategic thinking and listening skills. another lesson stresses the important of empathizing with

the common person. another lesson stresses that as with prince hal's transformation into king henry the 5th, a leader runs the constant theme of balance. a leader should be decisive like henry v but not reckless like hot spur. pragmatic, again, like henry v but not cynical like richard iii. above the crowd but empathetic, a letter cornelius never learned. let's dig into two of these lessons. one is that a leader must listen carefully, including to advice he or she might not like to hear. a good example is henry b

bollingbook. he is in many respects a capable leader and he's been wronged by richard ii who confiscated bollingbook's land. further, richard is, for all his faults, the legitimate king under the english laws of succession. deposing him would undermine those laws and perhaps the very legitimacy of the english monarchy. at the beginning of act 4 of richard ii, bollingbook is meeting with his advisers, trying to learn how to deal with king richard who is defeated but remains on the throne. in god's name, i'll ascend the regal throne. one of the advisers, the bishop

of carlisle objects, saying, if you crown him, bollingbook, it shall raise the ground. if you announce this house against this house, it will forever prove what fell on the cursed earth. bollingbook ignores the merchant's warning. richard is deposed and bollingbook becomes king. although he'll remain king until his death and pass the crown down to his son and grandson, it will eventually dissolve into brutal civil war. this happens for reasons that were brought to bollingbook's early attention by the bishop of carlile, but bollingbook will not listen.

king lear divides his land by how profusely his daughters flatter him. when cordelia refuses to flatter, he denies her any inheritance and banishes her, an impetuous act he will live to regret. he is warned about the impending assassination attempt, but he ignores the warning saying, am i not caesar? as if he's immortal. in ""mcbeth," the witches tell him about his downfall, but he rejects it. shakespeare's lesson is clear. when they achieved power, these leaders stopped listening

carefully. we see the same mistakes every day as flatterers thrive and as honest cordelias are ignored. another lesson which surprised me is that a leader must set personal loyalty aside in favor of pragmatism. the best example is henry v. he has many good leadership qualities, but he is no saint. he is utterly pragmatic. the most vivid example is the repudiation of falstaff. falstaff is one of shakespeare's greatest creations. he is a wit and philosopher, also a drunkard, lecher, braggart, coward and petty thief. he is in all a wonderfully rich

character and he has one of the best lines. this makes falstaff's fate especially heartbreaking. when falstaff learns that king henry iv has died, making falstaff the new king, falstaff thinks his ship has come in. he waits at the palace, expecting that, when the new king passes by and sees falstaff in the crowd. the king will welcome him with open arms and grant him his due. but the new king, keseeing falstaff in the crowd, does not embrace him. in fact, he says, i know thee not, old man. and it concludes, presume not

that i was the thing i was for god doth know, so shall the world perceive that i have turned away from my former self, so will i those that kept me company. the young king orders falstaff banned. before long, heartbroken, falstaff dies. why did shakespeare subject one of literature's greatest characters to such a sorrowful end? to my mind, shakespeare is un r underlining this point. as king, henry will forswear the way ward companions of his youth and adopt the sober demeanor appropriate to leadership. to shakespeare, leadership overcomes friendship. even friendship with a character as endearing as falstaff. so shakespeare teaches many

practical lessons. again, they're listed in the handout, and if my book is ever finished, you can read them all in detail. turning from the practical, there is another and probably more important lesson in shakespeare's treatment of politics. in a recent book, "the lessons of tragedy" authors how brands and charles adle look at the ancient greeks. each spring the city of athens gathered for a celebration lasting several days. one of the central events was the public performance of one of the great greek tragedies, like oedipus rex, antigone or the persians. these plays are brutal, heartbreaking and unrelenting. why make them the center of a celebration of the world's first

democracy? brands and adle argue that these were critical to ancient greek civilization. quote, for the greeks, the theatrical shows were intended to chasten and horrify the citizenry, and in doing so, to aspire them. athens would be sent to great heights, but only if the public understood the depths it might sink absent great effort, cohesion and courage. shakespeare's plays can perform the same function. shakespeare gives us many leaders who struggle to attain power only to realize that their power is empty or even

destructive. generally speaking, there are no successful leaders in shakespeare, only different types of failures. it's almost as if shakespeare is performing the rule of the roman slave who follows behind a general riding in a victory procession through rome, whispering into the general's ear, all glory is fleeting. shakespeare is whispering to us. there is richard ii, bleakly and po poetically realizing his power is gone. there is richard iii battrattli the fates at the battle of bosworth. and there is henry iv, the great

usurper. henry iv, now old and tired, longs forre rest, declaring, uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. in shakespeare, political power comes at great cost. shakespeare's most specific essay about the cost of political power is "mcbeth." as a historical matter, "mcbeth" who, having been cut out of the line of succession, responded by murdering king duncan and assessing his own kingship until he is killed by duncan's descendants. shakespeare forms this material into a dark explore asiation of danger that comes with the unbridled lust for power. shakespeare's attitude toward

"mcbeth" is different than it is toward other unscrupulous monarchs like richard iii. while we observe richard, we identify with mcbeth. shakespeare pulls us in, until we share mcbeth's horror at what he is and what he has become. also, unlike richard, mcbeth suffers from pangs of conscience. he also suffers from mounting kneelism, leading to the great solol soliloquy. at base, mcbeth is undone by his own ambition. in american politics, the consideration of mcbeth takes us

to our greatest president, abraham lincoln. lincoln was a deep student of shakespeare. as a boy, he recited many of the great speeches, which he had in a volume. as a young lawyer, he traveled with a copy of shakespeare in his saddle bags. when he became president, he frequently attended shakespeare's plays in washington. in the white house he often would read aloud from the great soliloquys. five days before he was assassinated, he was greeted by former slaves, and he briefly sat behind the desk with which jefferson davis had led the confederacy. then he would turn to a union riverboat to steamboat north. along the way, he pulled out a well-thumbed volume of shakespeare and read aloud to a

surrounding group of officers for more than an hour from "mcbeth," which was shakespeare's favorite play. this may seem a strange place to turn during a terrible war. it hardly provides solace, at least in a conventional way. but perhaps mcbeth fit particularly well because lincoln understood that as the english poet, philip sidney, wrote in shakespeare's time, tragedy shows, quote, upon how weak foundations gilded roofs are built. after explaining that the military situation was well in hand, lincoln described the onset of the conflict with war coming even though both sides

had tried to avoid it. then he cut right to the tragic heart of the civil war. he said, fondly do we hope and fe fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war may pass away. yet if god wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondmen's 250 years of unrequitted toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said. the judgments of the lord are righteous and true altogether. lincoln then moves to his famous conclusion, beginning with malice toward charity to all, in which he calls the nation to finish the work and bind its

wounds. by standers of conventional rhetoric, this speech is extraordinary. on the threshold of a great victory, there is no triumphalism, not even a modest note of congratulations. instead there is complexity, irony and hard consequence. surely lincoln was drawing on his close study of shakespeare. on the english histories which began with a grab for power that ignited a civil war that would burn for centuries, on king claudius and hamlet who seize powered, and mcbeth whose decision empowered him to his own destruction. on lear who urged him on until he had lost all power. we hear in the second inaugural,

and this is the lesson we should take from shakespeare in tragedy. like arthenians, we may be tempted to think that fate is on our side, that our checks and balances will counteract any serious threats to our system of government, that it can't happen here. but tragedy teaches otherwise. liberal democracy is not guaranteed, it's fragile. without constant attention, including those of us in congress, we could lose everything. that is why it is important that shakespeare is in our midst, why we should read, or even better,

watch. king king lear, richard ii or mcbeth. all of this brings me back to the folds of the library. in the west garden is a statue of puck, the mischievous spirit from "a mid summsummer's night dream." he's facing the capitol. at the base of the statue says, oh what fools these mortals be. it's a reminder by way of shakespeare that our status here is precarious and requires humility. we are in the capitol of a great nation. but even so we are just a few steps away from a tragic mistake. that makes our work all the more important.

thank you. [ applause ] >> our speaker has agreed to take some questions, so the audience is yours. please stand up. >> i appreciate your comments of the humility lincoln showed, he was not victorious with hands in the air and chanting, we're about to win this. but also i want to ask you to comment on his residency. he spent many a day or night at the white house, but he also had his residence at the soldiers' home, and i believe fallen soldiers were buried on his watch, in his backyard, almost. i sense it was that perspective

as well, plus his knowledge of shakespeare's writings, that gave him this perspective as well. i wondered whether you would comment. >> i think that's a wonderful point about this paradox of our greatest president being so steeped in tragedy. if you've been to the soldier's home, it's a wonderful place. it's about the best place there is to get an unmediated sense of lincoln, because it's been restored essentially to the way it was when it was the summer white house for him. it's the same point -- thank you. it's on the grounds of a cemetary, a military cemetary and a military hospital. if you get a feel for it how it was back then, when he was walking in the front yard, there might be 50 yards away a burial being conducted. there would be amputated

veterans walking about. that was his summer home. that's where he went for rest. but he was comfortable being reminded of the tragic circumstances that he was dealing with. i was surprised at how much lincoln was a shakespeare guy. if you go back to those stories we all have of lincoln as a young man, reading books everywhere, in the barn, under a tree, they've actually traced some of the books that he got. they basically came from his stepmother when she marrieds95

a controversy because he went to see a famous actor playing the part of falstaff in "henry v" probably at the ford theater. an actor named hackett. afterwards shakespeare wrote him a letter complimenting him on his performance and suggesting a couple ways that lincoln might change things if he were to do it. and hackett, of course, thought, this is cool, i got a letter from the president of the united

states, and he showed it to his friends, and it got published somewhere. abraham lincoln complimenting my performance. and lincoln actually became a controversy, because some in the press criticized him for being so what they considered frivolous during a time of war. frances carpenter painted a portrait of lincoln in the white house, and at one point he was painting lincoln who was sitting there, and lincoln asked if he could rise. he rose and delivered the opening soliloquoy from richard iii from memory. carpenter said he did it as well as any professional actor. lincoln and shakespeare is

fascinating, and the soldier's home is one of the best places to get a sense for that. thank you. questions? yes. >> other than correspond deedde mentioned as a positive figure, were there any other women's roles in shakespeare's plays that might form political leadership? >> that's a great and troubling question. shakespeare writes mostly about men. which is interesting, because queen elizabeth was the principal ruler at the time. queen margaret in "henry vi" is a strong, strong figure.

cleopatra in "antony and cleopatra" is amazing. she is the stronger person by far. of course, the comedies are different. the comedies are frequently starring women as men, but in the histories, it's mostly male figures because of the times. that's something that we have to try to overcome as we read it. joan of arc. joan of arc is a figure in "henry v." there were three parts of "henry v." you got "henry henry iv, bollin

takes the throne. henry v is a very effective king but dies very young. his son, henry vi, succeeds and is a disaster. it's interesting the way shakespeare presents him because his historical support of him is a very good man. it's sometimes titled "the history of good king henry vi." but at one point queen margaret says, you should be pope rather than king. because good as he is, he can't make difficult decisions and things fall apart. there's a rebellion in england and the french take back a lot of the land that henry v won. and in this with the french, joan of arc is a very important

and attractive character as she leads the french in taking back land in france that henry v had taken. chuck? >> i apologize, i came in late. you might have addressed this, but if you haven't, i'm sure the audience would be interested in knowing how someone would find out how often shakespeare gets alluded to or quoted in the congressional register, any other notes of debates. how do you go about -- it can't be just a straight up word search. that's impossible. there are thousands and thousands and thousands of lines in shakespeare, so how do you go about that? >> well, sometimes you come across them in history. the webster-hayne debate i just

read because it's part of the pre-civil war era. it really is the first time that senators in the north and the south confront each other on the senate floor about, in essence, slavery. and i happened to read that at the same time that i was kind of studying "mcbeth" and came to it that way. some of it also was from senator bird. i'm a senator bird fan. i love senate process and procedure, and he was a great defender of the institution and its processes. so i read a lot about him, and i came across a reference in one of his -- one of the eulogies to him quoting from each of the 36 plays during debate in 1994. so i've read a lot of those. they're never throwaway quotes.

it's not a rose by any other rose or the slings and arrows are outrageous fortune. he gets into it. he explains how the play reflects on what we're doing here today. so i've come across them in different places and in different aspects of history. i've had to look a little bit. i've done some text searches, too. yes? >> do you have any examples for us of 21st century references? >> current politics. i'm going to stay away from anything too close to home. there was a law in england during shakespeare's time that you could not write a play that featured a living politician.

and i think it's good advice for me to stay pretty close to that, too. but i'll give you some examples from american history of where some of the lessons kind of teach us in american history. one of the examples that comes from richard ii is you have to look at the sources of your authority. richard ii thinks because he's the legitimate king, that's it. hey, i'm the legitimate king, what can happen to me? he doesn't realize he also has to be an effective king, and that's the cause of his downfall. there are others like that. i mentioned julius caesar who, five lines before he's assassinated, he's talking about how he is the immortal caesar on the senate floor. king lear thinking he can divest

himself of his land. all these leaders who think because they have the title, they have the power. we see that a lot. any time congress changes hands, you have new chairmen and subcommittee chairmen, and they say, i'm chairman, i can do anything i want. they don't realize all they can do is get a few parking spaces for staff in the senate parking lot, but a lot of that is work. you see that in many cases. in american history, i think you've seen it in the supreme court, the supreme court thinking because it was the supreme court, it could do what it wanted without regard for the source of its power. examples, dread scott where justice tanney thought that he could resolve the issue of slavery just because he wanted to and thought it needed to be done. and bush v. gore where the

supreme court decided that it could resolve issues that were not before the court and announced that this was one time only. this was not a precedent. institutions getting too big for their breeches. others in the 20th century. pragmatism, knowing the best to get. bob packwood, tax reform, 1776. he once said, i like the tax reform the way it is. but when his effort to write a bill disintegrated over several weeks and the world was watching, he completely reversed course, threw out all of the provisions he had previously sponsored and went for a clean tax reform bill.

he was pragmatic. he wanted to win, and that was the way to win. a couple of others. i think you often see -- well, i'll mention lyndon johnson. lyndon johnson to my mind is shakespearen in two respects, one positive and one negative. richard iii, eyago, always, always thinking of treacherous ways to get ahead. that's early lyndon johnson, that's early lyndon johnson. robert caro wrote so brilliantly about all that, but there's also

lyndon johnson. he teaches that you must have empathy. prince hal, before becoming king henry iv lived with all the common people. the night before the battle of ajencour, and now he's henry v, he puts on a cloak to disguise himself and he marks among the troops, talking with them as a common soldier, not as a king. shakespeare's teaching about the importance of empathy. and with "cory elanus," one of the great plays, we see a conflict. later lbj gives us after montgomery bridge, when he, at a moment of national crisis, gave

a speech which is one of the greatest in american history, about civil rights and how we were all in this together and how we were all there at the bridge. to my mind, it compares in a sense to king lear. king lear fell from power. he was foolishness. as he fell from power, he grew in wisdom until he's there on a heath in a storm and he's being pelted. at that point he asks, if only i had known more about the poor, if only i had known more about mercy, if only i had done things for people lesser than me. lear, in his powerlessness, finally achieves wisdom. i see that in lyndon johnson late in his career as president

achieving -- he hadn't fallen from power in the same way, although he sort of would, but he found lear-like wisdom. i talked about the repudiation of falstaff. i sometimes think of president obama and his repudiation of george wright. in order to take that next step, he had to step away from an old friend and spiritual adviser. so those are some. thinking of others and always

looking for suggestions, i hope that you can come up with some as well. do i have time for another -- >> one last question. >> lee? >> i'm going a little bit different direction. shakespeare wrote these plays during elizabeth's time, certainly an unsettled time in england with a lot of constraints on it. i think in your article you pointed out that essex was considering trying to run richard ii before he tried to overthrow elizabeth. what is your perception, particularly in the histories, of the political pressures that shakespeare was under as he was writing these plays, knowing that this was not a time of freedom of the press or playwrights and things could happen to him that might not be good? >> such as losing his head. when the earl of essex tried to

start a rebellion against queen elizabeth and her advisers, one of the things essex did was commission a performance of richard ii the night before the rebellion. because richard ii, remember, shows bollingbook deposing the legitimate king. all of the members of the company that performed it were imprisoned except shakespeare. he was very, very careful. at the time every play had to be reviewed first before it could be performed in london by the master of the revels who made sure that it was politically correct. moreover, shakespeare performed his -- his company eventually was called the king's men, and it was sponsored by king james, and they performed 20 or 30 times a year before the court. so people were watching. so his political views had to be

expressed, shall we say, very carefully. he could get away with a few things like "mcbeth." "mcbeth" is clearly about king james. it's about the trouble that comes from assassinating a legitimate ruler. catholics had just tried to assassinate king james by blowing up parliament, and james was scottish. shakespeare writes this scottish play in which james' side of the family, everybody looks good and you're taught not to assassinate the king. that one was pretty easy to see who he was talking about, but it was pretty safe. with the others, it was -- he had to do it much more carefully. some of his contemporaries were jailed or killed because of

plays they wrote. kid marlow. and by the way, i'll conclude with this. that's one of the reasons why it's very hard to tell shakespeare's political idealogy. i argue that he teaches a lot about political leadership, but you can't really tell about his political idealogy. i mean, as far as i can figure it out, and this is a deep disappointment to me, but it may come as helpful to my friend paul stimers. as far as i could tell, shakespeare was no liberal, but he was more a conservative in favor of conserving the existing structure. he is what i would call an edmond burke, george will kind of conservative. you can see that in some of the plays. for example, in some cases where he's very afraid of the mob,

like in "cornelius" and parts of "julius caesar" and where there are speeches talking about the importance of maintaining the existing hierarchy. so he was very careful. but he also was in the midst of it. london was the political center. he was writing, and his company was performing before the crowd. and many in his audience were going to the plays to try to get some sense of how to appreciate current events. a lot of it is there. the idealogy is difficult to understand, but the lessons about leadership, i think, are clear. thanks to all of you for coming. [ applause ]

>> thank you so much. don't forget to take your pink sheet. come back and join us. thank you all very much. looking at what's coming up tonight, beginning at 8:00 eastern, a couple of programs from our american history tv's reel america series. first, "all the way home." a 1957 film looking at changing racial demographics in u.s. neighborhoods. then it's "the american look." this film looks at mass goods produced in the 1950s, including classic american cars. at 9:00 p.m. we'll show you this year's cable tv pioneers induction ceremony, honoring 20 men and women who made lasting contributions to the cable and broadband industry. and at 9:55, crisis in

levittown, about the 1950s. c-span3, exploring people and events that tell the american story every weekend. coming up this weekend, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, on reel america. as health officials prepare to roll out a vaccine against the coronavirus, we take you back in time with five archival films about vaccines and the fight against disease. on sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, on "american artifacts," tour new york city's lower east side tenement museum which shows how families coped with poverty and crowded positions. at 6:30, look at eisenhower, america and the world in the 1950s. then at 9:00 p.m., a u.s.

constitutional debate hosted by the colonial williamsburg foundation, hosting a reenactment between founding fathers john adams and george mason. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. with joe biden as president-elect, stay with c-span with live coverage of the election process and transition of power. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. author and smith college english professor michael gorra discusses his book "the saddest words." the civil war and the south's defeat are represented in