institutional mindset. quite often, officials will be very polite on the request, but it will take a very long time to do, if it is something like helping deport illegal immigrants or sort out the rwanda scheme. whether it is something that they like, like dealing with climate change. that will be expedited. and i think it is very difficult for people who have not worked in government, to understand just how cumbersome and how treacle like it has become. and i don't know if that is a product of the modern era, if it is a product of the online society, but, it is very difficult now i did many jobs in different parts. i was in injustice, varmint, education, treasury, i was in trade, the foreign office. and i faced battles against lawyers against environmentalists, against left- wing education.

what i thought when i ran to be prime minister in 2022 is, i thought i had the opportunity to change things. because, that was surely the apex of power. okay, i haven't been able to change it, but as per minister, surely that was the opportunity for me to be able to really change things. now there's a bit of a spoiler alert about the book, it didn't quite work out. i ended up being the shortest serving dish minister as a result of trying to take on these forces. in the particular thing i tried to take on was the whole issue of our economy. britain's economy has been stagnant for long period of time. our taxes are to 70 year high.

we are spending our gdp on the government. and what i wanted to do is i wanted to get those rates up and start dealing with our massive natural -- national debt. by cutting taxes, restraining public spending, and by getting on with supply cycle like cracking. we put this forward in the many budget. little did i know, the night before that many budget was announced in the house by the chancellor, the governor of the bank of england would announce he was selling 40 million pounds of government bonds. not raising interest rates by as much is the market expected. the second thing i didn't know was that we had a tinderbox in the financial markets with liability driven investments

that the uk was uniquely exposed to and were very sensitive to changes in rates and interest rates. i go through the whole story in my book. to cut a long story short, the governor of the bank of england and economic establishment in britain successfully shifted the blame on to our economic policies, even though to this day i still believe they were the right policies and they would've resulted in higher growth in the united kingdom. they were able to shift the blame. first of all the of us -- office of budget responsibility which is a bit like a supercharged version of the congressional budget office, leaked to the press that there was a 70 billion pound whole therefore putting fuel on the fire of what was already quite a jittery market. and that my heart, i'm a patriot. i couldn't sit there and not

pretend, allowing things to meltdown. i had to reverse the policies in order to create that stability. and ultimately, i had to stand down for my job. i get a lot of questions from the press about what was going on, what did i do wrong. i've not seen the governor of the bank of england or the officials in economic establishment held to account. i think we have a big problem when the leader of the democratic mandate is not able to deliver a set of policies that would improve the country's 's economy and yet, the unelected officials effectively undermined that policy go unquestioned. it wasn't just british institutions that had a go at my policy. it was the imf who didn't criticize it forced financial

stability reasons, they criticize it on the grounds it was unfair. why is that relevant to you, what democratically elected officials decided britain? joe biden criticize my policy from an ice cream parlor in oregon. he said cutting the top rates of tax was wrong. even though, the top rate of tax in britain, after my proposals, still higher than the top rate of tax in the united states. and i think the fact that these international bodies got involved in the pylon is very significant. this shows a resistance, not just in the british economic establishment, but in the international economic establishment, to these kind of

supply-side policies that would actually make our economies more dynamic and help us in our fight against authoritarian regimes. so, i come today, with a warning to the united states of america. i fear the same forces will be coming for president trump if he wins the election this november. there is a huge resistance to progrowth supply-side policies that will deliver economic dynamism and help reduce that. what the international institutions and economic establishment want to see is they want to see higher taxes, higher spending, and more big government and more regulation. they do not want to see that challenged. we have already heard noises from the congressional budget office and elements of the united states market about the financial stability situation.

so what have i learned from my experience? what have i learned from my time in office? i have learned that we are facing really quite challenging forces of the global left. not just in terms of their purulent activists making extremist arguments. but also the power they hold in our institutions. and that leads me to believe that what conservatives need is what i describe as a bigger bazooka. what do i mean by a bigger bazooka? first of all, i mean we need really strong conservative medical infrastructure to be able to take on the left. they are well-funded. they are activists. they have many friends in high places. we need strength in depth in our legal abrasion.

that is why i am working on a new political movement in the uk called popular conservatism, which is about bringing in more activists, or candidates, or potential legislators, more operators who can actually fight in the trenches against the left in the ideological warfare we now face. the second thing we need to do is we need to dismantle the administrative state. there lots of people i speak to say, it's just because you ministers are tough enough. if only you were a bit bolder in taking on things, if only you had a bit more political will, you would be able to deliver. those people are not right. until we actually change the system, we are not going to be able to deliver conservative policy such as the depth of resistance in our institutions and bureaucracy, we do have to change things first.

what does that mean? your ahead of us in the u.s. in that the president gets to appoint 3000 people into the government positions. in britain it's only 100 people. and those 100 people are relatively not in charge of departments. i believe we need to change that . we need to properly appoint senior figures in our bureaucracy. we also need to deal with the proliferation of unaccountable bureaucratic bodies. they have to go. there has to be a real bonfire. even here in the u.s., policies like schedule f are going to be very important in order to deliver a conservative agenda. in the project that heritage is sponsoring, project 2025, is another vital part of building

the institutional infrastructure that can actually deliver conservative policies. having seen what i have seen, on both sides of the atlantic, i think both of those things are vital in order for the conservative policy to deliver. but we can't just deal with the administrative status at the national level. the global administrative state, we have the united dachshunds, the health organization, the cop process. one of the things i tried to do was stop written hosting cop in glasgow. i failed. but i want to see us in future abandon that process. the best people to make decisions our people that are democratically elected in sovereign nations. it is not people sitting on international bodies who are divorced from the concerns of the public.

the final thing conservatives need to do is and appeasement. by ending appeasement, i'm talking about the appeasement of woke at home as well as the appeasement of totalitarianism abroad. we have to do both of those things. because both of those things are threatening our way of life. totalitarian regimes like china, russia and iran have to be stood up too. the only thing they understand is strength. and now the military aid budget has been passed through congress . there needs to be more clarity about how russia can be defeated. and how china and iran will also be taken on. in order to achieve that, we are going to need a change in personnel at the white house. now i worked in cabinet while

donald trump was president and well president biden was president. i can assure you the world felt safer when donald trump was in office. 2024 is going to be a vital year. there's a reason i wanted to bring my book out now. because, getting a conservative back in the white house is critical to taking on the global left. and i hate to think what life would be like with another four years of appeasement of the woke left in the united states, as well as continued weakness on the international stage. but, my final message is that winning in 2025, or winning in 2024 and going into government in 2025 is not enough.

it's not enough just to win. it's not enough just to have those conservative policies. there will be huge resistance from the administrative state and from a left in politics and has never been more extremist or more purulent. that is why we will need all the resources of the american conservative movement, think tanks like heritage, and hopefully your allies in the united kingdom to succeed. but you must succeed. because the free world needs you. thank you. >> [ applause ] >> good morning, everybody. thank you for joining us here at the heritage foundation. i am director.

delighted to host this. liz, your book is absolutely a tremendous read. it is a very robust conservative book. that really does stand up, i think, very forcefully to the left nefarious agenda. it is also i think a very gutsy book. i would say it's a book that is very courageous in so many respects. taking on the rulings, left- wing establishment here in the united states as well. and that is a very important thing. i enjoyed reading the book. yes, i do plead guilty of being a critic of the obama administration and quite critical at the time of the prime minister. also, thank you for the mention in the book. i'd like to ask a few questions

, liz, especially on the current political debate here in the united states. outlook for the world superpower, and also i'd like to address some big picture foreign policy and national security issues and i'd like to delve into the current political situation in the uk as well. and things looking somewhat challenging as we said for the conservatives. i'd like to get your thoughts on the latest development's. kicking off with a discussion of the track record of joe biden. joe biden, as you noted, sharply criticized tax policies well eating an ice cream. it has to be said, his intervention i think was very unhelpful. it was an extraordinary attack

on the policies of america's closest friend and ally. but not unusual, of course, for joe biden. he has a very controversial record when it comes to dealing with the united kingdom. in your view, what does the future hold, if we have four more years of the biden presidency, what does that mean for the world superpowers? what does it mean for american leadership on the world? what does it mean for the usa and uk relationship? >> i believe that four more years of joe biden would have first of all and negative impact on the u.s. internally. we can see what is happening in the streets of major cities in the united states. we can see what is happening with the promotion of left-wing ideology. i talked about title ix.

and the appalling situation where girls can use the locker room or bathroom at school and privacy. there is the immigration at the southern border. we see no solution to that. no policies being pursued to deal with that. i understand that because we have the same issue on our border with the english channel and the fact that we are getting these small boats in, our problem in britain is to do with the legal system and the fact that supreme court judges have blocked us being able to implement policy. in the united states as a political pursuit that could be sorted out by the president if he so wished. i think four more years of this would be a disaster for the u.s. internally. i think biden atomics has been

a failure. all it has done is increase the debt and not made the american economy more competitive, which is what we all need to be. the british economy also needs to be more competitive as well. i don't want to see the continuation of those domestic policies. but also, i don't believe china favors joe biden. instead we have seen cozying up, american corporations encouraged to seek more investment from china. i think that is the wrong approach. i can't imagine during the cold war when reagan called out the ussr as the evil empire, that type of approach being taken. i think a new approach is needed. and as for the special relationship, there will not be the u.s./uk trade deal under

joe biden. that is absolutely clear. and i know president trump wanted to do a trade deal. the problem lay in britain. we need to fix that side as well. >> to follow-up on your remarks they are with regard to the huge crisis on america's southern border, it's become the another -- number one political issue for the forthcoming presidential election. and roughly 10 million illegal migrants have crossed into the united states, absolutely staggering figures. if you have the situation in europe, it would probably bring down the government at the level of outrage over the massive levels of illegal migration. do you believe that under strong conservative leadership that this crisis can be effectively addressed? here in the united states? and, in your view, why is joe biden so weak need in the face

of this crisis? >> yes it can be addressed. yes it was addressed under donald trump. so absolutely it can be addressed. likewise, our problems in britain can be fixed if we deal with issues like the european court of human convention and human rights. if we deal with the human rights act in britain. but why have these problems emerge in both of our countries? the answer is the human rights lobby has not been taken on. if you look at what's happening in the legal profession, has happened in sort of, -- i talked about the dinner party circles, -- if you look at dinner party circles, people don't want to seem, they don't to be accused of being racist, they don't want to be seen as being cruel to migrants. that motive -- that emotive attitude has informed the policy, rather than the reality. the elites are hugely out of

touch with what the average voter thinks on these issues. that is what is going on. you have an elite are affected by it. don't care. don't have their wages being suppressed by high levels of migration. and you have a population that are very, very concerned about the issue. in my constituency of norfolk it's the number one issue the comes of the doorstep is immigration. >> and from what you have seen of donald trump, and his record first term, do you think a second trump presidency could effectively deal with the migration crisis here in the united states? do you see a potential for strong leadership in dealing with what is an immense challenge for the u.s.? if the u.s. is not willing to

deal with the massive levels of illegal migration, this will fundamentally undermine the united states for decades to come. do you think that donald trump really has the leadership drive, determination, to effectively deal with the immigration crisis? >> i do think so. it is clearly a very difficult issue. we now have our enemies actively using migration as a way of pursuing their end. russia has use this with belarus. we are seeing things like social media, it's easier to communicate. it's easier to run a people trafficking operation. but all of these things, these things have to be. if you can control your borders, how are you a

subornation? >> exactly. what would a second trump presidency mean for the united kingdom? and what are the implications, especially bear in mind that joe biden has been viewed by many in the uk as quite possibly the most anti-british resident of the modern era. what is your assessment of the impact of a second trump presidency on relations with the united kingdom? >> the most important thing to me about a second trump presents he's getting conservative leadership back in the free world. the subtitle of my british addition is called the only conservative in the room, because it's only britain the has a conservative government. we have biden in the u.s., we have trudeau in canada. we have scholz in germany. it's not working. the west is not winning. for me, the fact is

conservative leadership is absolutely important. i think we are more likely to see a trade deal taking place. i think there will be more working with allies. one of the things i advocate is an economic nato. together we take on china, we take on russia. by having common policies on what technology they should be able to invest or export, in the same way as we did during the cold war. i would like, i would like to see working with allies. >> donald trump has been very critical of the nato alliance. and unwillingness among some nato allies to invest what they need to do on defense. and, do you think trump will really shake up europe again

potentially with a second term? and will europe be listening to his message? after all these are incredibly dangerous times with russia potentially threatening nato territory in the years to come. will be european leaders be waking up to the reality, and what would be the impact of another trump term? >> europe needs to spend more defense. there are still far too many european countries were not even spending 80% in the 80% is not enough. we should be raising it to 3% in my view as a minimum. there are too many countries free writing at the moment who are in serious threat. if putin succeeds in ukraine, he won't stop there. he will move further. this is the ultimate short-term, europe

has been more and more money on our welfare states and less and less money, relatively speaking, on things like defense and policing, which are very important for the security of our countries. and, i think donald trump is right to say to europe, you need to pay up. in a recent interview he said i am 100% committed to nato, but european countries need to pay up. that is right. i make the further point, of course, that if putin were to succeed in ukraine, that would send the most terrible message to china. so, if these totalitarian regimes are successful, it will have huge implications for the united states as well as europe. >> yes, absolutely. and talking of totalitarian regimes, enemies of the free world, the iranian regime of

course poses a deadly threat in the middle east. but also to europe as well and potentially the free world if it becomes a nuclear weapons power. israel responded recently to the iranian attack. which unfortunately, the iranians did not succeed in any kind of strategic advances there. the message coming from both london, washington and many european capitals is one of restraint towards israel. the term used is, the israeli response should be limited. joe biden has been in many ways more critical of the government in israel to has of the iranian regime. which we view here at heritage

as absolutely disgraceful. and at the same time, the british government has echoed a lot of the language that the biden administration has been using towards israel. what is your view of this? what does israel need to do in order to defend itself and to stand up to the iranian regime? also what does the west need to do in order to stand up to iran and send a clear message that the free world will not accept the kind of barbarism we are seeing right now from the world's biggest states of terror. >> one of the things i talk about in the book is how i would often find foreign office officials trying to change the text in my speeches. and i suspected and it was confirmed it was after cause of the state department. there's a certain amount of coordination between officials in both the united kingdom and

united states, it was no surprise the same message is emerging. taking the sanctions off iran and hoping that iran would sign and nuclear deal was a mistake. it has been left for too long without action against iran. this is essentially appeasement. what it has resulted in is further bloodshed in the middle east, most and particularly in israel. i don't see how when is really hostages are still being held that people can expect israel to behave in any other way apart from defending their national interest. i think it is important that israel, given the freedom that they need to do what they need to do, to protect their nation.

they are under existential threat. we know iran would love to see the end of israel. >> without any doubt, we are dealing with a genocidal regime set to wipe israel off the map and we have to take those threats extremely seriously. >> in all these cases, if we are not dealing with some rational actors that can be compromised with or you can achieve a deal with, these people want to end our way of life in the west. that is what we have to understand. and the only thing that will stop from doing that is best showing strength in the face of that. >> is your message today, to the biden administration and british government, that the western powers should completely consign the iran nuclear deal compressive plan

of action jcp 082 history? >> yes, i mean i don't think we should've tried to do it in the first place. i was very much under instruction from boris johnson to proceed with that. clearly the iranians have no intention of signing it. the other signatures with china andressa -- rossa... probably one of the worst agreement put together in modern history i would've thought. we were certainly supportive of the president's decision to withdraw from the jcpoa. on the homefront in the uk, you've seen large-scale protests by pro-palestinian groups, i am

frankly, many of these protesters have been even supportive of hamas and using numerous individuals supporting not only hamas but also an array of islamic terrorist organizations. central london has become, in the eyes of many, is a de facto no go zone for many people feel free to go to central london because of these menacing frequently violent protests. a great deal of criticism of the metro police handling. also, criticism of the way in which the british government has responded, as not being tough enough. although it's a conservative government, it is seen by many in the uk as far too weak in

terms of dealing with the protests. the french and chairman governments have been significantly tougher in some cases banning outright marches by pro-palestinian, pro-hamas groups. but the british government approach has been very light in contrast. what is your view on what needs to be done with the situation on the ground? after all, you do have an environment where many jewish britons feel afraid to walk the streets of london during the weekend during these protests. >> it's been appalling every saturday, these protests are dominating central london and jewish people cannot walk freely around central london. that should not be allowed. that should not be allowed. we also have the scene where there were messages being projected onto the house of commons.

i think the approach is not right. the approach is not right, policing these protests. you said that we are not as tough as the french or germans. the same is true of environmental protesters as well. and dealing with just stop oil. it's easier to count the number of days a protest is not going on than the number of days it is. i just want to say to people in this audience, this is in no way a reflection of the british public. if i speak to constituents, they are 100% supportive of israel. they are not -- it's a small minority of extreme left-wing activists who are promoting this view. it is not a reflection of the general public of britain. but the tail is walking the dog. it's back to making the point about institutions.

what is the difference between britain and france and germany, our institutions are less accountable then institutions are in other countries. i've talked about the very limited number of political appointments we get. i've talked about the number of 500 of these unelected bodies. and so it is actually very difficult in the current circumstances for the government to effectively change the policy. politicians never want to admit they are impotent to do something. but i think we have to look at the overall system and structure and say how are we going to restore proper democratic accountability? otherwise these types of things keep happening. >> yes, yes. and on the uk front, we're likely to see a general election later this year. it has to be held by january 25. but, most likely the election

will be in november. the polls are pointing to the strong possibility of a labor victory. >> to put it politely. >> these are of course immensely challenging times. perhaps we could see rishi sunak writing memoirs at some stage in the future. but whether you are far more conservative in interesting. on election front in uk, labor has been up 14 years. they haven't really outlined much on the agenda as far as i can tell. it is hard to say if qsar really stands for anything. although he is quick to take the knee and to bow down and surrender to the woke left,

liz, from your perspective, just how dangerous potentially is a labor government actually for britain and british leadership in the world? >> you say we don't know what care stammer stands for. when i'm talking about the human rights culture, things like the human rights act, i believe he was one of the people who was backing those changes, he is a classic left- wing liberal lawyer. and labor had not been in power, they might not have been in power in government but they been in power in a lot of institutions for the last number of years. since blair made these huge constitutional changes which

outsourced decision-making from democratically elected politicians and give more power to lawyers and bureaucrats, et cetera. i think we will have more of that, whether it is the extreme gender ideology whether it's the immigration and human rights policies, extreme green policies . i can't see things like fracking happening under keir starmer. and the economy is in a serious situation and we have a debt problem in britain. and, although the labour party talks about economic growth, they've got absolutely no analysis of why we haven't had significant economic growth for

the past few decades. and the answer is, we are overtaxed, overregulated, the government is too big and we are still aligned with europe even though we have left it. those are the answers. but i can't see labor saying anything about any of those things if they get into office. we will just see an increase in the sort of decline-ism narrative in britain. >> it sounds ghastly. >> it is. i want conservatives to win in britain. i think the way we can win is by laying out conservative agenda and being honest about why we haven't delivered enough of it in the last 14 years. that's what we have to do. we have to say, yes, we should have dealt with the climate change act from tony blair, we should have dealt with the

equality act with embedded all these will policies, we put her hand up, please don't vote for keir starmer because things will get a lot worse. that's what got to say. >> would your message to the prime minister today be, uk should immediately withdraw from the european convention of human rights? >> yes. but that's not enough. it's not enough. we should learn the lesson of what happened meet left the european union but kept all the european laws on our statute books. the problem is, we got rid of the bureaucracy in brussels, we didn't get rid of the bureaucracy of britain. a lot of our problems lie at home. and they lie with the fact that we have outsourced two unelected bureaucrats, too much decision-making. that is what we have to address. >> if you were still per minister, liz, with there being any eu laws still on the books

in the uk? the present administration has declined to remove vast numbers of them. under your leadership, would you have completely put them on the bonfire? >> well yes. and i promise to do that in the leadership election. i am somebody who makes promises , and seeks to fulfill them. i don't believe you can make promises at leadership election and not deliver. that is why, even though i knew they were negative forces towards what i was seeking to do in the many budget on corporation tax and fracking, i promised to do that. we should do that. it does require taking on quite major bureaucratic forces to get rid of the eu laws. institutions like the treasury, they didn't like brexit in the first place. they wanted to keep as much of the eu regulations as possible.

they have to be challenged. >> is there hope for the future of the conservative party, do you believe the party will return to its natural roots? are you optimistic about the long-term future of the conservative party, even though the immediate term looks very grim and dare i say, i think there are a lot of would call in the uk, wets running around in key positions. are you hopeful about the saturates -- thatcher-heights taking control of what has been the most successful clinical party in history? >> i think we have to fight for it. it's not going to be easy. americans a very experienced with crucial battles that go on within the republican party for

the hearts and soul of the party. what is happening in britain. the difference, i would describe, between people in the conservative party is that some people explicitly say, yes, it is true that these institutions in britain have moved to the left. yes it's true they have adopted these extreme climate change policies, human rights, et cetera. but we have to accept that because as conservatives we believe in institutions. i didn't agree with that. i think we have to reshape our institutions to reflect the values that the public want to vote for. and i think that is a bolder agenda that conservatives need to back. i don't believe that britain will return to economic dynamism , return to success, until we do that. i think it is just a question

of how long we have to wait. >> very well said. and, we just have a couple minutes remaining. we are nearly out of time. liz, perhaps a final message for the u.s. audience about why you believe that there is hope for america, and why you believe the united states really is the hope for the free world? >> so you are the hope for the free world. this election taking place in 2024 is i think one of the most consequential elections. we already have seen what is happening when there is an absence of united states leadership. and by that, i don't just mean security leadership in the world. i also mean cultural and social leadership in the conservative

world. and that is what we need to see. and my messages, you are going to have to fight for this. i don't think this year's presidential campaign is a done deal at all. and they will need the energy, the commitment, and the determination of conservatives to win. it is not just about winning the election in 2024. it's actually about winning the administration in 2025. >> great. it has been a tremendous discussion. thank you very much. your book, it is a wonderful read. and i think it has a very powerful message for the united states and a powerful message also for the uk as well. both sides of the atlantic. we are most grateful to liz for joining us.

we have come to the end of our program, unfortunately. we are unable to do the book signing to to supply chain issue. your book is been incredibly popular. it has already sold out in the uk and being republished a third time. we unfortunately did not get the copies in time due to tense competition for them. but, it is a thrilling read. a tremendous book. i hope that all of you will be able to read this wonderful message to the american and british people. we are most grateful to you for joining us today. we look forward to hopefully seeing you again soon in the united states. we wish you all the best as well with your very important work on the ground in the united kingdom at this time.

new efforts to save the conservative movement in the uk. it is a very, very worthy cause. and a big thank you to everybody for joining us here and in person and online. i would like the audience to remain in their seats will the prime minister exits the stage. but a very big and warm thank you to everyone for joining us today. >> [ applause ] tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing nonfiction books. at 6:30 pm eastern johns hopkins university public researcher looks at what happs when medical institutions make mistakes public health accommodations. with his book, "blind spots." at 8:00 eastern bob ordered -- woodward shar his book, "war.".

and then at 10:00 eastern on afterwards, stephanie baker of bloomberg news looks at global impact of u.s.-led economic sanctions against russia following vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine. in her book, punishing put in. watch tv every sunday on c- span2. and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at tv.org. the house will be in order. >> this year c-span phil bates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, is it your primary source for capitol hill. providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. taking you to where the policy is debated and decided. all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable.

now it's my particular pleasure to introduce my old friend, ali velshi, and award winning journalist and msnbc host. many of you know him from your screens over the last 30 years. and immersive on the ground reporter, previously was an anchor, a correspondent, and he is everywhere, not just with the msnbc but cnn. he was born in nairobi. he was raised in toronto. a critical fact. and his new book, "small acts of courage: a legacy of endurance and the fight for democracy" traces his family's courageous journey from freedom -- to freedom starting in india, then south africa where they escaped apartheid and later immigrated to kenya and ultimately moving to kenya -- canada in the u.s. ali,

welcome. >> thank you. >> the longer piece of this, the reason why i am doing this, why is a canadian consul general interviewing ali velshi? we go back 38 years. we are kind of a species of people who emerged on canadian shores in the 1970s, 1980s, and you see residence in the united states of this species of people as well which is the broader, a particular generation of people who draw their lineage back to the indian subcontinent. this story that ali tells, it's part memoir obviously, going through his remarkable family history, but it also touches on sort of many of the schematics that most of us care about over the course of the last century.

which have been, how has democracy evolved? what have been the fights for individual rights and collective and group rights? within pluralistic societies. and how can we keep those pluralistic societies together? you might ask, we were at university together and he was someone who is, as you see him, and you wonder, how does a 20- year-old come out this well- formed? how does the 20-year-old come up with a set of ideas and this set of desires for change? and the reason is his remarkable back story. and so maybe we start with that remarkable back story. >> thank you, my friend. i couldn't believe my good fortune, i had asked the consul general for his address so i could send a book. and he texted back and said, can i do anything to be helpful? in that moment i thought, yeah,

actually, you have lived a lot of this story. when we have a conversation about the two of us talking about it together as opposed to a traditional interview. so thank you. it means a lot. i bet you this audience is going to get something different out of this than other rooms i've spoken to, because you can prod things you know the other side of. i appreciate that. my family started like a lot of people in the indian diaspora. leaving india in the 1800s. the 1800s was a period of remarkable economic upheaval in india largely because these were climate refugees. mostly because of drought in india. my family fell victim to that. and a big country, in theory when you have a number climate issues, this is very relevant to today, you should be able to negate them in some fashion. it's becoming harder to do so. but the thing about india was,

the india that was taken over and colonized the british was a massive important country. it was almost 1/4 of global gdp at the time that the colonialists took over. by the time colonization ended in india in 1948, was down to about 2% of gdp. the country had been denuded of its ability to be easily in the face of droughts and people were left by the millions. if you are in india you went for the boats took you and they weren't generally speaking coming here somewhere, but most were. they were going further east into asia or africa or the west indies. my family ended up in south africa. were compared to being in drought stricken, it was the promised land. the streets were paved with gold. they came from a colony that was racist and unfair, but remember that in india were very few british officials at the height of the british rise. it was generally run the home.

the average indian was not getting a fair shake economically, but they weren't feeling the daily brunt of racism that you got in south africa. south africa was another kettle of fish. so my family were merchants. i thought that meant they were business people. they were literally urchins selling things from wheelbarrows and small carts, vegetables or whatever the case. that led to them having small shops. as their shops got a little more prosperous, my great-grandfather needed an accountant. so he found this bookkeeper, the bookkeeper had another client whose name was gandhi. and he introduced them. the two became friends. gandhi lived in johannesburg, my great-grandfather lived in pretoria where the government was. so with negotiations he would consciously have to come to pretoria and my great grandfather would give him a place to stay because in those days nonwhite people couldn't state hotels or anything like that. and he would give him use of

his horse and cart to go back and forth to his meetings. they become friends, and he says to my great-grandfather, the indians of this country do not have the courage and the backbone to fight the injustices. so i'm going to start an ashram, a commune to give them the strength to do that. and i would love your son, is my future grandfather whose was seven years old, i would love your son to come be my student. my great grandfather look so gandhi and think that's terrible idea because he is a businessman. why does he want to get involved with this agitator? so he says to gandhi, the only thing that comes to mind and that is, we are muslims, your hindu. i can't send mice sunday your school he has to learn my religion. gandhi says i will read your kron and teach him your religion. that was not unusual for gandhi. he had read hindu scripture, christian scripture and of

course interested into scripture very well. so first of all he was a pluralist at the time and becoming a much more worldly guy by the week. but my grandfather became his youngest student at the age of seven in this ashram with a friendly group of hindus. had no meat but also they had no hot water and no beds. they slept on the floor, they gave them two blankets, want to sleep on and one to cover you. >> this was a precursor or training for how you would endure conditions in prison. >> in fact, prison sounds like it might've been better. but that was exactly the point. folks needed to toughen a. in order to fight injustice, he needed to have the courage to understand that you would get arrested. and the result, by the way, they would often offer a chance to pay monetary fine. that the design was to turn the fine down and take the jail time. and then to leave after 30 days in jail, these were essentially misdemeanors, and go right back to where you committed the so- called crime which was going in

the wrong door of the bus station or train station and get arrested again and fill the prisons to get the media attention on the story of racism. >> but you also raising those chapters of your book, this idea that gandhi was not, at that stage, the richard attenborough sort of gandhi we know now. he was somebody who is asking for a very prescribed rights within the british colonial system. >> within the system. he saw indians as citizens within the british colonial system and he did not think as citizens indians were being afforded their rights. he did not at the time think something -- his design was not to undo the british colonial system. i don't know whether he would've liked to or he just thought that was too big a fight. he didn't want to do that. nor did he think everyone had equal rights. he was arguably a racist. his views and his writings about black africans at the

time, arguably, a were actually racist. he just wanted the indian to be closer up in rank to the british. he had been educated in the uk. >> that was early gandhi. >> early gandhi. he then evolved in south africa. gandhi said i was born in india but was made in south africa. he took the lessons of south africa and took them back to india and succeeded remarkably. but the early gandhi was not who we have come to know. and that's a great story about evolution, the people evolve. he understood that until everyone has justice and equality in liberty, we cannot count any of ourselves as having those things. >> which is quite illustrative in so many ways. and, of course, we were speaking earlier, i just read the great biography of king, --

>> an important read. >> absolutely. the amount of inspiration king took the early civil rights movement from gandhi of course. and it was a great struggle. do we work within the system, or do we work to overthrow the system? which was the crux of the 1960s, within the civil rights movement, the battle within the civil rights movement. but your family, you obviously -- your great-grandfather comes over from india, and there's a bit -- there's a great story about jumping into shark infested waters. all immigration, by the way, is not always as prescribed. sometimes there are detours. this one took a detailed -- detour in shark infested water. >> it was right around the time of the end of the world were. there was no internet.

and for people there were no phones either. my great-grandfather on his journey back to south africa wasn't clear on who had won the war. and this played out differently. he pulled into a south african port in the afrikaners had won the war. is now coming in as an indian british subject. he is now the enemy. and all the stream of coming to south africa to create a new life would end at the end of that gangplank on the border. if the british had won the war, it would be fine. he

>> that's the importance of news. my fascinating thing is i didn't know anyone in my family could swim. he was wondering if that is still the case. >> yeah. these are small acts of courage. >> that was another threat with the sharks. i'm not getting into that. but emigrating is tough. i think we have to remember that, as the conversation about immigration in this country gets tainted the way it has, it is important to remember that whether you think about it as an economic imperative or you think about it as a charitable

endeavor -- which you shouldn't, because that is not useful -- it is her to make the decision, no matter how much america might be for you, it is a hard decision to make. these people were not multilingual. they were not educated in any formally. they didn't know what was on the other side. there was a letter that would've come back to somebody that would've gone to south africa and said every thing is fantastic. they are sending money back. it must be good. you have money to send back here. those are decisions that everyone in the country has made, or their crown prince have made, and it's important to honor the fact that that is no small decision and because of these big decisions that people make to come to these countries, our countries benefit come as a result. they literally benefit from the addition of these people because we don't have enough

children to populate our own societies. >> so we are in south africa in the 1910s through the 1930s and 40s, and of course, apartheid doesn't officially become a thing until 1947. but prior to that, you know, there was a settlement in south africa, where, is already racially divided. there was a coming of age of sorts -- movement in south africa during that period, and your family was involved in that. >> at the time, there were different movements. the agents were involved in a particular movement. the africans had a movement. it wasn't clear in many cases -- and this happened across africa -- that there were many africans -- black africans who believed they needed to do this without the asians. at one point in the movie gandhi, you see gandhi telling his white architect best friend -- preacher -- i white men -- i need to do this without you. so these were interesting times. but what happened is that black africans had the numbers to be

effective in trying to fight what was going to become apartheid. the asians had more money. so a number of smart people said, why don't we combine? asian intrusions were small. because they were a neat group, they didn't see themselves estimate sugars. they didn't want to get involved. they do feel that these laws were unjust and wanted to support the overturning of them. that is how it came together. it came together in other ways, too. there were not many nonwhites trained to be lawyers and doctors and things like that. they trained a few of them so that they could say to the world that actually have a black lawyer. here, he's right here. so there were some black lawyers and a few more indian lawyers. there were a good number of south african white, jewish lawyers, who played a very big part in the anti-apartheid

movements. these coalitions started to come together and worked together to overcome apartheid. ironically, the response from the government from the 1910s all the way to when apartheid was a real thing in 1947, was to be more and more harsh. at no point did anyone gain meaningful concessions. it got worse as the years went on, and to some people's surprise in 1947, and that national elections, in 1948, india won its independence under gandhi. it has the spinning wheel on the flag because that's what gandhi said. your self-sufficiency will when you independence. at the same time, apartheid those were coming in. at first, you couldn't marry someone that was not the same color print you can have sexual

relations with them. and the ways they divided people into the race. it was interesting to see. gandhi left south africa in 1913, 1914, thinking he feels and went on to great success in india, >> but his mother stayed. >> they state, and things got better for them as business people, but worse for them as indians, as people of color, and ultimately, by the early 1960s, it all came together, and it was ultimately worse. >> and after south africa, you speak in the book about how your family had a commercial bakery business. this big industrial concern. and of course, your grandfather and your grandfathers brother were involved with the movement. and the state steps in, and, you know, does with the state does. the apartheid state. it makes it very uncomfortable

for them. >> they basically make it impossible for them to do business. this is not a corner bakery. this is a bakery that packs all of it spread into trucks. the trucks then go into, you know, areas that were race restricted. it went into an area in which wholesalers with then take the bread and get it to bakeries because everybody bought bread in the morning. initially, they were allowed to do their business like any other bakery, but they were the only nonwhite bakery in the country, and so what in exchange for -- to penalize my family for supporting financially anti-apartheid stuff or bailing people out of jail -- workers that would get arrested -- it was routine to get arrested if you are black in south africa. literally, the crime was being black and walking around. but if you got arrested, there was a fine. >> in case of my grandfather, it was 30 days in jail.

with black workers, it was five pounds, or you work on the farm. my father would be in court, getting these guys out of jail that did nothing. this is an example of the byzantine things that happened in apartheid south africa. they started telling my family, you can't have a standing permit. you have to get it renewed two times a year and then four times a year, and then monthly, and then weekly. you have to get your permit to go distribute the bread renewed weekly, which meant mondays were a write off because you are going to a government office to get a permit done, so you cannot be inside the place you have to so you prayed for 6:00 a.m. and then it became daily. at that point -- by the time

you got the permit, the permit office opens at 9:00. bread is sold by 7:00 a.m. in a culture. that's it. they put them out of business. so my dad tried to -- they tried to take a few businesses down on the way out, and they did. they took four bakeries out, bankrupting them. at that point, the government had it, and my dad and my grandfather were together on the date in 1961, when they bulldozed the ovens, the central part of the bakery. my dad said that was the only time he had seen his father cry. he was 58, and he died a week later. but here is the good part about the book. he died thinking, this is the man who was on gandhi's farm. he died thinking he had filled in his efforts. fully. he saw his bakery come down. this was the business they built. they used it to finance the anti-apartheid struggle. what he didn't know was that his son would become the first south asian muslim elected to

major office in canada. his daughter in law would run for office. his granddaughter would run for office, and his grandson, who looks a lot like him, it would be me. he wouldn't have known that would've happened. >> you know, we spent a lot of time on south africa. and we want to get this part of the story. for audiences nowadays, the complexity of the law -- this is the law of the land. this is the state using course of -- force of power in very unjust ways. the complexity of it and the moral compromises that went on -- i think it's illustrative. it's interesting to get back to those details. i think i was a very useful component. >> i wanted to position the

memoir in history. someone said the other day, your family is like forrest gump. you keep running into these moments in history. everyone's family runs into moments in history. you exist one things happen and you remember where you are. my family was just being my family. it just happened to be influenced by major shifts. when my family left south africa, it was a sensible time for them to leave south africa, given that they had extinguished their ability to fight the power. they got to kenya, which was, at the time, another center of the indian diaspora. my parents were in kenya, where i was born, when the british flag came down in the canyon flag came up. people couldn't vote by the virtue of the color of their skin. they were there for the birth of democracy, which was amazing to them, and one of the things

i talk about in the book is the degree to which our house had canyon decorations. my family is fundamentally indian. they had spent more of their life in south africa. in south africa, you couldn't have anyone else's art. it was proscribed. black people's music and art was theirs. there was this in between -- they had their own way of talking and their own foods. and there were divisions between indians and chinese. so, yeah. it was a completely prescribed environment. you can imagine why that motivates me and -- into the world that i'm in right now. this world of pluralism. we grabbed at anything we could grab that to not be stuck into our own little . >> and kenya, and onwards, it also becomes, you know, politically complicated. >> yes. and understandably. understandably. black people had not been given the agency to govern their

lands across africa for a very long time. and in kenya, they truly wanted to be a pluralistic, multicultural society. one thing you have to understand about african countries is that they are multicultural. they have different lineages. kenya had a lot of that. and so, that meant it to be a pluralistic, multicultural place, but there were these pressures on asians, some of them were self imposed. some were not, though, because the colonial -- the colonizers controlled everything, and the goods went to britain to be produced. for the black person who was not enjoying the fruits of their labor or success, or the good feelings of democracy,

when they went to town, they didn't see the british colonizer. they saw the indian shopkeeper. they saw the indian accountants. they saw the indian lawyer. they saw the indian doctor. the indian was occupying the space above the black person, and what the indians and by people should have been doing is fighting together to eliminate the yoke of control, but the societies worked well in causing people to be mad at each other, which, again full circle. very instructive about america today. we are good at getting people to fight each other over things we should be fighting together. there was a real sense of, we are coming for you. i don't think that was broadly shared among africans in east africa, but it was there enough to work my parents, who already lost so much in the first effort to fight for a fair democracy, the fear of losing it a second time. >> and you get good advice from canadian diplomats. >> they are looking in the

background. >> i kid you not. the only reason i'm sitting on the stage right now is my dad ran into a canadian diplomat, during the world's fair. and he was asked -- i'm going to come to canada, instead, because there is this new thing going on in canada. peer trudeau had come to power. that story of running into somebody who says, your path is about to change, and there is this new opportunity. and your parents, it took them a while. it's a convincing. >> little world. -- what a world. can we fill out these forms?

you may not be safe here. and so they did. they filled out these forms, and they went to canada. what happened in canada at the time was that pierre trudeau and the prime minister at the time -- pierre trudeau would subsequently become the prime minister. this wasn't a sophisticated approach. they said, our birthrates are slowing. we don't have enough workforce here and we are competing with the united kingdom and america for immigrants. so we are going to have to get awfully creative about this. that meant two things. getting creative was looking at different layers of people who you might want to come to your country. that included activists and refugees. was countries will take them, but most would not.

just take the quite people. that was number one, number two was, what model do you create to make canada into a place that these people who were otherwise looking at other places, which used to come to? the model was that -- i'm sure you can market to -- articulate this better than i can it was a model that said, you can come here and feel no pressure to lose your underlying culture, and we will sort of trick you into liking ours, as well. and you will be able to hold both, and i have to say, i truly believe in my heart, that is how it has unfolded in canada. >> i think in canada, it also rests on 500 years of prior history, of indigenous people coming together and recognizing, we are not in the majority here. all of us have to do some give and take. >> and they did welcome other people. >> i think there was also something else that was taking place. this is a reality that your

seeing not just in the anglosphere and anglo-american worlds, but everywhere in the so-called western world, during that period, there was the idea that the regionalization of citizenship and that racial is of -- racialization is who could come to the country -- there is of the shot broader movement. immigration was was te but equally in the united states at that same they were looking at some of these ways in which racial emigration was taking place. but equally in the united states at the same time, you started to see a change in immigration law, and part of the reason why the united

states looks like it does today is, you know, the start of that approach. but in canada, it is remarkable. your parents arrive in the early 1970s in canada. unlike a lot of new immigrants to canada, they arrived in the heart of toronto that was not particularly diverse at the time. in some ways, that was a very good thing for your family. >> my parents, up until a couple of years ago, lived in the very same house that we grew up in. >> it is a very big house on that piece of land. a piece of property in toronto seems compelling these days. i have thought about it. there were little bungalows. they were mostly lived in by

veterans of the second world war. so, in canada, i didn't think it was a very diverse street, but it was diverse by canadian standards because it had irish, scottish, and english, on the same block, and they took those differences very seriously. >> they did. >> then we had the errors that were protestant and the others that were catholic. it was crazy. but there were some that were different from that. they were not on the british isles. guy but we were we definitely not like everybody else on the we were indian, which made us brothers on the street. they don't look anything like me. he's a pretty white guy. toronto is a multicultural city and the block i lived on, but

we didn't experience that. the schools i went to, i was definitely the standard, but it influenced me. it confused me a little bit because i didn't get to grow up inside my identity, although in the house, my grandma or sari. my grandma decided she really liked christmas lights. we had a christmas tree. >> i want you to speak about the traditions of the community. the community in particular, in the context of the broader

diaspora of people of indian origin who moved out, you know, had some very interesting ethics that were very effective in building community and a sense of contribution. and a sense of agency amongst people. we are a part of the ismaili muslim community. it has a few important egos. one is of pluralism, the idea that we must not think of others in terms of tolerance. tolerance is the wrong approach. tolerance suggests there is something wrong with you that i have to put up with. pluralism means we are different. we have different foods and religions and ethnicities and different socioeconomic status and different politics and yet, we are together in this project that as a country.

we share the land, we share responsibility for one another. the other is volunteerism. it is a highly structured community in which all of the positions are held voluntarily, both the lay and religious positions. in a fairly institutionalized and structured way, they are either gender balanced or rotated in a way that makes sure women and men are all playing equal roles in the community. it worked well enough in south africa. the ismailis could take care of themselves. what happened is that the body of the ismaili community expended into newspapers, hospitals, universities, that serve everybody in the community, as part of that pluralistic ethos. ismaili hospitals and banks

are not for ismailis. there for everybody in the community. what that it is that when my parents got to canada, they were so hungry to be involved in politics, they also came from a community where the building blocks for getting you involved in society exist, and so, the transition into being followed these various things holding these positions you held in the community, into holding in the broader community is easy. they were doing that stuff inside the community. there was an ethos of service within the community. there was an ethos of wanting to be involved in civil society because they couldn't do that because of the color of their skin. now, in two countries, so they really wanted to get down to

this thing, and so, 10 years into being in canada, by 1981, they were ready to jump in. they wanted as much as a society could give them and that they could give to society. >> and you and your family was quite central to what i think is an amazing thing in many ways. you are looking at the way in which politics in places like canada, we have dozens of now minority origin mps including cabinet ministers. >> it looks like the bar from star wars in a good way. >> it is representative. but it stands on an edifice of early contributors, and your father, when he ran for office in 1981, and, which, of course, he was going up against a juggernaut of the time, someone

extremely well loved and a lovely individual who is the institutional candidate, and he was the oppositional candidate. they formed a relationship, as well. >> yeah. i don't know if politics were different then or if canada is like that now, but our experiences in elected politics in canada were not adversarial in that way. they were adversarial on the debate stage, which is where they should be adversarial. it wasn't an adversarial thing. it didn't mean people didn't do or clap. they had strong positions on a lot of issues, but they were policy discussions. i was 11 years old when my dad ran and he announced he was going to run, and everybody thought that was crazy. saying things like i don't think we are ready or whatever the case is, and my dad said, we won't know until we try. why don't we try? so he runs for office and i'm

the youngest person on the campaign, and i am very excited by the whole thing and i think we are going to win. can i read a little passage? so it is election night. we run into this guy, dennis. he was a conservative and the minister of health, which in a country in which healthcare is as important as it is in canada, being eight minister of health is being a can -- akin to being attorney general. day0 or so rush hour slowed to a trickle. my dad said he wanted to go back to the house and change there was nothing about that he that signaled victory. election day, at 6:30 or so, rush hour slowed to a trickle. my dad said he wanted to change into the suit he was going to wear to watch the election returns come in that night. well everyone went to the

office to eat and wait for returns, i rode home with my dad. after he changed and cut his speech ready, he left before the polls closed at eight. my father flicked on the radio at 8:00 p.m., as that radio luncheon to the top of the next hour, which opened with news of the evenings election results. the polls have closed across ontario, and it is too early to tell who will win tonight. but there is one race we can call. we can declare dennis timbo the victor. i couldn't believe it. it was literally 8:01. over 100 prices had been run. i didn't understand how they could know who had won so close to when the polls closed. i assumed it would take hours. i didn't understand anything about exit polling and projections. they were able to collect based on nothing more than the fact

that dennis timbrell was the obvious victor. the look on my father's face betrayed nothing but ease and contentment, which confused me further. i can't believe we lost, i said. >> of course we lost, he said, with the biggest smile. we were never going to win. >> what? what do you mean, what was this about?!? rent because we could. i stood for what i believed in. people had a chance to vote for me. that was always going to happen. i knew that, but i ran, and now i have lost. our life goes on. we don't get arrested. we don't get shunned. nothing bad happens. it blew my mind. for the whole campaign, little 11 year old me had looked up to me that, seeing him do the debates in thing it was the coolest thing in the world, not understanding politics at all. i honestly believed we were

doing it because we had a shot at it. we -- it would be so amazing when we won. i'm trying to process it all. people started to clap and cheer. there weren't any tears. i thought, what are you happy about? we lost. i was the odd man out because i was up early the only one who thought we were going to win. that went into the back and called dennis timbrell and congratulated him on his victory. it was a cordial conversation that lasted under a minute. my document i think his staff and what i remember is that everyone in the room was jubilant and ecstatic except my father. the staff were excited because we moved the needle. and they were sober because my dad had taken the liberal party from third place to second place, which was a difference of maybe 1000 votes. we made a start. my father was at ease. he had done what he needed to do. he had a look of satisfaction that he had done it. thanks to my father, that was the night i learned that there

is a deeper way to think about politics. it is true that there is no shortage of politicians who provide reasons not to trust politicians. but the world is full of people who engage in politics for the right reasons. i know that because my immediate family is full of people that engage in politics for the right reason. and on that night, the office was full of people celebrating simply because they exercised their right to engage in politics for the right reasons. to this day, when i hear people run down politics and politicians, i recoil because cynicism about politics is the luxury of people who have never had to express life without it. if this people lost their ability to participate in the system, they would never take it for granted again. >> wow. feels so much less of an impressive story. no, no. but it's true. it's so true. it's so true. but there were much better tale. but. but what was interesting about

that is that that win catalog a lot as well. yeah. like during that period. i mean, it's hard to say. >> it is , so true. there was a sense that the world was changing as a result of some of those sorts of wins. your mother was an enormous figure in her own right. and played a big role and could has become and gave her the opportunity of what would undoubtedly be a cabinet role. >> and you know my family. in a vacuum, you would think my mother was politically involved. my father is a bookish fellow.

delete that. robust intellectual. my mother came from a family of 12 siblings. she is all about crowds and people. it catalyzed people. my mother did pull out of the campaign also for cultural reasons because she was a candidate in the 1993 federal elections. but my grandmother who lived with us, her mother-in-law, the woman who raised me, fell ill. >> who is also a fierce lady. >> she was a fierce lady. and my mother pulled out of the race to sort of take care of my grandmother and her ailing final days. one of my grandmothers had formal education, but they were both formal -- forward thinking

women. in my family, politics was and remains a noble profession. >> before that, you are involved with politics early on. >> yeah. politics and student politics. >> so much. >> a lot. >> so funny story. so, ali, terrific writer, by the way. one of the reasons to get the book. he started off as a journalist. and in college, but, as a queens journal reporter, got into the 1992 democratic convention. >> that's correct. >> and it's not in the book. >> that is really good. >> i'm going to pull up stuff. >> that's great. >> answer talk about -- >> it was wild. thinking around with no real

work to do, and i convinced -- >> how did you get into the convention? >> you know, you get a letter. i had to have people write me letters that i am actually legitimately who i am, thinking they would just say no, but they gave it to me. and i came to new york, and i got a big badge, and you do what you have to do. all the other reporters were filing stories on a constant basis. i went to the area where the ap reporters were, and i fished myself to someone. i said, i'm free and have nothing to do, would you like a story? he looked at me, like are you kidding? his mind worked quickly and there was something happening at a nearby hotel. the delegation from arkansas was meeting ross perot. they give me the assignments. i go to this hotel on 57th or

50th street in the ark. i interviewed these people. he edits it, and he puts it on the system. no one read that story. no newspaper picked it up, but i actually did my first piece of real-world journalism there. >> anyone who knew ali would've said, this is a guy destined for politics. we were in the house of commons, doing that stuff, looking around, saying, this is, you know, the natural trajectory of things. as life evolves, many different trajectories emerge, but journalism really call to you during that period. >> and it did. it's not weird that it did because what those of us who like politics or live in politics, what we consume all the time? news. if you see the information required to be an informed

member of the electorate on which democracy depends were the newspeople. i grew up thinking these were important people. and, so i don't know. it was never an active decision to not pursue life in politics. many of our friends did. and are still actively involved to this day. it is fun to watch. i just decided to go a different way. and it didn't feel all that different, although, let me tell you, never have i thought my parents so indian as when i told them i wanted to be a journalist. then, all of a sudden, it's like, what? what's wrong with lawyer or doctor? so that was the only weird -- it was like i was telling them that i was going to become an abstract artist. but they were subsequently very supportive. but to me, i am staying largely in the family business. >> let me just read a couple of

questions from the audience here. i'm concerned that we are occupying this with political talk here. there's a couple of questions here about the nature of journalism and ethics right now. clearly, we are at a juncture point. and you often talk about the bearing witness lady of journalism. tell us where we are in the trajectory of your career. you had this amazing career that, you know, started off, and you are doing tv in canada. business journalism in canada. i mean, my gosh, oprah had you on during 2008 two explain the financial crisis to folks, but you made a choice to get out of that business journalism, and into other topics that were probably closer to you. >> and that was pretty recent. that is 2016. it became an active choice to me

. at al jazeera, i became more involved in global affairs. i started in business news, and then got hired by cnn financial news, but then cnn financial and is closed down, and i joined the main station, but i also then started hosting cnn international show that was cohosted out of london and hong kong and produced in hong kong, which segued me into international affairs, and then, al jazeera hired me. i was still in economics guy, but i was much more in international affairs, global affairs, kind of guy. and at cnn, i had done a lot of high risk stuff. hurricanes and stuff like that. when you morph it altogether, i had become this different person, but then i joined msnbc, and the reason i did, it was right before the election of 2016. literally weeks before the election. i think it was october, and of october, and the thinking was,

the prevailing wisdom of the time was that hillary clinton was going to be the president of the united states. there would be a lot of policy oriented stuff in it that administration. i had become particularly adept at breaking down and explaining policies. i had read the whole affordable care act, for instance, and, you know, talk into it. i like this kind of stuff. so they thought that is what i would do at msnbc, and i write about the fact that they hired me because there was an anchor spot very early in the morning it was 5:00 a.m. or something like that, but i had built that show at cnn for the woman who is now my boss at msnbc. she said, can you help us fix this showup? that meant going to bed very early. election night, i went home before the polls closed, and i took a nice, hearty ambien and go to sleep that i read about this in the book, were suddenly, my phone rings, and it's my boss. she says, i need you in the office now. i said, why? because markets are tanking. features are tanking worldwide. i said, why? because donald trump is winning. and i said something along the lines of this is bs and hung up

the phone. she called me back and said, turn on your tv. i was a very sleepy guy in the office an hour later. >> so, look, you are in this new transition into doing not business journalism, but doing more political journalism, and you are getting around, seeing the world, seeing people in their communities, and when does it strike you? how does it strike you that, you know, you are doing a different type of job, and a job that does it relates back to this idea of understanding citizenship in a different way. >> it probably started in net post 2016 era, when fundamental issues about our society became clear to us, but i wouldn't say that was entirely obvious to me. it really struck me literally in minneapolis on may 30th,

2020, when i was literally struck with a rubber bullet in my leg. >> you got shot. >> i got shut. that's when it occurred to me. a few things occurred to me all at once, that my parents had arrived on these shores some 50 years earlier, and that marked the end of their quest for democracy. and i thought, that is a piece of ancient history that we no longer talk about. i kept thinking, i seem to be in the middle of some quest for democracy all of a sudden. it wasn't 100% clear to me, but it was starting to gel that something else was going on here. and that i was hit by an armed agent of the state into what was subsequently described as a violent rally, but i was there. one of the reasons i go to these hurricanes and i go to these things is that i'm there. i was able to say, that is simply not what happened. donald trump decided he would campaign on this issue for a little while about that particular night, and my getting hit, and what was going on. the story is much more

compelling than mine is, but it wasn't true. the thing that occurred to me is that people talk to me, and i'm sure, you come about what an interesting job you have. you have a front row to what is unfolding in the world. a front row to history. and i realized there that we are not the front row. we are in the arena. once you are getting shut, you are in the arena. you are in it. and so are all of you. we are all in this thing. this is an actual fight for the preservation of democracy in which we all exist. we have decided to play it. it is okay for me to be an activist in favor of democracy. it is okay. it is like being an activist in favor of peace or an activist in favor of a safer climate. it is saying that democracy exists because of an informed

electorate and my role is to help that electorate be informed, hence, i am a tool of democracy. i am part of democracy. i exist because of democracy and democracy hopefully flourishes because of the work that i do. that connection to citizenship as an obligation as opposed to a series of rights, be -- started to become clear to me. the right to vote, the right to do this. it's an obligation to uphold democracy. >> and he became an american citizen. >> i did become an american citizen. i was kind of ambivalent about the whole thing. you know, i treated it with such casual approach that i didn't tell anybody. nobody came to the swearing in. i didn't think it was an important matter point there was a selfie of me that i took, thinking, maybe i should memorialize this.

i didn't realize in the swearing in ceremony -- there are a number of students here in the room. i had a conversation with them about this. i treat some things very casually because of the kind of life i live. i'm on planes all the time. to me, it's like taking a bus. sometimes, i get on the plane, and that is somebody's first trip. i remember my first trip on an airplane. it was life-changing. or that of someone going to meet their spouse or to say goodbye to a sick relative, or somebody's honeymoon, and i needed to start to think about the fact that the things we share all mean different things to all of us. i finally, because in that citizenship courtroom, they take your phone away, which i think is nonsense. here i am, sitting here. i don't have a phone with me. they give you a constitution, and i read the constitution cover to cover three times. in that time. it's nice. it's a good document. between reading the constitution and realizing we don't live up to all the things in it, it is pretty neat. and all of the reasons they

might be in the room with me, swearing for their citizenship. maybe it is to marry someone maybe it is because they married someone. maybe it is to pursue their dreams. maybe this marks the end of their escape from some other place but it struck me that this should be treated more importantly than i have been treating it, and then came the idea that not only should this be treated more importantly, but i have obligations towards citizenship and the upholding of democracy. it doesn't just exist around me, and you can just sit here in 2024 and say, whoa is me, this is looking really bad. you have ways to make the outcome less bad, and we have to engage it. >> so in the seven minutes we have, with us today, i am going to ask you two questions. this is a bit of a synopsis of some of the comments from the audience. one is, the state of journalism, and the second is the state of democracy. i wonder if you would say

something about democracy here in this country particularly, but also democracy around the world. >> yeah, and also, what your sense of the election is. this is make a election year around the world, but particularly, the u.s. election. >> i'll start backwards. more people are going to the polls. some of the selections are fair. some of them are not. some of them are predetermined. some are not. some of them should be worrisome, including the one in india that is underway right now because india turkey, hungary, are all examples of what we need to worry about, and that is not dictatorship or autocracy coming and being born of revolution, the kind in which you change all the airport names and the main streets and schools and all that kind of stuff, but the softer thing, where, as voters, because of your frustration with the way certain things are going, you hand over certain rights to people who will tell you that they have a better solution, or more obvious solution than the difficult work of democracy, and that is where we are around the world.

the president of the united states likes to say that democracy is going around the world, and autocracy is shrinking. i don't think he's right. i wish you are right, but i don't think he is right. so a, we need to have democracy in a burqa. we need to prevent further erosion's, when half the country is at risk of losing their reproductive rights, that is actually a problem for the other half, too. right? when you need clarity on that one, look at south africa were 6% of the publishing voted in apartheid days. their democracy was fantastic. it was fantastic. for the 6%, they had all that was in the world. they had different candidates to choose from. it was neat. it didn't occur to them that 94% needed democracy, too. for us in america, we have to realize that this is not a women's reproductive rights problem. this is an hour rights problem. we need to step up and deal with that. so we need our own rights.

but the world -- and you know this. this is the beauty of talking to you. as people who are not americans, the world likes to talk about america. the world likes to talk smack about america. the world likes it when america takes it on the chin now and then point but they don't want it to fail. it would be very bad because the influence in the world who would be negatively influenced by the failure of american democracy, they are ready to pounce. there are a number of bad actors in the world right now, who are just waiting to see if they can wait out the biden administration and try some of their hijinks. there are valid arguments about argument -- america. there are many people who say that america's role in the middle east is not as robust as it should've been. it certainly isn't going to get better without america there, believe it or not. so we have to take that

seriously. save your democracy for the sake of saving your democracy, but savior democracy for the sake of saving global democracy. and the role of journalism is complicated in this. i would say that cable news has contributed to -- and social media has finished the job. in a racing complexity from matters that are inherently complex. right. the thing you and i did growing up this week argued intubated about political ideas that were in front of us at the time. we now live in a world where embracing complexity on an issue is seen as a moral failure. not being able to immediately have a take on very complicated things that are going on in the world is seen as a moral failure. not engaging one side or the other only seems like a moral

failure. i would like journalism to help us get away from that, and i am trying in my journalism, in my waning days of my career, to do that. to have us engage with each other respectfully, through empathy, understanding pluralism, and understanding that these matters are all really complicated. if they would come look at it, we would've solved them. >> television journalism, you know, if you can point the finger at television journalism, you have pointed out this crossfire dynamic which might have started, you know, networks that you might have -- spoke i was an intern at one. >> that medium has its own message. and its own mode. this book and it has limitations, but actually, the old crossfire was not a terrible environment. people were debating things that came by honestly.

our danger in media today is that people are lying to you. it's not that they have opinions. everyone has opinions. we are not squirrels. we are humans. we can discern opinions and say, i know where he is coming from, but he articulated that very well and i needs art learn how to debate it. we are looking for the people with whom we don't have to debate. that is not what is going to create a healthy society. it does create a lot of viewers. it does create a lot of followers on social media, but i would rather do the opposite. i rather say that if you are operating in good faith, and you truly believe what you believe, and we can have a basic agreement that we are on the same side of preserving democracy as the structure

within which we exist, then come on and let's have a debate. and my viewers don't all love what i do. but i'm not here to protect your sensitivities. i am here to allow you to understand the breadth of opinion that is out there. that is our role. that is what we should be doing. allowing the breath of opinion to be out there and to be debated on every issue. on every issue. our role in society's role is not to keep people intellectually comfortable. it is not to keep them intellectually safe, and so we need to lean into that in the coming months, in the coming days, in the coming years, termite people, this country was built on robust discussion and it needs to move forward on the basis of robust discussion and not hot takes. >> friday nights, watch c- span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly discussion on how the presidential, senate, and house campaigns have progressed in the last weeks. two reporters join each which

-- week to talk about political news and to take a look at the week ahead. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday nights at seven eastern on c-span, online at cspan.org, or download as a podcast on cspan now. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> weekends on c-span 2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, american history tv documents america's story and on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and others. funding for c-span 2 comes from these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers, and we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter to medications, along with these television companies support c-span 2 as a public service. >> it was a finalist for the aspen literary prize.

and that national book critics circle leonard price. she is a 2017 national book award honorary and her new essay, collection of freedom is forthcoming. she is assistant professor of english at the university of california davis. nell irvin painter is the author of books of history including the new york times bestseller, the history of white people . sojourner truth, a life, assemble, and old in art school, a memoir of starting over. she is the edwards professor of american history. she has also received honorary degrees from yale and north carolina at chapel hill and dartmouth. after a phd in history at harvard, she earned degrees in

painting at rutgers and the rhode island school of design. nell lives and works in new jersey. of course, this evening, we are here to celebrate her new book, i just keep talking read this comprehensive new collection of essays spans arts, -- art, politics, and the legacy of racism that shapes american policy as we know it. i just keep talking displays the depth and breath of nell's inquiry and the evolution of black political thought. henry louis gates jr. had this to say. nell irvin painter is one of the towering black intellects of the last half-century. i just keep talking is more than an odyssey for the senses. it is a revelation that will inspire courage and anyone seeking to express their truth. we are honored to welcome nell irvin painter. please join me in giving them

warm harrisburg welcome. >> thank you. >> hello. okay. hi, everyone. it is nice to see you all. nell. it is wonderful to be here, and truly an honor. thank you so much for inviting me. okay. so, i am very happy to be here to celebrate this book with you. i just keep talking. there are few writers who can speak with equal depth about

american history, about the craft of writing and literature, about politics, popular visual art, but in this collection, you manage to do all of that and then some. colg writing on multiple subjects together alongside her artwork, a full picture of painter's genius, which is n her courage has led her t distinguished careers in academia, and writing and visual arts. by collecting her writing on multiple subjects together, alongside her artwork, a full picture of painters genius emerges, which is not the sum of its parts, but is characterized by her ability to think within and between, where each part is deepened by their ability to speak to each other. for its depth, i just keep talking is funny and intelligent without dumbing down or pandering to an audience. for those of us familiar with

painter's work, it is a celebration of her genius. for those new to her, this is an entry point into her esteemed and capacious body of work. in the essay along divisions, which is about the growing recognition of black writers from james baldwin to toni morrison to ta-nehisi coates , it struck me during reading that perhaps this work might also argue for the recognition of painter as one of this nation's great seers, a person in position of striking clarity onto the country's history and an implicit understanding of the mechanisms of racism, classism, and sexism, and whose body of work forms an excellent asis to understand our country. e

started talking about backstage, because it's both an book and an essay collection. and i wondered i want to start with the process of assembling this book. we started talking about that backstage. it is an art book and an essay collection. and i wondered how you arrived at this format. thank you. the process of a publication is something i could talk about forever. i've been very interested in the history of the book, which the process of publication, is something i can talk about forever. i have been very interested in the history of the book which is material history. the history of the book is a field that is very old. for the longest time, it did

not take account of black authors and black writing intended more towards european, elizabethan and so on. the granular history of books made often. one of the wonderful things that has happened in the current times come in the 21st century, that fields have opened up to each other. for instance, this is a chance for me to brag about another new book, second edition of sojourner truth. published two days ago. [ applause ] >> congratulations.

>> wait! >> you thought i was just carrying this for my lunch. wow! okay. this is the thirdd edition of standing in armageddon, the united states at the turn of the 20th century. so the old books are coming back and coming back and coming back. so i wanted you to know about that --at any rate. one of the things that's happened in the 21st century, really, in the second decade of the 21st century, is that what we think of as the archive, what we think of as our techniques of knowing society and the past. this hasopened up tremendously. so i mentioned the history of the book, i used that with sojourner truth. so i mentioned sojourner truth. so this book, dthis book was published a quarter of a

century ago and i worked as hard as i could with the tools i had at that time, i did not have a tool like the history of the book with me. and i know we want to talk about paper and printing and so forth. but what the history of the book has done for me is to see sojourner truth as an author, as a self published author of an, as told to autobiography that she had sprinted, she marketed, she distributed herself. and when she went to akron, ohio, she wason her own book tour. so that's something that's going to go into my new book on sojourner truth called sojourner truth was a new yorker and she didn't say that.

[ laughter ] that is the new things we can do with the discourse. but you ask about publishing and printing. so if you have, i just keep talking in your hand. the first thing you'll notice is the book is really heavy. yeah. and the reason it's heavy is because it has this wonderful paper that you can see full color, oftenfull page images of my artwork. yeah. so i started being upintereste in paper and printing and publishing in 2005, as i was finishing up creating black americans, which is a narrative history of black americans, but it's a history ,but all the

images are black fine art, which means i needed color. i needed reproductions that were big enough for you to see, which meant luckily, i had an editor who knew a lot about paper. and so he was able to understand the need for paper , to answer the need for paper and to have the book printed at that time, which was 2005, had a printer who could deal with the paper and the color. so that's where i first started understanding. and then, witholden art school. the memoir, it has, it's full of images. again, my own artwork, it's sort of works in progress,so you see how i'm doing as i go along. and so once again, we needed

full page, we need a good size we need throughout, not just an insert. and once again, we needed good paper. now, the publisher, there was an independent publisher called counterpoint in berkeley and they were able to do that. so when it came time for, i just keep talking and we were talking about the contract, i said, i want to be able to put in full color, full page images throughout. and they said, oh no, we cannot do that, the book will cost $40, it will beprohibited. nobody will buy it. and i thought of my little publisher in berkeley and i said, if they can do it in berkeley, you can do it in new york. so i said, go talk to your graphics people. they went and they talked to their graphics people and the technology is not the same

technology from 1996, not the same technology as 2005. so they came back and they said, yeah, we can do it. so the book does not cost $40 and it's very heavy. so all of you writers out here, insist. >> absolutely. put it in the contract. >> literally. >> thank you. n. i want to now go tothe title of the book. so the title comes from you tell a story in the introduction about an editor at knopf, i believe ,who rejected a biography of jose hudson. >> just because he was a

stalinist. >> theconversation went, something like, uh hudson doesn't tug at the heartstrings, right? and you replied, well, neither do i, i just keep talking. and you say feisty mouthy, unrepentant is how you describe both him and yourself, which i find highly accurate. i, i just, i just keep talking, you said, and writing and publishing books that made their way haltingly bringing me just enough of a following for a very nice career. no, no, a distinguished scholarly career, et cetera et cetera. and you speak in the book, and an art school, about the frustrations of not being recognized. and despite all this, you, you persist to talk. so that idea of persistence is inherent in the title. >> yes. >> and i want you to just talk

about that idea a little bit more. why is it so important to just keep talking? >> i think it isimportant to just keep talking and especially for women to just keep talking because there's so much that says, don't. so we just keep talking and i always felt like i had something to say. and in fact, i have a very distinguished scholar career. i, my first job was at penn. i was tendered and promoted in three years. and then my second job was at the university of north carolina at chapel hill and i became a full professor in another three years. so, you know, it was a perfectly good career, a perfectly good career. i got to be president of the organization of american historians and president of the southern historical association ,and the american academy of arts and sciences. well, you mentioned some of this. so, it's been a perfectly good

career, however, it's been a perfectly good career, but i never felt like people were saying, oh my god now, nell, wonderful, as you say, that has come very late. and i'll give you an example of the some of you know the book, "the history of white people." "the history of white people" falls on thedistinguished career side in the sense that it got a front page, a gorgeous front page review in the new york times book review. and this is when tsthe new york times book review was a fat -- when it was itself. i hadwonderful book tour. my first stop was the colbert report where i armed wrestle stephen colbert. and no, he didn't win.

i didn't either. so, you know, that went beautifully. that book got no book prize. nothing. it's that thkind ofthing that happened on the one hand hitting all the marks and on the other hand, a kind of silence, but i always felt like i had things to say and people asked me to say them. so i never wrote for spec for the new york times or the new republic or anything like that, they asked me to write and i wrote. in fact, you warmedmy heart by mentioning one of those pieces. would you say why that was special for you? the one about voting? >> yes. my dad's in the audience and he

will appreciate this. >> congratulations . >> you mentioned , an essay where you talk about the importance of voting and the historical sacrifices that have been made. and you mentioned seeing the lines in1994 of black and colored south africans being able to vote for the first time. and my mother was in one of those lines in philadelphia voting for the first time? >> really? >> yes. >> that was a stirring image. how many of you remember that? do you remember that image? did it tug at your heartstrings? yeah. really? it was, it's a atmarvelous imag and the essay that i wrote it about was around the 2020 when it took a long time for us to find out what had happened. so it was about voting and about, i think i also mentioned voting during reconstruction there too because there are

these moments when american voting really has so much additional resonance beyond just the political, beyond just the partisan that it's a kind of quintessential action and marker the quintessence of citizenship. >> i think from there wemight as well keep talking about the election that's probably heavily on our minds and seeing as we have you here. yeah, we can you know, consult you for a little bit. so, you know, i think this is really a, i think this is where your book is probably going to receive a lot of attention and appreciation because your clarity around the particular historical moment that we're

living in is, is just so well taken for obvious reasons. and you say in the book that we're living in a moment between, between reconstruction and right before things were rolled back. >> yes. they call it redemption. that piece i've forgotten what it's titled, but i remember so clearly going around saying i feel like i'm living in 1872 and this was after the stirring americans in the streets of 2000 where i felt safer in my country than i ever had in my whole life. i just loved 2020.

we were up in the adirondacks and people were out in the streets in saranac lake and plattsburg and king valley. all those places you know are represented in congress by elise stefanik. so i said, i asfeel like i'm living in 1872 ,this moment of promise. now, i know as a historian that 1876 and 1877 and 1898 and 1912 were still to come but i want to savor this moment of promise, this moment of seeing a face of the united states that, that says black lives matter. police brutality is wrong of white supremacy is wrong.

so it's living kind of in two times in a way. and right now, i almost feel like we have to do that again. but i have so many friends who are just tearing their hair out imagining what the united states is going to be like when donald trump is president again. and i say i'm in 1872 for one thing. but i also don't think we are going to have to face that, because i do not think thathe is going to last until november. but i'll also take you back to -- remember lastfall. was it when everybody was

saying, oh my god, oh my god, we're going to have a civil war. we're going to have a civil war , when was that? >> i think it's been happening for a while. >> we had one once. killed a lot of people but ended slavery. and that was probably the only thing that could end slavery. and we got the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments. so if we have another civil war, our side is going to win because we are organized, we prize organization and government and collaboration with each other, working togetherac, whereas the other side, there will be, they have their guns with them all the time and they will be at each

other's throats. we willwin and we won't get the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, but we'll get rid of guns and all dogs will be on a leash. >> thank you. that moment in thebook gave me so much hope and comfort when you said that that the civil war is not the worst p thing that could happen. >> it is pretty bad . >> but, but you make such an excellent point that you have to sometimes work through a lot of pain to get really good things on the other side. so thank you. biography. you have written, as we just saw,a definitive biography of

sojourner truth and this is a form that you've been drawn to in your career. recently, you're, you've been writing more memoir. and i'm interested initially what drew you to biography, to writing the stories of a particular historical figure. and now have you found writing memoir? it's at all a similar process? >> i could talk about that for a long time. the, the sort of foundation of my interest in memoir, my sense of notbeing the right kind of black person. and i talk about that in the introduction, i come from an educated family, we were not rich, but we were not t poor. and you know, there was, i didn't have to experience drug abuse or violence in my home. and when i read around and i

read a lot, there's so much that our society and our iv culture wants of black people that is so different from my life, my life, my formative life and also the life i just told you about. it does not fit in a narrative of black hurt. so i've always taken the sense of individual specificity into my writing of history. and also that's why biography is so interesting because each of us, even when we have social identities, that our society, our society wants to make into what we are, wants to sum us up,

as our social identity. each of us has a life and a history and a family, a dumb brother-in-law. so, whenever people starttalking about white people are superior, or black people are superior or africans are superior, i remind them that everybody has a brother in law and those brothers in law do away with any idea, any concept of superiority because everybody's brother in law. well, you understand. so,specificity is really important for me. and that's really the basis of biography. withsojourner truth. i started thinking about sojourner truth with a question. and this book was first published in 1996. so it is a 20th century book.

inthose days, there would often be an image of soner truth on the door of women's studies or african american studies. and there would be some ferocious words, like, ain't i a woman or "do this to me." sort of black power,sojourner truth. and then you would see the photograph and it was this bourgeoise. she wasn't snarling, she wasn't carrying on about having been enslaved or, you know, she's very gentle, very gentle, she's respectable and also she's knitting. so how do you put those two together? that was where the book came from. so s that's what i did in sojourner truth, a life, a

symbol, andthat's what i'm doing again in sojourner truth was a new yorker and she didn't say that because, after this quartercentury, so many people had paid no attention to what i said about how sojourner truth did not say it. it was made up 12 years after the fact. so some things still need to be said, but i'm going go even deeper into sojourner truth's specificity, includingher being a new yorker and taking advantage of new york law to get her son back from having been sold illegally into perpetual slavery in the south. this was something that harriet jacobs never could have done because the laws of harriet

jacobs is north carolina made -- in north carolina, it wasnot just accepted, it was business to traffic children, it was business to turn people into financial assets. this was not the case in new york. i mean, it happened, but it was not the case in new york law. innorth carolina. it was routine if it happened in new york and it happened, it was illegal. >> thank you. two lovely longer essays about sojourner truth and harry jacobs in the book, obviously, sojourner truth thebiography all worth checking out. but thank you. since we're speaking about stereotypes, stereotypes about women, i thought we could talk about your wonderful 1992 essay on anita hill in the book,

which feels very prescient in a lot of ways when i read it. you know, i, i was very young when that happened. >> you were alive? [ laughter ] >> i am older than i look. i did not watch the entire hearings, but i absorbed the atmosphere and it was so negative and so horrible and violent towards anita hill. but your essay is just, there's so much clarity in humanizing herand also just analyzing the trial as spectacle and showing how thomas was able to -- was able to manipulate the media.

using differentstereotypes, basically deploy the stereotype of the -- he was able to use those stereotypes to his advantage to proclaim his victimhood. and anita hill wasnot able to do that because of the very limited and rigid stereotypes associated with black women. and i wonder if, you know, you think that we still, if those are the only images still available to black women or if in 2024 we've sort of moved beyond those categorizations. >> i think we have moved beyond those categorizations. i am not anafro pessimist. i do not thsubscribe to the widely popular narrative of

endless permanent black hurt. i don't subscribe to that which says that things not only haven't fundamentally changed, they cannot fundamentally change. i do not agree with that. so for instance, i think an anita hill figure, i mean, clarence thomas is kind of the same person as he was in 1991. but i think the society around him is more able to see an educated black woman as a person in a way that i mean, my, i was teaching at rprinceto at the time and my, my students, my graduate students were all tearing their hair because they could see her as an educated woman, ambitious and so willing to to follow a miscreant becausethat was the

way to further her career. but i don't think that that sense of black women as traitor to the race as tearing down a black man which circulated in 1991. so maya angelou for instance, wanted us to coalesce around clarence thomas and all of my students stood up and said no, but i think now we would have thousands of americans standing up and saying no, i think, i think white people changed in the marker of white people's change was in 2020. i think somebody i didn't make up the phrase i'm going to share with you. it was the great white awakening. and i think millions of white people can see the dynamics of

race now in a way they couldn't before 2020 , andcertainly could not in 1991. i think clarence thomas portraying himself as a lynch victim now would be laughed out of the senate. >> so, i think we should wrap up there. thank you. h we can open up to the audience for questions. >> if you do have a question, just raise your hand, i'll bring you the microphone. >> i am going to start right here. >> i so admire your thought that you were living in 1874, i

feel as if i am living in1935 germany and how that affects my attitudes. obviously, 1874 affected your attitudes about lots of things. >> no, no, no. that was kind of a a cloak i threw over myself. so if you ask me now to sit down and write 5000 words, i'm not sure i would say the same thing. >> why wouldn't you write 5000 words? >> because times change. sometimes i am with you in1933 but not usually. and i'll tell you why.

our country isgigantic and there are millions and millions of people and we live in a news industry that gets our attention, gets our eyeballs and gets our eyeballs on advertisements with stories of atrocity and stories that scare us to death. the stories that scare us to death are generally national stories. i hdon't follow the politics o pennsylvania. i know something about the politics of pennsylvania and i wonder if you would feel the same way if you only looked at pennsylvania, would you? >> i am from new jersey.

people inlancaster county, you know, know of or read about etc have some german background. i mean, it's a wonderful mixes of german and irish, german and italian, german and something, but they're also german and i am polish and lithuanian. so i am such a foreigner in this area, even though i have livedhere since 1969. so my feeling is more international than national. >> let me bring you backto new jersey though. would you feel the same if i likened you to new jersey, 1935 , 1933? >> it does not matter where i would be in united states. >>no, no, no, no, i'm going to

keep you in new jersey? >> with chris cristi? >> is not running for president anymore. it is so complicated. >> i will tell you why i am pestering you like this, because , my view of what is going on around us is limited to state and local. weget two newspapers every day. paper papers. one is the new york times and one is the star ledger and the star ledger has all kinds of things going on. i've learned all about beach erosion. a lot of new jerseyans murdering their family members, but i don't feel 1933 ish in new jersey. if you want me to feel 1933,

times facing the national news. --so what i'd like you to do to feel better and save your stomach lining is spend more time with new jersey and your county and your town and maybe you have something to worry about with your school board. i don't know, things happen there, but i think we need to remember how our information comes to us and the industries that give it, send it to us for us to buy. yes. >> also, troubleis a lot of local outlets are shutting down and there's, -- >> well, yeah, if you want to

worry about that and that's something you should worry about, but don't just worry about it, do something about it, do something about it. so, a friend of mine is the marvelous jelani cobb, a journalist who is now the head of the columbia journalism school,and he, of course, is very aware of what you're talking about about the crisis of local reporting and state reporting. and so one of the things that he has worked on is making journalism school tuition free. so do something, do something. just don't sit at home and read the national papers. pay attention to the national news, worry about what the hell is going on in florida unless you go to florida and you vote for local school boards in florida.

>> hi. so, hello, i listenedrecently to your interview with debbie millman on the design matters podcast and i really enjoyed it. actually, i have a connection with debbie. one of her grad students several years ago. yes, i lived in new york, but this is my home here. so, yeah, i really loved the interview and just hearing about you and your process through creating your art and kind of how you kind of had to become one with it and feel like this is something like you knew that it was good. ou but, you know, getting to that space, i can definitely relate to that. we didn't really talk about your artwork, but can youtalk a little bit about it adtonight a where you are now with your art? >> it isfull of art and some of

it is old art that i made in art school or i made. since then i graduated from the rhode island school of design in 2011, which already is a long time ago. as i was putting theseessays together, so one part of the process was about the words , making sure that i didn't repeat myself too much or i didn't publish something that was clearly very dated, you know, talked about something. well, i do talk about something that happened a long time ago. i think it's the first essay in history is about affirmative action. and it's something i published in 1981 and it reads like it was written yesterday. but anyway, so the process of putting together the text was one thing, but there were some images i wanted to put in as i -- and this book has illustrations were you in art

school? >> yes, i didphotography and then kind of, you know, now i'm like we're in the branding world. but yeah, i do illustrations. >> so you know the hierarchy between fine art and illustration. so i embrace illustration even though when i was in art school. yeah. and i powas in painting program so make your paintings and fine art is supposed to be autonomous in the sense that it relates only to itself. illustration relates to something outside of it. and so much of black art had been dismissed as illustration because it talked about the society, it talked about history, it talked about people, it talked about white supremacy and racism. illustration. but in 2022 i did a residency

at pafa and i gotto know a professor of lsillustration and he taught me a term which is editorial illustration. so i say that's what i do is editorial illustration because it responds to text. but it also is thoughtful with visual meaning. but it took me a long thtime to pull together my art made with my hand and my computer with the words i wanted to use. so in this book, you will see some very wordy pieces and those are some of the later pieces. so when i had haput together th collection of essays, this would have been around 2022, i

realized thatthere were some things that i needed to capture visually. so i had a residency at yada and i had a big wall. and so i made my art and i put it up on my wall and you'll see it. the process of putting together the essays was one and the process of making and putting together the illustrations was another. so i used a wall to put up the pieces that i was making. not all of the ones on the wall, they did not all make it into this book. thank you. >> hello. i am curious about whatyou said about afro pessimism. and why do you think it is so widespread and durable, and if there is an antidote. >> those are hard questions to

answer. one reason i think it is so attractive is that there is so much to it. we keep having police brutality. wekeep having discrimination, we keep having white supremacy, we keep having all the bad things that happen to black people, those things keep happening. so for instance, when, when i say to people, i don't think we're going to have to deal with the trump presidency, they say, i am so relieved, you're an optimist. i say, no, i am not an optimist, i have lived toolong black in the united states to be an optimist. i cannot be an optimist. but on the other hand, i see that things have changed. this is one of the great, i mean, one of the early responses to, i just keep talking, the book was a list

of 45 of the best books this spring by author women of color. and i thought 45 in the olden days that could never happen. it could never, i mean, just to get 45 books out in the world. by black women authors would have been amazing. and then to limit it to one season and then to say, well, these are the best ones. so that could not have happened say when sojourner truth was alive. the symbol came out. i willgive you another index. do some of you remember maybe three years ago when it was big news that sojourner truth was able to goto court and get her son back and the archivist had found the actual artifacts.

do you remember that? it was big news? take my word for it. well, there were three scholarly biographies of sojourner truth around the time i published, mine was one. margaret washington's was another and there was another. allthree of us explained this. we all said this is what happened. she went to court, she got her son back. it was not news. the people who cared about that story were us. and then a few years ago it was national news. so people ask me why are you writing another book about sojourner truth? they say sojourner truth has changed. so that's one big reason. another reason is that the people who say these things are really attractive writers. they are such good writers,

they're really persuasive. so there's, there's enough bad stuff. they're really good writers and we always want explanations. so we have a hunger and i think for younger people who don't have this decades long, i mean, i can remember half a century ago. not realwell, but i can remember half a century ago. and younger people don't have, i'll give you one last example. so i'd go to a senior strength training class in the montclair. y and the guy who runs it, his name is john. nice old white guy. and he plays music from before the mid 1960s. i cannot stand

it. because, and i said to him, john, this is horrible. he says, what's the matter with it? i said that's the music from segregation time. he says, oh, i never thought of it that way. i remembersegregation. i grew up in california where there was segregation time. this is not to take us to the hard states, you know, the south. things have changed. youngpeople thankfully didn't have to live through the 1950s and early 1960s. and there aresome really good writers who are giving us this narrative. >> you talked about anita hill. i just wanted to say i can

vouch for where zinzi was uh during that time. >> okay. >> i also wanted to mention that, you know, we, we're going through this election right now and we see a lot of disillusionment amongst people in general about voting. and from my perspective, it seems as though people put too faith in voting. they don't, what owi mean is, they don't seem to understand that that's the beginning of the process and not really how things really get changed, that it takes more than just voting. and i wonder if you had any thoughts about that? >> i agree with you 100%. i agree with you 100%. but i think i would put less emphasis on how it has to be the first step. i think i would say it's the but i would ep, agree with you in how it all

turns out. yeah, absolutely. >> thank you. i have enjoyed bothof your books immensely. so, thank you. i wanted to ask a historian's question. so i wanted to ask in your long and distinguished career as a historian, what the, what your favorite developments in black history have been as a field and where you're excited about where the field is going, >> that's like asking a mother, which is her favorite child and usually it's the most recent. but i always said that my favorite book, which i know this is not exactly what you asked, but this is how i'm going to answer. for a long time, hosea hudson,

this was the book. my editor turned downbecause when hudson and i went to see him, hudson lectured him about how the republicans and the democrats are just the same thing and you're not going to make any difference unless you're a communist. he did not tug at one's heartstrings and he was still very much alive. you know, this is, what year is this? this is like the 70s, late-70s, antebell america and my editor said, but he doesn't tug at your heartstrings. and in those days, a black man had to tug at one's heartstrings to get published by alfred knoff. >> any other questions?

thank you so much, nell and zinzi, can we give them one more round of applause? [ applause ] >> booktv every sunday on c- span2 discusses nonfiction books, 6:30 p.m. eastern, a surgeon at johns hopkins university public policy researcher looks at what happens when the medical institutions make mistakes and public health recommendations. with his book "blind spots. but at 8:00, bob woodward shares his book "war" where he talks about wars in the middle east and ukraine on the 2024 presidential election. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, stephanie baker of bloomberg news looks at the global impact of u..s-led economic sanctions against russia following the invasion of ukraine by putin, in

"punishing putin." watch booktv every sunday on c- span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and today we continue to take you to congress and other public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span, powered by cable. >> our author today is -- my name is gilbert garcia, opinion writer for the san antonio t express news, but the important person is our author, an austin-

based investing journalism and s author of the 2015 book "unprocessed." ci executive editor of a texas observer and writes about housing and transportation, and urban development for the texas monthly -- her latest book, which just came out, a few days ago, is called city limits, infrastructure, inequality, and the future of america's i was examining the toll that ever- expanding urban highways have taken on our communities. it does so through the prism of three texas cities, austin, houston, dallas, please help me unwelcome, our author, megan kimple. >> delighted to be here. >> you grew up in southern california, that -- like texas, california has a strong core

culture, geographically, big and very spread out. was it during that time growing up in southern california that you first started to question the role that urban highways have in our society? >> it was not really growing up , i moved back to l.a. after college and i was training to work in journalism making minimum wage at the los angeles times and i was tutoring high school students to pay the rent. as a result, i was driving all over los angeles. this was the era before smartphones and i had a printout of mapquest in my ng passenger seat. i would obsessively check sig alert before i left the house. to try to navigate where i was going. i often spent three or four hours a day in the car. the impact on my quality of life was enormous. that is when i really started to wonder why is this, why have we built cities this what and

what does this do to us as drivers and as people in a community? i moved to tucson, arizona to go to graduate school and that difference of quality of life of living somewhere where i relied on my car to get to where i needed to go, to somewhere where i can bicycle and walk, was so significant, that is more like what triggered this interest. >> many of us tend to see the highway construction as a response to demand, the population, of our cities, they are growing with more cars, more people willing to drive and we're trying to keep up with that. your book explores the idea that is been talked about for a while, widening our highways and expanding our highways really has the effect of inducing demand. i was wondering if you could talk about the concept of induced demand and how it works, as you described it, people in texas particularly will be familiar with it. >> induced demand has been well understood since the 1960s when we started building these highways to begin with. the r

basic principle is, when you add car capacity, cars will fill that up, basic supply and demand, when you make a good and cheaper and easier for people to access, more people access it and move farther from their jobs, move farther from their schools, they may take more discretionary trips, go to the grocery store or the mall, more often than they otherwise would have. that was first documented in 1962. it has been documented again and again, saying, when you add lane miles, cars fill them up. a researcher at the university of california-davis that when you add 1% of lane miles, 1% more traffic results. that is controlling for population growth and has nothing to do with more people driving, just people drive more per capita driving. this has been documented again and again, some people call it the fundamental law of road congestion. yet we have a department of transportation, the texas department of transportation, txdot, they come to every city and say we will fix traffic by widening this highway. all of the evidence shows that

does not fix traffic. a lot of the catalyst for my book was learning about highway expansion in austin, where i live, i-35 which runs through the middle of the city, as it does here, learning they intended to expand from 12 to 20 lanes promising to fix u' congestion. and knowing adding lanes would not fix congestion. i thought, why are we still doing this, this is the literal definition of insanity. >> we should point alout that, you are looking primarily at texas, in texas, probably an extreme example of the phenomenon you describe, but this is a national issue, big cities throughout the country deal with this. >> the book takes place in texas but i pitched the book as texas is the worst offender of something that everyone everywhere is doing in every state in the country, democrat, republican, doesn't matter, every major city has a massive q highway expansion in the works. the infrastructure built by joe biden dedicated something like half $1 trillion to roadways.

a recent study found that about a quarter of that money is going to highway expansion. hundreds of billions of dollars across the country are laying down more pavement. for promising to fix traffic at all the evidence shows that it will not >> something underappreciated and you emphasize this in the book, it is really important for everyone to be able to read and understand the stories, the fact that highways not only dealing with demand and trying to deal with traffic issues in cities, but they are shaping our cities. they are not -- not always responding, historically, they have led to sprawl, contributed to sprawl, and they have, you talk about with houston and austin, they contributed to segregating the city. could you talk a little bit about how i-10 cut to the fifth

ward in houston and the impact it had on the community. >> it is an adage that development follows roads, roads do not follow the bulimic, roads open up new land for development and we see that in almost every city in texas when these highways were first built in the 1950s and 1960s so the interstate highway past act passed in 1956 under president eisenhower, a lot of federal money became available to build highways and urban planners and cities across the country saw this opportunity, not only to accommodate all the demand for cars, but did of blighted neighborhoods. neighborhoods lighted by the federal government a decade earlier when redlining, systemically denied access to credit to neighborhood simply t because black and hispanic people live in those neighborhoods. a decade later, as planners were drawing these interstate routes, they looked to these neighborhoods, low property

values, people did not have the political capital to resist highway construction. i came across a city that, modern-day city that found redline neighborhoods, neighborhoods that were denied access to credit just because they have minority populations in the, three times more likely to have an interstate highway run through them. you can see it again and again in the historical document tatian and i spent a lot of time in library archives, went to the national archives in washington, d.c. to look at the bureau public roads, the predecessor of the federal highway and administration and it is in the record these highways were an opportunity to clean up, in big air quotes blighted neighborhoods. this coincided with the air of urban renewal which is a acknowledge racist policy by the federal government to demolish black and hispanic communities, and the engine driving all of that was the creation of the suburbs. through our federal housing policy, we had incentivized white homeowners to move far from city centers, they can access really great government

backed mortgages, so these white families were flocking out to the suburbs and to get them there, we built these massive highways. a great example is interstate 10 in the fifth ward in houston. the fifth ward was then and remains a black community in the 1950s. i spoke with people who grew up there and remember it in the 1950s and 1960s, it was a complete community of people walked where they needed to go, most people do not have cars or lock the doors on their houses, people came and went just like everyone knew everyone. there was no reason to leave before integration. one day people started hearing rumors about a highway that was going to come to the neighborhood. this is before the voting rights act passed, before the civil rights act passed, people got their mail one day and said, we need your land for a highway. people have basically no way to resist or protest or do anything except move. i spoke to one woman whose

family, she was in middle school when her family got the letter, the texas highway department need your home. they moved three miles north ofi where they had lived before she was determined to graduate from phyllis wheatley high school, one of the most prominent black high schools in houston and she walked to school every day, three miles there and back. because her family had been displaced by the highway. i talked to a lot of people like her, the highway plowed to the community and demolished more than 1200 structures. it took three full city blocks. it emptied out the community, people started leaving. been bs original construction.

so i just started talking to the kind of like neighborhood leaders in the fifth ward, and i had barbecue one day with this woman, i anwas looking for people who had been impacted, so i started to talk with neighborhood leaders, and i had a barbecue one day with this woman who was telling me about construction. all of these highways were big celebrations, so there was a ribbon-cutting. the marching band performed, so she marched down the highway. totally clean. supposed to be this big celebration. this was not progress. my neighborhood has been demolished. i am not celebrating. like a teenager. what can i do except go about

my life? even at the time and a lot of people were really troubled by the creation of these highways. there was a mass movement of people against highway construction. tens of thousands of people protested in san francisco. black and white people together protested highway construction. a lot of these people effectively stopped highways. they are raised highway lines from naps before they could be built. >> you talked about it signed into law by president eisenhower be one of the many things i learned was that both president eisenhower and his chief advisor helping to implement this law. they were kind of appalled at the way this is being implemented in the various states in the country. their vision for this was it is

going to be something to connect all of the state. they did not see it as this is going to be used by states to deal with local traffic congestion problems. the idea of routing these highways through cities. this was not something they envisioned. >> i love the story. it really cracked the book open for me. i went to be eisenhower presidential library in kansas to try to find out the narrative around the creation of the highway system. indeed it is called the national defense highway act. eisenhower sold it to congress as a means to connect the country in case of nuclear attack. let's move goods and produce and economic prosperity across the country. at the same time the interstate act passed.

the biggest public works project ever attempted in american history to the federal government agreed to pay 90% of the cost of construction of the highways. meanwhile cities like san antonio and dallas and houston people were buying cars. there were some anymore on city streets. car registrations jumped from the 500,000 to 25 million in a couple decades. city planners are like we have to do something to accommodate these cars. they have tons of money coming from the federal government. basically no strings attached. they started doing what i just described. so the act passes but within a few years it is running wildly over budget. eisenhower appoints the general to look into the program. how is it being implemented, and he wanted a report back on what is happening. so this guy looks into it and

realizes the program is running over budget because of its much more expensive to build than in farmland. he asked congress when you pass this did you intend for states to build highways to the middle of cities? they look into it and produce a report. basically send this in a report that he gives to eisenhower. they have cursive written on them. his notes to himself. the short answer is congress did not intend for highways to be built over the middle of cities. when they passed the act it was not intended to solve congestion. they give this remarkable speech. all of the experts say the way to solve the urban congestion is by building transit systems.

yet across the country what cities are doing are actively tailoring our transit to build roads. this guy is a republican engineer. this is not a political conversation. people take up more space than cars do. he gives his presentation to eisenhower and others to say you should tell them to instruct state to stop using our federal money designated to connect the country to solve this new problem of urban congestion. eisenhower's response is captured in a memorandum written a few days after the meeting, and he was mad his program was being used in a way he had not requested. he responds apparently in frustration. and those who had implemented it that way had done so against his desire. so i found that and i was like

it was not supposed to be this way. this was not the intent of the program. this was never what was supposed to happen. why didn't they change anything? i found eisenhower secretaries daily notes in the archives, and she has this note that these guys were in for a meeting on the highway program. they think cities should be directed to not build highways to the middle of their cities. general parsons and others thinks it would be murder to move in an election year. so it is an election year. money has been allocated to states. eisenhower says the state would rise up in arms if we took away this money. the state of electoral votes. he wants his party to win reelection, so nothing is done. >> we have talked about displacement. how communities have been affected. housing by what you are describing. one of the mind blowing facts

that is in the book comes from texas department of transportation study. the fact that on omissions in texas account for almost 1/2 of 1% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the world. i do not know if you were aware of that when you started the book, but if you didn't were you shocked? because i was when i read that. i know we have an issue with this, but that is an amazing statistic. >> i was shocked. i actually wrote a story for the texas observer, and that led to this book. when i was reporting that story i was looking through environmental documentation. and this on road assessment it is super technical, and there is this graph showing texas omissions. worldwide omissions and taxes,

and i think the point is to say we sure are not admitting that much on our roads. look at this little circle. i interpreted it as we drivers in texas are responsible for have a percentage of all the omissions in the whole world. that is absolutely staggering. to me that honestly fueled a lot of are important for the book that gives it the urgency. highway expansion will take people's homes and pollute our air. what we absolutely know is it will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions and won't solve the problem it is set out to solve. we have a measurable impact on global warming worldwide. that is really staggering to me and also an opportunity to say if we stop these that could also have a material impact.

>> one of the things you document in the book. this movement that has grown in opposition to some of the assumptions that were made about expanding highways. you look at the opposition to expanding i-35. the opposition to expanding i-45 in houston. a movement to remove the elevated highway in dallas. in reading the book it really felt like something has been building here over the last several years becoming a coordinated movement. could you talk a little bit about how you have seen this grow and why you think it has become the movement that it is now. >> i absolutely think we are in a new wave of freeway revolts today. i start reporting on this grassroots group with normal people learning about this massive highway expansion that will displace 1200 homes and

300 businesses. take like 450 acres of land. absolutely enormous. this group said no. we do not want that. they started to go door to door knocking on doors of people who lived in the expansion or who it would be in their backyards. a lot of them didn't know about it. they started this pretty remarkable grassroots opposition movement, and they successfully stop that expansion for two years. members of the group filed complaints alleging the project violated the civil rights act because it impacted black and hispanic people. according to their own analysis they are predominantly low income and minority populations . the filed complaints, and they said we need you to pause what you are doing well we investigate these complaints.

you can find out more about what happened with that in the book, but as a result they were able to negotiate. they had leverage. young people in their 20s and 30s who see the connection between highways and climate change. particular the increased flooding. so concurrently as i was reporting there is a group in austin that grew up out of the opposition to the i-35 expansion that i mentioned earlier. for about a decade in dallas there has been a campaign to remove a3 45 that bound the eastern edge of downtown dallas and impacts in an enormous amount of land. the argument is we could put that land to better use. we could put affordable housing on it or offices or whatever the community needs and wants.

absolutely a wasted opportunity to use that as a highway. those campaigns were happening separately. what was cool to observe is over the four years i reported this book they started to talk with each other. they started to coordinate and realize the power was not at the city council or their district. it is at this entity which oversees them, so they started organizing statewide. biweekly zoom calls. they have organized several statewide protest, and i think seeing about growing coordinated movement is also happening nationwide. i went to cover it for bloomberg. there are grassroots campaigns talking to each other trying to figure out how to get to the root cause of these highway expansions. why do they keep happening and

how can we change policy to prevent them? >> the real power is texas transportation commission. it is really amazing to read some of the accounts from the book and to get the sense that they are really disinterested in the sentiment of people in the communities that are going to be affected by some of these projects weather was i-35 expansion. you have someone that you write about ultimately filing a civil rights case, and they put a pause on the project. my reading was the commission was vengeful about it and said parts of the project you might want we are going to just give that up. you are not going to get that because you're trying to brought this expansion of i- 45. along those lines in san antonio we had an experience very similar where we had a project that was overwhelmingly approved by voters. dealing with broadway. the

project was going to provide bike lane for a stretch of broadway. it would widen the sidewalks. the texas transportation commission essentially turned over control to the city of san antonio. technically they still had ownership of it. there were no objections from the commission after the bond was passed. while the plans went forward. suddenly at a certain point the chairman decided that this wasn't going to happen. we had the mayor of san antonio in support of this. the voters adamantly in support of this. the chairman did not care. i want to get your thoughts about it. he wrote about this

very well in the book. as you point out there were a lot of questions and suggestions that bruce had heard from the governor that had affected it because we had not really heard any objections to this. and suddenly we did. >> that was remarkable to me when that happened. watching that unfold. the voters of san antonio overwhelmingly approved this bond that would have never the root and edit infrastructure to take away to add bike lanes that the voters overwhelmingly approved. there was some technicality that they had not actually turned over ownership despite working with engineers in san antonio and the city. some random meeting in february 2022 there is an item on the agenda about a broadway. the meeting was really remarkable. before he puts it to a vote he

says i want to give some context for this agenda item. he says the governor has given us one directive. they are all appointed and answer only to that. the directive is to fix congestion. abbott ran for office promising to fix traffic. he created this $65 billion program which is kind of responsible for all of these across the state. he said i think removing capacity on this would go against the governor's directive to us. therefore we must take this facility back and keep it as a six lane road. it is absolutely undemocratic. i am speechless even now. everyone in san antonio was shocked by that, and it was sort of a mystery. a lot of people speculated. i was never able to prove that, but bruce lives in san antonio. shout out if he is listening.

you can look at the property tax and find out where he lives. you this pretty close to broadway. he knew about that project. there was no way he was unaware of what the city was planning, and to just have this vintage be removed from this project from the voters i found to be remarkable. i got a little bit of clarity on it a few months later. like a high up i was on the panel and there was a local reporter who said what happened? what was up with that? there was this quote in the book. i still find it funny. he said be part of the bond was to make the roads safer. a lot of people are injured or die on that road because it is not well designed for bike or pedestrians. so that was a part of the project. he said something like we

understand the need to make texas roads safer, but not at the expense of vehicular capacity. because that is our highest priority. it is moving texans quickly in a car. >> i'm going to pause to think about that for a minute. one of the things i think many of us have heard over the years is texas is unique geographically. such a big state. a lot of our cities developed after the advent of the automobile. unlike some of the cities in new england and the northeast. i was curious to get your take. sometimes you hear that public transit can't work on the same levels and sexist cities that we might see it elsewhere and that texans love the freedom of driving their own cars, and it

is just the nature of the state. it is not going to adapt to what we might see in other states. i will present that argument, and get your take on it. >> i love that. how many of you love to drive? we have a handful. i do not love to drive, but in austin i have to drive everywhere to get where i am going. there are no other alternatives but we have been sold this narrative that cars our freedom and offer independence and autonomy. therefore we should do everything to incentivize car travel because that is what americans want. that is what americans have. that is what we do. our behavior is:dated by the infrastructure that is built by us. there just are not other options. i would gladly get rid of my car if i have viable alternatives.

to the people who love driving in here those who love driving should still encourage transit because it gets people like me off the road and you have a clear road ahead. everyone should support that. >> i wanted to ask you one last thing. at one point someone in the book with regard to this issue we are talking about asked what is the transition plan? even if we say we will remove some highways that have caused more damage than anything positive, and we start to move more towards public transit. it is not an easy process. what would be transition look like, and how would that work? >> that is a great question. to go back to your previous question we have built cities

around. it's not easy to reverse that. we have to retrofit our cities in some way. there will be some short-term pain but that. i would argue that is much less than the pain of living through the hottest summer on record for example. we have this huge urgency to change how we get around and move. i am not trying to undersell how difficult of a challenge that is. i look at the money we are going to spend on the highway expansions. 65 billion over the coming decade. imagine what we could do if we put that into transit. imagine what we could do if we build light rail with that money. beginning to think about how we spend our money and what it is incentivizing.>> as you pointed out in the book, state law dictates that about 97% of its budget to roadways or highways.

>> 97% of our state funding is required to be spent on roadways. >> so we are going to start taking questions. let's start with you. >> kind of more of an observation, but we talk about how we do not like to drive. we talk about these highways just creating more congestion. in san antonio the voters have routinely voted against alternatives such as light rail. how do we change the narrative? is it fear of the unknown why we keep doing this? because it has been three times? and overwhelmingly. until we feel the pain i do not think our legislative change

that incentive. is there any hope? the voters say one thing, but we act in a different manner. how do we bridge that gap? >> i do not know enough about the votes in san antonio. the same thing happened in austin twice. i will say that i certainly did not vote on the i-35 expansion. i have not voted on any highway expansions in texas. the state does not fund transit pixies are being asked to pony up more money to pay for transit systems. we passed project connect by agreeing to raise our property taxes. that was a hard pill for many people to swallow. the idea of paying more to get transit was a hard sell. we ultimately passed it. i would imagine the voters what has to pay sales tax or some other kind of bond. it is

certainly understanding people are strapped for money and might reject that. the state transportation agency is only funding highways. i think that is the bigger question. >> can you speak to any documentable connection between the oil industry and highways and everything you're talking about now? >> yes. there is one. i do not know enough about the oil industry, but the connection between concrete companies and highway construction companies is very clear. the contractors is the lobby arm for the highway industry. the people who maintain highways. they spend millions of dollars electing people like greg abbott. the connection between highway

and concrete companies is very clear. the members of the transportation commission certainly have connections to oil and gas money. i did not do the investigative journalism to document it, but the former commissioner owned car dealerships. >> weather gerrymandering is an issue here. we have 65% of them living in the five metro areas. getting on i-35 from here to austin and back is a nightmare. there is no state-level initiatives to deal with that. we had a $34 billion surplus in the last year of the texas legislature and there were no substantial mass transit initiatives that tapped into that money. so it just seems to me the republican leadership in the state either doesn't accept the data driven science behind induced demand or there is some

other reason for why they simply won't engage in mass transit issues. >> that is a great question. it is true of a lot of texas politics, which is cities are dominated by rural interest. with the liberal cities need to be constrained. that was the whole dynamic of the last session. cities do not have the authority to pass regulation. you see it in transportation, which is the chairman of the senate transportation commission is this man representing rural texas. he has entered norma's amount of power, but his constituents do not really need or want to transit. i certainly think emerald texas highways are not an appropriate solution. urban voters in texas don't have much power in the state legislature. that is manifested negatively in many ways, and one of them

is transportation. decisions? is it the highway lobby? oh, i mean, it's absolutely a story of political corruption. and i did do that reporting for my story in the texas observer that ran in 2021, looking the associated general contractors just as a as a slice >> it is a story of political corruption. i did that reporting in my story that ran in 2021 looking at the associated general contractors as a slice of that highway lobby of how much money they give to texas politicians, and they have given more than millions of dollars to governor abbott to get him reelected. so the transportation commission answers to governor abbott who certainly gets a lot

of money from highway contractors. i am not diminishing that. i think the political corruption is really important. the larger story i was trying to get at is the political corruption and also this idea that we have been sold that cars our freedom. that is something that i heard again and again in hearings and at the texas capital. and hearing to open up the fund for transit and someone was there testifying saying public transit is for socialists. highways are capitalism. it is reductive and absolutely false. you can disprove we spend millions subsidizing highways. that perception remains. there is a local corruption and also a wrong correlation politically that transit is for liberals and cities. that is disproven when you look in the 1960s. in the 1970s and 80s. reagan raised the gas talks and

funded transit this political dynamic we live in today is new to the idea transit is for liberals. >> that actually was going to be my question. the association or how we think about freedom. that word and how that relates to transit. you already answered it, but if you wanted to pursue it a little more feel free. >> i do not have that much more to say except i do not feel free chained to my car. i think a lot of people feel that way. particularly young people.>> you mentioned concrete companies. have big car companies especially american car companies affected this in any way over whether it was the bill in 1962 or from then until now? >> general motors is a sort of behind the inception of the program, which i documented in the book. sponsoring this exhibit that

basically sold roosevelt on the idea of creating an interregional highway network which eventually morphed into that system. i did not do the reporting to document how companies have influenced how we spend our money, but certainly if i had a year and some funding. i have no doubt the federal infrastructure bill was influenced by car money. i just haven't documented it. >> i think we have time for one quick question. is there anyone else? yes. we will get the microphone to you. >> i am in the design field. i know when we were taught on roads that you do not widen it. either get an alternate route or alternate transportation. what my question. my first --

my friends of my generation. they would say i do not walk. i will do a bike. when i talk with all of these 20 or 30-year-olds. my nieces. they live in your downtown. they bike to work. they will sometimes take cars where it is that rental system. are we in 50 years going to have dinosaurs for highways? do you think we have all of these billions of years and you take away two generations and then all of them won't be driving that much, and they are going to want transportation. i just think this is wonderful, and i have been encumbrances listening, and they were trying not to cry when they were doing these presentations. they fought for over 10 years.

i just wish there was an alternative for the future. >> young people do not want these highways. not just because you can see drivers license registration among young people is much lower. it is on the decline. also young people see the connection between highways and climate change. i talked to this activist who is 16 in portland and protested outside the department of transportation for two years at saint clement leaders do not widen freeways. there is a parallel climate movement. i will also say that driving doesn't serve a lot of people. a quarter of texans do not dry. when i was reporting this book my dad lost his ability to drive. it is not just for young people. a lot of older people with any disability that prevents them from driving. our form of transportation simply does not serve them. there is a huge demand for other forms of transportation besides driving.

thank you for bringing up the title of the session. i have talked to a lot of think tanks and researchers, but the ultimate argument is we should tear the highways down. i went and they removed a section of their into the highway and filled it in and build housing on top of it, and it is absolutely remarkable to see. land that used to be exclusively for speeding cars. polluted land. concrete. it is now three-story apartment complexes where people live and walk around and go to the brewery down the street. that is their vision of the future. we built these things over the course of the decade. we can absolutely tear them down. >> i apologize for anybody that had a question we could not get to. we have to wrap things up, but i want to thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> have a great day. thank you. as i mentioned, my ne

flores. i serve as chancellor for the alamo colleges district here in san. i was born in the rio. most importantly, my father was born in san felipe and served, graduated my father was born in san felipe bay and graduated from high school. was a city councilman, and he has passed, but my mother graduated from delhi real high school. we are fortunate we have lived here in san antonio for many years. in the audience i have my wife and my daughter, but you all are here to hear from jesse esparza. i want to provide an introduction. and associate professor and

interim chair of the department of history at texas southern university in houston. his area of expertise is on the history of latinos in the united states. emphasizing civil rights activism. his manuscript was published by the university of oklahoma press as a part of their new directions in the history series. it has already received two awards. 2 and counting. the outstanding book award by the texas association of chicanos in higher education and the 2024 nonfiction book award by the national association. he teaches mexican- american texas and civil rights history. he received his ba and masters

degrees from southwest texas state university, and a phd from the university of houston, so if you will please join me in welcoming the good dr. i mey personal experience, right and connected in my my dad's mentioned the book. i want to do one thing and i just want to ask folks that are from del rio or san felipe if >> thank you. i appreciate the invitation and the space to talk about such an important work and community, so thank you. >> i mentioned my personal experience and my dad is mentioned in the book. i want to do one thing and ask the folks if they can stand or have family from there so we can recognize them. so that we can know the audience. >> for sure. that is what i wanted to actually begin with. if you can tell us folks who

may have read your book or who have lived experience can you tell us about the schools? >> yes. essentially the story of a one- of-a-kind school district that existed in a borderlands town in the city of dillon rio in this mexican-american community in the city of delhi rio known as san felipe a. the story of a community and the people who organized and established in 1929 right as we were coming into the great depression. established an independent school district. first of its kind. arguably the only kind of school system that would be organized by mexican-americans at the height of jim crow. that is to say at a time when mexican americans were segregated and is enfranchised. victims of environmental discrimination. when they were over policed and mass incarcerated. you have this community in the

city of dillon rio in 1929 on the cuff of going into the depression establishing an independent school district recognized by the state board of education and agencies coming out of austin, and it is an accredited school system with graduating learners as early as 1932. that is what the story is. the rise and fall if you will and the legacy of the school district known as san felipe aisd. named after the community that birthed it. >> you are from san antonio. we were talking about that earlier. graduated from breckenridge high school. how did you hear about or come across the story of the school district? >> i had never coming up k-12 heard of san felipe a or the isd. even when i went to college despite having to change my majors like most people do i

eventually landed in history as a major. even as an undergrad i never heard of the school district. in the graduate program i never heard of this school district. then i go to the university of houston. i am there for about two years before i learned about this school system. it was actually in my advisor who is a giant in our field and who served as my advisor who recommended this school district as my study because initially i wanted to do the youth movements and what students were doing in san antonio and houston and dallas and wherever, so when i met him i said i want to do what you do but write my dissertation on this and he said do not do that. you are almost done there. everybody knows that history. rightly so. there is a lot more work to be

done, but he knew what i did and at that moment. we need to focus on histories that are not being discussed at all that no one hears about. he recommended that i maybe not switch land, but move over a lane or so to consider doing this. i said i didn't want to do that. he said just go down there and see what you can find. i went on an excavation. i talked to one or two people when i was down there and said i had no idea this existed here. i was fascinated. i was hooked. so i came back to my advisor and said let's do it. it initially became my dissertation. and that sat on the shelves for years. around 2020 i picked it back up and turned it into a manuscript. a two-time award-winning manuscript. i am just saying.

>> what did that look like when you went back? >> it felt like i went back in time actually. this was a small community. i was familiar with the city. in the times that i visited i had not been in this neighborhood or known about this community and the historical importance of what had happened. i know of other significant moments like the case that comes out of the city of dillon rio in 1930. the first court case that tried to destroy segregation in schools. i knew that of course, but i did not know about san felipe. it was like going back in time. it reminded me a lot of when i used to visit my family in mexico. these small houses and streets. it is not all like that, but this is what i remember when i first went there, and that was my impression. and then i saw that they had a museum.

they called a memorial center, and it is, but i call it a memorial museum. it is really a research facility that houses the most extensive collection of memorabilia and artifacts dedicated to telling the history of that school district and community. i had a chance to go in and i was just floored and amazed by the wherewithal of the community preserve. this history. these are valiant acts of preservation that they engaged in. decades before i went on to write this history. i am not the first historian to document or the first person to document the history of san felipe. i am not, and i won't be the last. this is just the tip of the iceberg. there is much more history that comes out of this community to tell for sure.>> what is one of the most interesting things you discovered during that process? >> i was really impressed with how mexican americans since before or i guess at the turn of the 20th century have always

resisted. they resisted the things that oppressed them. they fought back. they were not of these -- they did not stand on the sideline. they used whatever resources were available. they fought tooth and nail. they fought with grit and with everything. it really just confirmed for me that mexican americans have the long history of activism, and that they engage with my good friend and mentor calls a spectrum of resistance that is to say they use the courts. city hall. they take it to the streets and engage protest politics and also formed their own institutions from religious institutions to cultural centers to businesses and also to educational spaces like san felipe isd. that was really confirmed for me. that is one of the things that i appreciated in my early research when i started to do

this research. >> looking and reading the book that i took away is what you mentioned. i always think of starting in the 50s and really accelerating in the 60s, but you say that it began much earlier? that arc of resistance. so that it began how much earlier?>> i would take it back to the 1910s and teens because a lot of the tenants of the movement. this idea of autonomy and self- determination. this idea of being self- sufficient and reliant existed in the 1910s and teens decades before that was really propelled during the chicano movement of the 60s and 70s and even into the 80s. i do extend the period as asian as we understand it backwards into an earlier period. i talk

about the revolutionary zeal that existed in this community. a lot of the sentiment and idea being aspired by the revolution of mexico ideas of freedom and democracy and liberation and community uplift. social uplift. so on and so on. that was already cemented into this community. the next logical step for them was to ensure that they control every institution in the community including the schools as well.>> though that sense of economy. e you seen one of the takeaways i think for readers also is, as you mentioned, the role the schools play within the community as key anchors. have you seen that in other research that you have conducted or other writings or manuscripts you are developing? is this analogous or something that is unique? >> it is a bit of both. i have seen examples of what existed in san felipe and other

schools, but i see it at a microcosmic level. not to the extent it existed in this very unique independent school system. this district demanded excellence and achievement among the student body. it expected the students to pass every grade and to graduate from high school and to apply and enroll and become accepted in an institution of higher learning. this is telling because if you look at what is happening to mexican american learners across the state of texas during the 1930s through 50s most of them are not receiving an education past the eighth grade or maybe can get to the 10th and 11th grades and are not allowed to graduate as seniors or would not be encouraged to apply to the st. mary's and ut austin and places like that. they would be pushed into the service industry, and those kind of occupations tended to privilege the rich and

underserved the poor. in san felipe that was not the case. it demanded this. demanding this kind of success on the part of students and provided a request academic curriculum that prepared them for that to stand the rigors of a higher education and more importantly survive beyond college education as many of them would go to live in other places. so they wanted to make sure that the students can learn and survive in what would have been a hostile environment outside of this very protective environment that they had generated and created since the 1910s and teens. most of them go elsewhere and may not find themselves in a protective environment, so the school leaders and parents and all nature students were equipped academically and socially and culturally and so on and so on. >> what are some of the things

as you work with students at texas southern, and they go through this where you discuss the process what are some of the learnings that you provide to them? >> i teach at texas southern university in houston, which is an hbcu. i teach mexican-american history. when i assigned this book to my students who are mostly african american the response i get from them is i did not know that mexican-american students had a similar history to the african american community. there are a lot of parallels. that tells me it is there moment that they are learning. they got something. we sort of consider the educational experiences of mexican americans. i alluded to it a few moments ago, but if we stand back and take a birds interview we know it's a tragic experience. they have high illiteracy rates. we know that they are

arbitrarily suspended and expelled. viewed as intellectually inferior. apathetic towards education. this is historically speaking. we know certainly that they are segregated. classrooms and buildings are not properly managed or mismanaged. lacking the space. sometimes they do not have running water or electricity. it is a tragic learning experience across the state, but the other thing they walk away with is this is kind of like going across against the grain here. this is counter narrative to the typical mexican-american experience in the state, and in many ways it is a unique experience what is happening to the students and learners in the san felipe community for sure. that is will students walk away with. >> there are several innovations you mentioned they utilized early on. a nexus in the community

providing meals and actually a pre-k prior to headstart. a lot of other things. there are some other innovations that you discovered that are not mentioned in the book or are there things you would have liked to have emphasized in your process? >> i think i got everything that i was able to find. i did put it in the book, but you mentioned something very important. this district was in many ways to be clear about it teaching the curriculum that was assigned to them out of austin. just like all accredited school districts across the state. the teachers and leaders of the system i call it steering the curriculum. they steered it in a way to ensure that came to the benefit of their students. they toned down the character of texas curriculum during this period. or they made sure to include

heroes and leaders of the mexican and mexican american community so that learning would be relevant to the students. or they did not criminalizes speaking in spanish the way houston isd might have. it did not criminalizes students, and they did not see themselves as the bad guys or the enemy or as newcomers in the curriculum. it really resonated with them. beyond that it also worked just as hard to help with the uplift of the entire community. i call it the holistic

approach. they also had all kinds of drives. i was amazed to learn that the school district of all things was providing these vaccines for the community who would have had access to healthcare services and other parts of the city. many went to get dental work done and those kind of things. they would have limited access. at the school is now serving as a critical site to provide healthcare services to the people in need of those things. this was all free of charge. the school district did that because they knew it needed to be transformative. needs to be transformative to their families in the entire community as well because if we all can't uplift none of us will uplift.>> and graduate studies know what they tell you is that is a community school. in a sense we see san felipe actually did that a century ago. very impactful. >> a good way to think about it

is the way we consider ethics studies today. a curriculum is to serve of culture and community. parents. a curriculum that is accurate and rigorous. sort of this prototype of what eventually becomes ethics studies before that is even coined. >> based on the discussion i had asked if he would read a passage. nothing better than hearing it from the author. >> please. way san felipe existed both inside and outside the system of segregation because one of the

reasons that the school >> this passage right here. i tried to explain the way san felipe existed inside and outside the system of segregation. one of the reasons the school leaders are the leaders of this community. they founded the district so their kids would not be segregated and what was traditionally a white independent school district. and neighboring independent school district. also in the city of del rio. we are going to educate them our own way we are going to do that. i talk about this, but in doing so san felipe inadvertently or perhaps on purpose becomes a segregated school system because it was at least 95% mexican-american. it becomes almost a segregated system. it does, so i tried to deal with that. it is not an easy thing to deal with. here is my attempt to deal with

it in the book. the unique way san felipe operated inside and outside the system of segregation. mexican americans have a long history of challenging segregated schools and lawsuits. a year earlier they formed a separate school system in the district to circumvent schools and their segregation policies. more than separating themselves mexican americans by developing their independent school district effectively shielded themselves from outside forms of harassment creating an insular environment where students can develop cognitively and emotionally and socially. that insulation in turn entrenches students future success and school persistence. they provided students with an education that made them competitive in an era when mexican americans were typically viewed as nothing more than the servant class. the students learned how to be resilient in a society aimed to disenfranchise them and economically exploit them in discriminate against them in

numerous ways. with this environment as a result mexican americans were better able to educate their children and prepare them to thrive academically and intellectually outside their community despite the harsh jim crow policies that disadvantaged them. in this sense as a segregated educational unit proved beneficial as it had mexican- american students learn in the classroom and perhaps more importantly survive beyond it. >> so what do we leave with that passage?>> listen. segregation. that comes in all

kind of communities. integration is something definitely to be celebrated. i think that is sort of muddies the water in many ways. i think that is a good thing. it is more complex than we might imagine it. if we allow ourselves to go into these complex bases i think we become better learners and under standers of the way history operates. i am never one to uphold and insist on segregation, but i understand the importance of autonomy and self-sufficiency. i understand the importance of self-reliance. i recognize the benefits that can come from that. the school district does not exist anymore. it is now consolidated with the neighboring school district. they were integrated in 1971. it opens up all kinds of cans of worms if you will, but it creates problems. students struggled and teachers struggled. parents struggled to adopt and

adapt and find ways to never great in a new school system. while it should be celebrated and exist everywhere also comes with the poverty of progress. what you will have is the almost erasure of this community. it will have memorabilia that will be destroyed on purpose and structures that will be removed on purpose. things that are to be sent to the incinerator on purpose. as a way to silence and erased intellectual accomplishments of this one-of-a-kind school district. the other thing that i hope our listeners and viewers can walk away with is that i think that we should also shift the way we think about and the focus of where these studies should exist. we tend to for example emphasize major urban centers. ,

refocus and reorient the way we try to explore these these pockets of communities for civil rights activism and those kinds things. so i have one final question, and then we're going to open it up for q&a. but are are you with your comments foreshadowing what's next for you? yeah. in fact i have sort of been told right. i've been violent by the descendants of teachers from this community that should, you know, sort of take up another project. and they're here in this room and they're watching me. so i'm very careful. but no, you know, one of the teachers that i talk about in this in this in this book, irene gardner's cardwell is and a longtime teacher in this district, played a crucial role in making sure that students, you know, got to the graduation. and so in some of my earliest talks and some of my earliest visits since the book came out to del rio and to san felipe i had met her sons and daughters and granddaughters and ah,

excuse and nephews and nieces and, and so they sort of collectively said, well, you know, you should write a biography on la maddalena around this card. well. and i was like, okay, i didn't have a title really, but, but i'll be happy to do it. i'm very proud to, to continue this, you know, i'm not san felipe, but i went and visited with them. they treated me like. i was born and raised there. they treated me like family. they brought me into their houses. they shared with me their most intimate private moments and histories, their their triumphs and their tragedies. they fed me. they took me to mexico. they taught me around the city. and i really learned more history from speaking to the of this community than i did searching all the archives that i searched through to to write this book. so i it's my privilege and my honor to say, yes, i will work on his biography. let's get it done for sure let's.

so evokes a lot of memories right and definitely i'm sure are some questions in the audience. dr. esparza so we have a microphone here in the center, and then i think there's a question in the back right on the other side of the camera camera. thank you. i'm just curious whether, in your getting to know the community in writing your book whether you've of something called the border or going to say center perhaps some of the folks from del are familiar with that. whether you see any connection or links or emotional or other of energy that created the school district kind of like manifest itself once again in these organizing efforts of recent vintage. so i have not heard of that

organization. but again, right, i think that goes back to what i mentioned earlier, is that one of the things that i learned as soon as i was done with this book is when i go on talks, people come and say, hey, wait a minute, you got this wrong. this is how it is. and i'm constantly learning and new information really, again, from the people who are there. i mean, i wrote the book, but i'm not the expert i'm not the expert on this. the people from this community are the experts on this community. and so really sort of take a page out of their playbook to fill up this book. but so i'm not familiar with that organization, but again, it goes back to what i said, this is just a tip, the iceberg because there's much, much, much more learn to learn from this and from the accomplishments of this community. and i hope also because one of the things that i argue in this book is that it's the only independent school district managed by mexican-americans. i hope and i hope this across as okay, but i hope that wrong because we want to make sure we

want hopefully find that there are other mexican-american communities throughout, texas throughout the nation who are also doing as those are san felipe did san felipe should not be the only one currently it is, but i hope that's not the case for two too long. yeah, we have another question in back. yes. did any of those same rigors that you describe in the for lack of a better word la raza school district transfer two to the consolidated school district, or were they lost? yes, that's a fantastic question. thank you it's a bit of both also because what happens in the immediate aftermath of consolidation, this is 1971. by 1971, federal courts are forcing independent school districts, the state, to integrate with neighboring school systems who are identified as single race school district, meaning san felipe, was 95% mexican-american.

so a single race school district, if you're over 60%, you are a single race school district. and this was happening with african, with anglo-americans. and so on and so on. this was happening everywhere. not just in in del rio, but into rio when consolidation takes effect, there are clashes among, teachers and administrators over the curriculum as. teachers from there realized don't care to implement the same that teachers from at isda were implementing to, you know, to their to their learners. so they clashed and they fought, for example, san felipe ise de was teaching bilingual education and after leaders from doe realized the move to strike it and so parents and teachers fought and they resisted and they kept it as part of the curriculum. and it will continue for years. this this fight, you'll have english only movements that sweep through the city. you'll have americanization movements that sweep the city. you'll have movements try to

remove these welfare, as they call it, a welfare programs. they try to do all these things. but the parents fought and the teachers fought to keep it, you know, as part of the curriculum. so, yes, it's a little bit of both in that it went away, but then it came back and then it went away and then it came back. and that's the ebb and flow of of sort of bilingual education and other of enrichment education programs like the migrant program, like the adult basic education program, like the night school program, and those kinds things was a great question. thank you. it was very good. yeah. all right. so the back is fairly active asking questions. so we're going to. yes, hi. sorry. do have a question. i'm just kind of interested in the timeline of your book because it's in the mid to late 1920s into 1930s, which is also the of the border violence with border patrol, which is what we know it as. right. but that inches i'm interested in knowing if this had any type of impact in the school becoming its own community that that is a

that is a great question. well, so t timeline the book really focuses on the periods between 1929 and 1971. now i begin study in the mid late 1800s when the first original families who would arrive into this community settle the place and they would come from sort of these northern and northwestern parts of mexico, these these intellectual families, these entrepreneur nerds who bring, you know, sort of their their entrepreneurship and intellect to this community. this is a literate of, you know, a community. and so i start there. it just kind of to give readers a sense of when this community was formed. and then i kind of fast forward to the 1920s to talk about the formation of the school district, which would have been in 1929. and then i sort of end in 1971 with consolidation. but then almost kind of, you know, and also in 1985. so i got like four different starting and stopping, but to

your question about you know, the violence happening in other parts of the borderlands against ethnic mexicans or by law enforcement who were behaving in sort of these extrajudicial manners, did that have an impact in why this community, the school system? i don't explored much in the book. my my answer would be yes, because it falls within that that that that that effort to create an insular protective environment and protection not just against segregation, not just against and bigotry, but certainly against violence. in the city of del rio, for example while police violence was not to the extent in this community like it would have been in south texas, there are instances of that and during the great depression, when there are massive deportation campaigns and efforts to remove people from the nation many of which would be citizen border persons from the nation, the people of

this community formed an organization to protect themselves from these forest removals, if you will. and so it falls in line with this to always protect the community. the community is first, we need to protect, secure, safeguard the people of this community to the best of our ability. but that is a fantastic question. and again, goes back to there is much more work that needs be done. the so the border violence actually, the bob bullock museum had, an exhibit and that's slated actually through perhaps that has poco to come to san antonio next year. you know one of the one of the things in reading and our schools is just that it's beginning to create dialog and expanding the arc right that the movimiento began earlier are there other things we should be mindful as as laypeople right we're not historians could be educators folks in other fields. how can we lend to to the discussion and creating a critical mass to actually give

voice to these stories so for a sense of affirmation and for future general for current and future. right. what what do you recommend and my recommendation is to get this book and yeah and and i know how that sounds right but i don't mean because i want sales. okay, the sales will come get this book, read this book, go and visit this community, go and visit this community. get recommend these books to your libraries. recommend these books to your cultural, recommend these books to your school, recommend these books. these are the that our children should be reading. this book is not on the approved reading list in the city of del rio. perhaps now, maybe it can be in it should on on the approved list of reading books but yeah i mean it's it's really to learn this story and get the story out there you it it was a shame that i did not know about this community until into two years of my master or the graduate the

peers do program. i should have learned about this school district in the third grade. in the third grade year and. so, you know, do what you can to get the story out. support your local historians, support local libraries. i give all praise to the librarians in this community, to the archivists in this community, to the to the expert historians live in resident houses, in community. it's because of them that this book was able to be written a lot of it is gleaned through oral history. i give a lot of credence and weight to oral histories. oral histories are fascinating ways to write stories. they're fascinating ways to challenge inaccurate frameworks. they are fascinating ways to fill in gaps in the archival record, the fascinating ways to recreate the archival record when there original record. oral histories do that. and you know, i encourage you maybe to wherever you go back to go do an oral history project, go talk to your family, go talk to your elders, we'll talk to

someone in the community. go talk the person who's been running that grocery store since the seventies, there's history there. there's rich history there. it's richer than. you might think it is. i when we have time and appropriately we'll we'll end with your question. but i think now many third graders and others will about the history of san felipe so my name is david cardwell and my mother was guardian unscarred. well and first of all, before anything i'd like to thank you, mr. flores, especially your and your dad. i moved to california. your son is in del rio. from 71 to 73, and i don't know who with whom what's going to

stay because i was going to go teach over there in california and your father opened the door to. me, so i could stay with. you or i could find a place. and i think it was my mother who called him and said then i learned what i'm your equal goes to goodness to. there was kind of people that we were shared to. there's hope, feelings. for a very close community. the teachers cared for us. they loved us. the community was a one. if you did anything wrong in our community were you home? your parents knew about it because. they loved us and they wanted us

to succeed. and i think we were the second poorest school district in the state, texas. but also had the highest number of doctorates in the state of texas for minority because the parents cared. the teachers as well and that's what does and that's what creates a winning once the consolidation took place it destroyed a lot of that. when i got there in 71 and that was a teacher i asked where are all the trophies or all the band uniforms? they were set fire. they destroyed them. you try to destroy our history. that is crime that should not happen openly. can learn those lessons and carry them into the future again.

i'd like to thank your mother for letting me sleep on your couch and opening up me. i taught in folsom cordova unified school district for 37 years and i returned to texas and i live wimberley, texas. but thank very much. appreciate it. thank you for that. you know, sir. you can hear it. you can hear it on his voice is every time that i sat down to interview somebody, that pain and that pride, that emotion, it just overwhelming. i have interviews where i have to just the recording to give this person some dignity and privacy to cry over things that happened years ago. but for them traumas them still as though it happened yesterday and but i recognize that that with that you know with those

come the courage and the strength to really push forward and you really educate the the next generation who come through this community. and so i really appreciate you sharing your words. thank you. you reminded of the interviews that i did down there. when i want to thank you, i want to thank you, mr. cardwell, for honoring the legacy of san felipe. i only knew that through stories my dad actually and from my mom and reading the book evoked many of those times that we were in the driving or that he, as we were going into rio, he would explain about the schools, about the golf team. right. the state state award winners, its opening weekend for the movie the long game. but i want to thank you for giving voice to a community to many individuals outside of san felipe in that region and the legacy that mr. cardwell mentioned. i want to thank you all for being here for a poignant

afternoon and you've told us what's coming next as a scholar and historian, and also that if we are to by your book, which we all should buy several copies, we can do that through where there was the university of oklahoma press or you press dot org and you can also do it through amazon. you're okay with using amazon make purchases. well thank we want to thank dr. jesús jesse esparza tsai. we want to thank c-span tv. we want to thank all of you. and the author will be available for for some conversation for just few minutes because we do have the next event that's coming in in 15 minutes. let's give dr. katz, a round of applause. thank you. thank.

tonight on c-span.

>> in partnership with the library of congress, c-span brings you books that shaped america. our series explores key works of literature that have had a profound impact on the country. in this program, thomas payne's common sense from 1776. as the american revolution entered its second year, many colonists were divided over whether to reconcile with great britain or seek independence. but in january 1776 a pamphlet titled common sense was published in philadelphia. it penned anonymously by an englishman the author was thomas payne, a recent immigrant with connections to founding fathers benjamin franklin and benjamin rush. the pamphlet laid out arguments and persuasive language for not only resisting british rule but casting it off.

payne argued the colonists had an opportunity to create a new nation based on self-rule. the cause of america is the cause of all mankind payne wrote adding that the nearer any government approaches to a republic it -- republic the less business there is. common sense sold hundreds of thousands of copies and was distributed widely across the 13 colonies, it was off and read aloud in taverns and meeting houses which helped spread the patriot cause. in july 1776, six months after common sense was published, the continental congress signed the declaration of independence. host: welcome to books that shaped america a special c-span series that looks at how throughout our history, books have influenced who we are today. this 10 week series will focus on different eras, different topics and different viewpoints. we are glad you are with us, joining us through this walk through history. tonight our focus is thomas

payne and his 1776 common sense. joining us is richard bell, a university of maryland history professor who teaches common sense in his classes. professor bell it is january 1776, what is going on in the american colonies. >> it is a busy time, thank you for having me here. we can go all the way back to the stamp act of 1765 but that seems too far back so why don't we say 1774 it might be where we want to start this conversation. there has just been the boston tea party in december of 1773, and the british king of parliament who retaliated with a series of very coercive draconian responses against the people of austin, the people of massachusetts. a set of acts known as the coercive acts or the citizens of boston call them the intolerable act.

that is caused a lot of uproar, not just in boston massachusetts where these acts are being enforced but in many other colonies as well. so a sense of grievance spreading in 1774. in 1775 we saw the outbreak of hostilities, armed hostilities from lexington and concorde in april of 1775, the battle of bunker hill, the formation of the continental army and in november of 1775 two months before common sense hits philadelphia bookstores we see a royally appointed governor in virginia by the name of lord dunmore offering an extraordinary proclamation to enslaved men of fighting age if they come and join royal forces to cross -- crush these rebels. now calling themselves patriots and he will grant them lifelong freedom so gradually slowly but

surely tensions have been ramping up and what began as some modest political disagreements now seems on the verge of breaking open into something much more trying. peter: how strong was the loyalist sentiment at the point when common sense was published? richard: it is been hard to get a that question because we know what happens next, we know that the patriots will rise and rise and gather and we know that they will win by 1783 when the treaty of paris is signed it so it is important that we scroll back and realize that when this is all starting, it is no sure thing that a movement for separate nationhood, for american nationalism, for independence is going to gather any supporters at all. we don't have accurate estimates of how many patriots are loyalists or neutrals there were. any single moment in time, but in january of 1776 when tom

payne will publish this extraordinary pro independent pamphlet, very few other american colonists were talking openly, let alone loudly about independence. so the default position was for those who felt aggrieved by all of britain's policies, that something must be done. but that something did not yet have a name, and that name was not yet independence. so a redress of grievances was perhaps the order of the day for most aggrieved american colonists. peter: so professor richard bell, this 48 page pamphlet was published. how was it published and what did it contain? richard: oh my goodness. it was published by a publisher with a very similar last name to mind, robert bell, no relation. unlike robert i am a u.s. citizen. robert bell was a philadelphia

publisher with a reputation for publishing things which might make some of his competitors are customers angry. a sort of broad agenda politically speaking. thomas payne it had been scribbling the document we now know to be common sense in the fall of 1775, and shopped it around. robert bell was happy to publish it in part because thomas payne had developed a reputation very rapidly in recent months. as an anti-british flamethrower. agitator. so robert thought he probably might cause a little stir with a pamphlet with such a prominent thesis. he certainly did not know a war for independence would be carried on the back of this pro independent pamphlet but he certainly hoped to make a buck or two. peter: let's read from common sense, in short morc and

succession have laid not this or that kingdom only but the world in blood and ashes. small islands not capable of protecting themselves arehe proper objects for kingdoms to take under the ce, but there is something absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. how subversive was this? richard: in so many ways very subversive indeed. there are people on both sides of the atlantic ocean who have criticized their king or queen before. there are people on both sides of the ocean who have criticized the monarchy as an institution before. but rarely with the vitality, the energy, the command of the english language, the confidence that this relatively unknown writer thomas payne brought to the task. it is a rare and unusual thing

for a public print like this pamphlet, this 48 page un-staged, unbound pamphlet, to say not just that the author has a bone to pick with the king but that all kings everywhere are and by nature will always be illegitimate. and a moral and unscrupulous. it takes extraordinary confidence at the very least to say something like that in public albeit anonymously when the pamphlet was first published. peter: so thomas payne was not writing abstract political philosophy. richard: it is a great question because he is drawing i think on an intellectual, political, cultural well of what we might call republican with a small r, anti-monetary -- monarchy, stretching back 100 years. there have been an english civil war in england in the 16 40's

which seemed anti-monarchist, the cut off the head of the king there. charles the first and that produced writing about why he would do such a thing. it's a pain it may or may not have been familiar with the some of that anti-monarchal writing of 100 years earlier. we certainly know that ever -- other revolutionaries like jefferson or reading and drinking and that well of ideas but i think you could also see payne's own personal politics coming through as well. peter: professor bell, was common sense a common phrase at that time? richard: i'm going to leave it to our friends at the oxford english dictionary to put a particular date on that sort of usage but one thing i did learn in reading some of the wonderful scholarship on thomas payne is that in an earlier phase of his life when he had been a journalist and debater in england he sometimes published pieces in local newspapers in britain. he did not use his own name to sign those pieces, he used a pseudonym.

a made up name or phrase. for the federalist papers for instance. but the one he chose back in england in the 1770's was common sense, so he saw that as a name to plume. a pen name. richard: what was the immediate reaction when common sense hit philadelphia? richard: if found a readership very quickly. we know that not because everyone who bought one wrote down what they bought one and told historians, reading documents in the labors of congress with a thought. but because we know from printing records just how many copies were printed and how many more additions had to rapidly be rushed into print. not just by robert bell in philadelphia but by rival printers basically ignoring any sort of copyright claims in publishing their own bootleg versions in philadelphia. and then printers in other towns and cities from boston and

providence to new york and charleston rushing their own bootleg versions of common sense into print within a matter of weeks. and lots of pamphlets by lots of different authors were published in 1776 but none have the sort of rapid take-up in sales that common sense did. by the end of that first year, 1776, it was published in january, it was the best-selling political pamphlet of the year. there were plenty of readers who hated it and plenty who did not want to read it at all but among those who read it, many found that they were very sympathetic to it. peter: when you read common sense it reads kind of like the declaration of independence. here is a statement and then a diatribe against the king of england. richard: i love that observation. i am hoping we can talk more about the declaration of independence in this conversation because that is a parallel i've been thinking about as well. when we think about the

declaration of independence written after common sense in july of 1776, we often think about that list of grievances that thomas jefferson wrote about king george. all those 25, 27, however many grievances. that he has, he has, taking one charge and leveling it to the king of england after another. i would argue that jefferson must have gotten that idea of personifying the enemy from thomas payne. as you point out, to read common sense is to watch thomas payne say all of the grievances the american colonists are experiencing. they are one man's fault. in that one man is george the third. so there is a same sense of prosecuting in a murder trial in both of those documents. peter: we are talking about 1776 and common sense. we want to give you a snapshot of what the colonies, america was like in 1776. common sense was published in january othat year, about 2.5

one million, or if you estimate e pulation of economies -- colonies, with economies based on for trapping -- the second continental congress governed them athtime and john hancock was president of t congress. the revolutionary war started 4/19/1775. an independence from britain was declared six months after coon sense on july 4 1776 and the taxation rate, this is the number that surprises me, was 1.5%. and there was protest against that. richard: times have changed somewhat haven't they? we could talk in depth about taxation and british policy but i -- let me make two points about the taxes. one is why is britain imposing all of these taxes over the previous 10 or 13 years on these hapless american colonists who don't like having their taxes

raised? one thing to bear in mind is that britain in those colonies had just fought a major global war in the 1750's and 1760's called the seven years war. we in the united states sometimes call it the french and indian war which is its local name. but this global war against the french empire had almost bankrupted the english treasury and so there was a massive national debt in britain. as far as the ministers there were concerned it needed to be paid down. taxation is a way to do that. what many fakes -- folks may not know is it was not just the american colonists who were being handed new taxes to pay down this imperial war that. 20 a british subjects in england itself, scotland and wales were facing higher taxation to but they did not have the same tools at their disposal as people 3000 miles across the sea to register their discontent about taxation with inadequate representation. peter: so nearly 250 years later

richard bell, does thomas payne's common sense hold up and still have an impact? richard: of course, i reread it today. and you did too. there are passages, so many which leap off the page as if they are the sort of political writing that would animate people at any time in any place. the document has some different sections serving different purposes, one part early on is the writings of a very animated constitutional scholar. and they may strike some readers without any familiarity with english constitutionalism as less vivacious as other parts but once you get into the heart of this document, especially the long section were pain dismantles monarchies as legitimate institutions, then pain seems to find his vibe.

his groove in the writing really starts to soar both in terms of his rhetoric but also interestingly in the language choices he uses. he starts to talk at you much more directly and clearly. you feel like he is next to you and you are talking with someone very smart and very opinionated who is going to win you over. that is payne's genius. to use the plain spoken language of a tavern go are really to engage ordinary people. he is not writing for the thomas jefferson's of the world he is writing for the man and woman in the street who can be persuaded by a well reasoned yet clear and accessible prose. peter: take it forward, where would you put him on today's political spectrum? richard: his politics are completely fascinating. to understand his politics you need to realize that common

sense is not all there is to thomas payne. i would argue that tom payne wrote three masterpieces for which he is remembered. in some ways they are very different from one another their names are common sense, the rights of man, and the age of reason. he wrote the other two in the 1790's about two years apart and they have a lot to do with the context of the french revolution which was unfolding by that time. what we can say at the general level is that payne knew what he thought and that his ideology was consistently pro-republic with a small r and pro-democracy. of course with a small d. he wants ordinary people to have responsive, elective, accountable, transparent, representative -- he is suspicious of organized or ancient power structures like

monarchies and organized religion. and so he was one-of-a-kind but i see a lot of lead during any in those ideas. peter: good evening and thank you for joining us for the this book shaping america a kick off of a 10 week series here on c-span looking at books that shaped america. shaped our history, made us who we are today. this list from a longer list put up by the library of congress in 2013. we chose 10 books from that list , you can find all of this information on our website dedicated to this series c-span.org/books that shaped america. this is an interactive series and we want to hear from you. tonight we are talking about thomas payne and common sense will put the phone numbers up on the screen in case he would like to participate in our conversation here with professor richard bell of the university of maryland.

202798 -- for those in the mountain and pacific time zones and if you can't get to the phones and would still like to make a comment or question try the text number. this is for text messages, 202, 748 8003. if you do send a text please include your first name and your city. we will begin taking those calls in just a few minutes. i have mentioned that our partners in this endeavor is the library of congress we are using some of their materials. we are going up and shooting some materials of first manuscripts etc.. a lot of the books that we will be covering in this series and we want to show you this video. this is one of their archivists with an original copy of common sense.

>> i am a curator in the rare book and special collections division at the library of congress. we have here thomas payne's common sense. the first edition. it was printed in january 1776 in philadelphia. it is a 47 page pamphlet in which pain who was a recent immigrant to the colonies, argued for separation from great britain. up until this time americans consider themselves to be part of great britain. even though it there had already been some battles between the american colonies and great britain, most americans wanted reconciliation. this pamphlet change their attitudes towards the monarchy and the abuses of great britain towards the american colonies. and encouraged and persuaded

them to establish a new government. it's divided into four parts. the first is on the history of government and the second part deals with monarchy and hereditary succession. the third part deals with the current state of american affairs, and the fourth part talks about the ability of america to govern itself into form a navy that could challenge the royal navy. this is a first edition and i don't know exactly how many copies were printed in the first edition. there were several additions printed very quickly because it was a very popular pamphlet. there have been estimates of around 75,000 to 100,000 printed within the first few months.

eventually i have seen figures that suggest there were around half a million copies printed in total. at the time, the colonies consisted of about 2.5 million inhabitants and that makes it the best selling book in all of american history. they would have purchased this pamphlet from local booksellers or the printer, in terms of the technical production it uses probably handmade paper that was created on a chain line type paper. and it would have been issued without its binding. it is a pamphlet. people were expected to bind their own books at the time. this particular book or pamphlet is part of our american imprints collection. with this collection at the american imprints collection, we

tried to document the early printing history of the united states and preserve that for posterity. peter: richard bell, are curator at the library of congress was talking about the four sections of the book. why is it important to note how thomas payne divided this book? richard: we don't have payne's own inside baseball account of why he structured it this way. we are sort of left to read the tea leaves a little bit. but i would say he is sort of taking us back to first principles. the first section talks about what governments are for which is not a question many would pause to reflect on. he takes us back to basics and he says governments are intended for a limited number of purposes.

one of which is security, that they have resources to protect us from external threat and quickly and his survey of the history of governments across this plat over several thousand years, which is all done very tightly in a few pages, he makes the argument that governments -- most of them have lost their way. they have exceeded their original purposes and responsibilities and in some way or other, either become bloated and inefficient or become tyrannical and dangerous. those are the two choices. that is setting himself up to then look at one particular government which is the british government under charles the third which he will do in the third part but in the interim he tackles monarchies. a particular form of government and it would be quite the

understatement to say that thomas payne is not a fan. i would be happy to lay out a little more of that, pain sees hereditary monarch is as fundamentally problematic. again in ways that many of us today, especially those of us with a british accent may not always reflect upon. he sees what is unnatural, what is odd about hereditary monarchies. that we concentrate lots of power individuals who we then do not let it in parliament directly would have to sit outside of parliament therefore not knowing what the other hand of government is doing. necessarily. the royal families are people who in payne's words have come to those positions of power not by any great intellectual advantage or political acuity, but because either they were born into a dynastic line by

accident or birth they end up ruling millions of people. or because they are the upstart young man who has killed the previous dynasty of kings and said i think i can do better. which is how every new dynasty at least in the british royal family is often started. so payne appoints all these things out to american readers and labels them and frames them as absurdities. so problem is sizing the conventional wisdom, the status quo and saying we don't have to accept the way it is, we have it in our power to begin the world over again. which of course then takes us into the current state of affairs between america and the british government, which by january of 1776 -- these two sides leads to open arms hostilities. we already had lexington and concord and bunker hill so the question pain is asking by section three of this short punchy pamphlet is are we going

to keep taking more abuse, more perceived here any more tax policies, are we going to cope -- go cap in hand with a list of grievances that the king can reconcile for us? or are we going to break away and say enough is enough and seek independence? as an alternative and then in part for he makes the case that we can and that we will win. peter: let's hear from some of our viewers and let's begin with dan in bridgewater new jersey. good evening to you at your on c-span, please go ahead. caller: as a refugee coming to this country i read this thomas payne pamphlet many times and i have to say i don't see what's the big deal. i don't think it's a major item of historical importance or political science importance or analytical importance. it seems to me it was more

serving interests in the real american revolution to my mind came around the 1960's when the debate over the individual and his rights in his well-being were so predominant. but at that time, and if you look at what happened in this country afterwards it was not really democracy as freedom to rule but rather democracy as a political and economic interest for several classes. richard: peter: we're going to leave it there and get a response from our guest. richard: thank you for the comment there. it is certainly true that to seek independence leaves a lot of unanswered questions about the nature of the governmental system. the republic that may follow it and who is going to be enfranchised to vote and who is not. and pain as someone who considered himself a friend of a

broad participatory democracy was certainly disappointed and disillusioned to see that not as many people, not even every white man, got the vote in the american republic. that immediately followed the end of the war in 1783. we could debate of course for a long time whether common sense is the most important political pamphlet and i think people with different interests would reach different conclusions but people at the time certainly thought that it mounted an explosive challenge to the conventional wisdom about monarchies as an established institution. but it did so in the form of putting forward an argument for separate nationhood and political independence that had not been quite so crystallized by anyone out loud before.

and then it use the plain spoken language of a tavern keeper, of ordinary folks in the street, to drum up support for a political program. in those ways i think it was in arguably revolutionary. peter: and here is another example of thomas payne's writing and common sense. why is it that we hesitate from britain we can expect nothing but ruin. if she has admitted to the government of america again, this continent will not be worth living in from the errors of other nations. let us learn wisdom. well ian ruskin is an actor who impersonates thomas payne and here he is talking about thomas payne's writing style. >> i wrote it in short simple sentences and i wrote it to appeal to my readers best in higher self. i also said the greatest

military power on earth, we could win but in short simple sentences. 'tis not in -- but in unity that our great strength lies. yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world. the cause of america is in great measure the cause of all mankind, in america the law is king. society in every state is a blessing, the government even in its best state is a necessary evil. in its worst state and intolerable one. let me expand on this because it causes much misunderstanding. we are all society and in an ideal situation we would all aid and support each other each contributing to the common good. a blessing. but since we have not yet reached such an enlightened

state we must turn to the necessary evil of government to restrain our vices and to provide the support that we cannot provide ourselves for the common good of the people. peter: that was thomas payne impersonator ian ruskin talking about thomas payne's writing style. back to calls. robert in connecticut. good evening. caller: good evening thank you for c-span. you ought to mention there was a one and a half percent rate of tax, what was that assessed on? property. income. what was the tax rate 10 years earlier? and what was the tax rate of other jurisdictions of the british? thank you. peter: richard any answer for the echo richard: just a quick one at the outset historians continue to debate and refine with the rates of taxation were for any colonial jurisdiction and how they changed over time. so i don't think there is actually an agreed-upon

consensus rate that every historian would sign off on. at this point. what i can tell you is that taxation via the stamp act was on the commercial use of paper in the american and caribbean and canadian colonies. so think of all of the stuff we buy that is made of paper. folks back then used by a lot of the stuff made out of paper, newspapers, prices went up. we could be talking about a pack of playing cards. the price just one up. we could be talking about a liquor license, the price just went up, or a court document, the price just went up. the stamp act really outweighed a large cross-section of the american colonists not just folks in the colonies but also the caribbean colonies in the canadian provinces. and then town should duties came next after appeal of the stamp act, they were handed down in 1767 and they did not only tax paper they also added a whole plethora group of other

manufactured imported goods. cloth. fabric. tea and and painters -- all of the things you brought off of a ship cotton -- suddenly all of the things were more expensive. and tea actually lower the price of legally imported tea but the stamp act and the town should act certainly raise the price of the stuff we buy. so it is not being imposed on land or savings accounts or wealth or income it is being imposed to the point of sale is what we would call in the u.k. a value added tax. richard: peter: did the pamphlet mention anything about violence or rebellion and/or revolution or was it just an elucidation of ideas for the people to read and consider? richard: great question. we should be clear here that

pain here is advocating that the purpose of continuing military conflict should be the singular goal of political separation. he is not advocating starting a war because awards already started. lexington and concorde is widely considered to be the outbreak of the american revolutionary war and that was nine months old by the time this pamphlet dropped in january. i am not going to put causing a war on thomas payne's shoulders but he wants that war to mean something. he wanted to have a purpose. he wanted to achieve something tangible and meaningful that he hopes will last forever. peter: what was his relationship with the elite of the american colonies? the other founding fathers, we have one quote we would like to share which is john adams called common sense a poo iorant, malicious, short sighted crop he was mass. om payne is said about john adamst has been the political

re of this man to begin -- proceed with arrogance and finish with contempt. they do not have a close relationship obviously. but what was payne's relationship with the other? richard: difficult intense sometimes. the founding fathers we think of immediately, washington and adams. jefferson and madison, hamilton, franklin. folks like that. they're all on the same team if i can use a sports analogy. they all by the middle of 1776, around the time of the declaration would see themselves as in favor of independence which is exactly the political project that thomas payne is advocating for in common sense. but like the members of any team it does not mean they all got along or that there was not any nuance in that particular individual agenda. thomas payne is a friend of working people in a way that few

other founding fathers were intuitively. let's just say that. think about, we could go deep of course into the different biographies here but tom payne is the son of -- is the immigrant son of an english corset maker. a manual laborer. with the possible exception of ben franklin who was a printer i think he is the only founding father who ever worked with his hands and got them dirty. he was a member of the working class. so he has a bone deep sympathy for working people in a way that college graduate john adams, patricia land didn't like jefferson and washington, had to struggle to really connect. that means their relations were often tense and difficult and i think adams in particular who always fancied himself as a voice of the people, often found he was being upstaged by someone

with greater talents for speaking in the language of the working class than himself. peter: thomas payne did have a relationship with a lesser-known founding father dr. benjamin rush. in philadelphia, biographer stephen freed talked about their relationship and the importance of that relationship in getting common sense published. >> hi my name is stephen freed we are here at the american philosophical society in philadelphia in the center of the historic district in philly. in front of me is the autobiography of benjamin rush, handwritten by his kid in 1800. -- for his kid in 1800. one of the things he described is how he met thomas payne and how common sense came about. when thomas payne moved to philadelphia to be a writer and hopefully a teacher, rush was a well-known intellectual and physician and was friends with the people who would come for the first continental congress with john adams and others.

and he was interested in writing about independence himself but he was afraid. he had written about slavery and had lost many of his clients because he was against slavery. he knew that somebody needed to write an explanatory piece explaining to people why independence should not be scary to them and why it was important to understand that. he believed in explanatory writing. so he thought when he met thomas payne, payne was a really good writer. and if it all went bad for pain it would not be as bad as if it all went bad for him. and he actually wrote this to his kid. let me read a little from what he said. he said about the year 1774 certain thomas payne arrived in philadelphia from england with a letter of recommendation from dr. franklin. he was waiting for employment, he started running for united states magazine. he did this with great ability and in one of my visits to the bookstore and met with mr. pain and was introduced to him. his conversation became most interesting i asked them to visit me which she did a few days after.

our subject of conversation was political, i perceived that he realized the independence of the american colonies upon great britain and that he considered the measure as necessary to bring the war to a speedy and successful issue. before this interview i put some of my thoughts on paper about the subject and was preparing to address the inhabitants of the colonies upon it but i hesitated at the time and shuddered at the prospect of the consequences of it not being well received. mention the subject to mr. pain and asked him what he thought about writing a pamphlet and suggested to him if he had nothing to fear from the popular odium to which such a publication might expose him for he could live anywhere. basically rush saying i have to live here but you could leave town if you write this and that would be ok. so they made this deal that they would do this piece of writing together and pain began coming to russia's house with pages during the fall of 1775 and by the end of the year they had finished a draft. rush instructed him to show it to him including dr. franklin and then got a printer.

they change the name, pain had originally wanted to call it plain truth rush convinced them to call it common sense and in early january of 1776 it was published. no one ever could have predicted what an unbelievable publishing phenomenon it would have become overnight. peter: richard bell as we were watching that you started chuckling. why? richard: the title story is one that is lovely. we think of common sense this pamphlet by thomas payne, to be this manna from heaven. at the sky pops into the story of the coming of the american revolution, actually an english immigrant. he is aggrieved with great written for personal reasons and righteous -- writes this anti-british diatribe and to put it mildly moves the needle. yet as we heard from steve friede who wrote this excellent book about regimen rush that it was slightly more collaborative than that.

benjamin rush is one of the people suggesting that pain turned to the subject matter for a standalone pamphlet. he previously had been an editor of the literary magazine, the draft may have gone to benjamin franklin for review and edits although that is hard to cooperate. and then it was benjamin rush not thomas payne who even came up with the amazing title for this pamphlet. i do not know whether or not benjamin rush knew that tom payne had used to publish under the pseudonym common sense but i expected they became friendly and that was a little detail that came out in that conversation and that is why rush said how about your old nickname? how about common sense? because the great genius of common sense is that it is not actually common sense. people don't know this stuff already, they have not put -- put two and two together but thomas payne's genius is to make them think it is the only way to think from now on.

it becomes common sense but it is not common sense when they open the cover and get started. richard: peter: bev in ohio. caller: thank you for the series and taking my question. as someone who is currently teaching a class on the founders i wanted to ask the professor since he did already mention about the fact that basically the war had already started, lexington and concord and bunker hill or whatever, how much we compare the influence of thomas payne's pamphlet to the argument presented by robert parkinson in the common cause and 13 clocks that it was the fear that the newspapers were presenting throughout all of the counties that the british were promoting slave insurrections and indigenous people going to rise up and they're going to support

them and richard henry lee who actually made the proposal for the declaration, he actually said after dunmore proclamation about offering the freedom to slaves who abandoned their patriot masters, in the words of henry lee himself he said dunmore united, every man in the colony of virginia so was that -- it had to be unanimous. it was that fear -- how much of a role did that play in really convincing all of them to ultimately agree to independence as compared to how much influence payne's pamphlet had? peter: tell us a little about your class. caller: it is called the founding fathers of america, the role and impact of compromise so discussing -- peter: where do

you teach? caller: it is an adult organization called the institute of learning in retirement. here in the area and southwest -- suburbs of southwest cleveland. so that's what i'm currently teaching that in, i am including this because it's amazing. as i have already mentioned common sense, so thursday when i returned back to class this is going to be pretty exciting being able to mention to individuals that i did get my question on here. peter: good and two things were going to get an answer from richard but i want to pnt out our website again. c-span.org/books that shaped america, if you go to the t o that website you will see teacher resources up there. it might be something else for you to check out. so, richard what would you like to say? richard: it is such a great comment from bev. the first thing i would say is i am here as part of the series to talk about a book that shaped

america. the book we're talking about tonight is common sense which i think certainly shaped america in some of the ways peter and i have started to talk about back-and-forth and hear from other people in video segments. it does not diminish payne's achievement, common sense achievement in moving the needle towards independence to say that there are other factors moving that needle at the same time. bev referenced two excellent books by robert parkinson who teaches at binghamton university. one called 13 clocks in one called the common cause and they both make the argument that it's actually newspaper coverage of certain hot button cultural issues over the previous 12 months or so before july of 1776. that would predate common sense, that moves those 13 clocks to

strike it once and parkinson's argument is a controversial one. is that it is racialized fears and anxieties about enslaved people freeing themselves and staging revolts with the kings help. that so-called savage natives are battering down our doors and that the kings dispatched german mercenaries, the haitians, to torture and murder every american colonist. that those fears at the door are what pushed people to think about separate nationhood as an alternative to remaining under the kings purview. i think parkinson can be right and i think thomas payne can be read at the same time. and by the way one more thing, tom payne does mention dunmore's proclamation, this royal governor in virginia who threatens -- who does encourage enslaved men to flee to the british army.

so that is actually mentioned in tom paine's common sense as a crossover moment between what bev is talking about and what thomas payne is talking about. peter: michael from san francisco, did thomas and david hume and david human in the scottish enlightenment have an influence on thomas payne and his age of reason resembles book three of hobbs leviathan? richard: there is a lot we don't know about what thomas payne read. i think many sophisticated readers of his work have spotted shadows and influences of other political theorists and scientists. david hume being an obvious to chronological contemporary. also british in origin. i think hume was scottish. we don't have tom paine's reading diary. we don't have his grade school teachers leaving a summer reading list so we do not know what he read in what order or what he made of it. it has been up to sophisticated scholars to try to parse those

details but certainly he had a grammar school education back in england that equipped him with not just literacy skills but a voracious intellectual curiosity. peter: speaking of back in england at what point did you find yourself interested in the american society? [laughter] richard: i grew up in england not ever being taught anything about the american revolutionary war which is probably because england was the losing side in that conflict and i think every nation has a habit of reflexively telling its schoolchildren stories in which their home nation looks good. so i learned a lot about world war ii when of course britain single-handedly fought the nazis without any help from any other country. that is the help -- the history i learned when i was small. so i came late to the subject of the american revolution. of course a founding moment for the country that i now call home

as a naturalized citizen and the more time i spend with it the more complicated and fascinating and intricate i find it. i just want to learn more and more every day about this conflict which i was in grammar school in england. peter: how do you teach thomas payne at the university of maryland? richard: he is taught pretty widely in many departments i teach in history so in the context we are talking about tonight. but i would wager some of my colleagues in political science or in rhetoric and communications would talk about it as well. politics philosophy and economics. when i teach thomas payne i talk about how it works, how as a piece of writing payne is able to make arguments which if anyone else made them would seem preposterous and prone to being dismissed but payne somehow gets away with it. i talk about his confidence on the page as a writer. i talk about his calculative

simplicity as a stylist of words. and i share one passage in common sense, which i would encourage all of you watching to take a look at one of these days, in which thomas payne imagines what we in america would do once we declared independence and embraced a republic. he says that every year, he does not say every july 4 but it might as well be, we in america should get together for a ceremony reminding us of why we are different from the people we separated from who are still committed to constitutional monarchy. he said we should all gather in a central place, think about the national mall in washington dc which definitely did not exist at the time, and we should have a ceremony on a stage where somebody brings out the bible, to show we are a nation of christian faith. someone else brings out the american charter, think about the constitution which had not been written when thomas payne wrote this.

and you should put the constitution on top of the bible to show that the constitution as a system of law is divinely rooted in the judeo-christian tradition and then someone else should come out with a crown. may be a real crown that they have stolen from a king somewhere like george the third or maybe a burger king paper crown they got from the local fast food restaurant. they put the crown on top of the constitution which is on top of the bible and this symbolizes that in america the law is the king not the king making the law. it is a wonderfully symbolic ceremony he is imagining and at the end of that ceremony he imagines we do every year someone else will bring out a giant hammer and smash the crown into a thousand pieces and everyone gets a piece to show that they are the center of republican power. it is astonishing to me. peter: a little more writing from common sense to me. of more worth is one honest man to society than in the sight of god than all the crown ruffians thatver lived, until independence is declar

continent will feel itself like a man whonues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishest over and is continually haunted with the thoughts of his necessity. jerry, largo florida. good evening thank you for joining us. caller: thank you, hello gentlemen. i just have a brief comment and the question. earlier mr. bell mentioned charles the third. i think he misspoke and probably meant -- richard: thank you for the correction. caller: in our nation right now everybody agrees we are a divided nation. it might be time for it common sense to --2 to be written from either side because the time might be right. we do have wild mom saluting our cities and contested elections

and maybe the time to consider some type of separation has come. thank you sir. peter: anything you want to weigh in on there? richard: certainly powers of political persuasion are certainly always in high demand in times of national stress. peter: mark in bridgewater massachusetts. caller: good evening to you and good evening to your esteemed guests. professor bell, you must agree with me that thomas payne was probably one of the most provocative writers that ever existed ever and all of history. he must have had access to certain information from some of the people that he connected with in england back in the day. when he came up with statements like king george was receiving 800,000 pound sterling annually

and that he and the ministry were giving large tracts of land away to their cronies in the colonies. even before 76. my wife and i just visited baja this summer and i realized that one of those prizes went to governor hutchinson who is a master suit -- massachusetts governor back in the 60's. he had been awarded the entire peninsula which comprises baja -- could you possibly make a comment about where thomas payne was gaining access to some of this information? thank you very much. richard: thank you mark for the question. certainly graft is a feature of any bureaucracy in the british empire is certainly an example of a bloated bureaucracy at the

end of the 18th century. i think of british india at the time when humble english civil servants will go to india on a tour of duty, effectively in the embassy over there, but would come back astonishingly wealthy. where had the got all of that money? opportunities abound in organizations like an empire. some of that was public knowledge. the british newspapers, and thomas payne lived in england until 1774 remember, the british newspapers were not the governments pocket like some of them still today. they were often fierce critics of government for waste and abuse. it is entirely possible that payne was a consumer of british newspaper reporting and aware of some of that stuff. the fact he uses numbers to get that point across is also not surprising to me. payne had a great head for numbers.

he was in -- a tax collector for several years while he was living in england. that may also have given him some degree of privileged information although i would not want to over egg that. and when he wrote common sense you are probably well aware that that section of it is full of numbers showing that we have the math on that side we have got enough trees, we've got enough men, i got enough wood. it got enough hemp and we can pay for it all to actually fight and win this ongoing war for independence. so what you are referring to, i think is actually one of the core features of pain as a writer. he's not just good with letters and words he's also good with numbers. peter: you mention thomas payne was a writer and had other books published quickly. here's a look at works by thomas payne, common sense 1776. the american crisis, a series

that came out from 1776 to 1783. righ of man 1791, post war. in the age of reason, his last book 1794. sylvia and cary north carolina asks how did people in england regard common sense? the fact -- was the fact that many colonists reading it of concern to people in england? richard: that is putting it mildly. yes. the british government officials who left the thickest records for us to read said quite a lot about common sense when it was published. they knew from their correspondence in the american colonies want to smash hit this pamphlet was. they wanted to read it for themselves, copies of the pamphlet were circulating in london and within two months of it being published in

philadelphia -- and that was someone put some copies of it on a ship and sailed it there. so british government officials could read themselves. it is a matter of national security at think, they wanted to find out what was in this political pamphlet and when they read it they were suitably concerned. so we have a report that circulating in london that march that our reading it voraciously and that the people who have been publicly against the calls for independence up until then are and being -- are being immediately converted. like magic, like harry potter is casting a spell. -- casting a spell. communicating the fear and paranoia that this is something incredibly important that is beyond our control. >> david is in las vegas. good evening.

i want to very briefly issued a quote from thomas payne saying a body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. i invite everyone to make the relevant comparisons. my question was thomas payne was good with numbers as you say. he was still on the same team and his writing was certainly profound. my question is why did he die broke? poor? like edgar allen poe, forgotten. why did he die destitute? was he irresponsible?

was there probably don't know about? request go ahead and answer him. plus i don't want to preempt anything else you have planned here. to answer dave's excellent question, and i will tantalize little bit. as david well knows, when tom paine died, i think he was 1809. he died nearly alone. he left a will asking to be buried in the burial ground by quakers in new york. this was what he grew up on back in new england. quick refused that request. you might be surprised to hear about that. when his executors took him up to a farm in new rochelle to be

buried, this was given him by the state of new york for his services. he was born with props on the people attending his funeral. whereby, for comparison, 20,000 people attended ben franklin' work. there was going the dichotomy. he died in something approaching poverty, and physical torment. most likely suffering from alcohol addiction and acute depression as well. he died as a political poor. who no home in the two-party system started to emerge in american politics. over the course of our limited time, i hope we can get to the extraordinary transformation. cloaks to the comments on his

influence and of the constitution were his arguments discussed during the constitutional convention? >> i think that the fact that he called this a system of laws is very much a funny idea that we should return to specify who is more power so the people who they have a lot of power chunk of seats and see if they have the power they think they have. dennis found that idea. i think pain has gone to england by 1787. it is certainly not working at the national level of politics at that particular time. he does have a rule in pennsylvania constitution.

" talked about teaching and we from them as well. we want to shoot some video with you. he teaches 18 courses at troy high school in troy, michigan. here he was talking about how he teaches common sense. course students need to have more sources to learn about the mood of the country during the revolutionary era and beyond looking at the declaration of independence. if we are looking at different documents and different books and pamphlets, we need to provide this about the mood of the american people. thomas payne is one of those early american muckrakers were his providing context and with a stirring common sense is a great example of that. this clearly on when you read common sense. he just despises

monarchy. you also get thomas payne's writing and he is really holding a lot of the lightning thinkers and their theories. that is something when you read the declaration of independence, you have been utilizing a lot of the same topics in his writing. you can see those thinkers and the influence they have on writers, thinkers, scholars from that era. that will help students to make that connection. as much as it pains my heart as a political science teacher, i love political theory, i think it is fascinating but maybe it is not the favorite thing of teenagers. learning about the social contract theory and natural rights. i can't to take talks about this. or i can. i don't know. when students do have the opportunity in class to learn

social contract theory were natural rights, may be pulling -- x -- an exit from common sense would be useful. maybe, in this concept here. that makes it more real and more relevant. and then the opportunity to try to find some of those examples in real life and then you can tell this to the coming day. quick students have a lot of difficulty with texts that are older. when you're looking at texts from the 1700s, obviously the language has changed a bit. the phrasing has changed a little bit. i see this when i teach federalist papers or anti-federalist papers. students have problems with common sense chaenges. it is really having to take the time with students and dive into what they mean and once they start to make those connections, that is something you can get

beyond. close once they get this to the format of a text, the other thing is thomas payne gets into presentation of his idea form of government and i know john adams your thought that his ideas were terrible and they are not the best but that is something -- all different suggestions he is making can really prevent students with some difficulty if they can't see what his ideas were for how to set up an ideal government. close as we explore thomas payne common sense in this program, part of the list of -- this was the first book published in america. ben franklin is on the list with experiments and observations on electricity published in 1751. and the way to wealth in 1758. a grammatical institute of the

english language. and isaiah thomas printed a curious hieroglyphic bible. they have a survey with the roads of the united states of america and then franklin's autobiography was published in 1793. the first american cookbook was released in 1796 by amelia simmons. and you can see the library of congress possible list at loc.gov. and check our website for more information on what is featured in the series at c-span.org/ books that shaped america. chris richard bell, here are some of the other books on the library list from that era. we have been talking about

thomas payne's other books. >> these are the missing pieces in response to the colors. a question about why the -- what he died alone and unloved. the american pictures left common sense. jorgensen for instance he greatly admired. but it was the other works he wrote subsequently. they ended to endorse t unfolding french revolutn is sort of aister struggle to america's own revolution that lightning struck. in that fear struck twice in france. he was a cheerleader for the french revolution in the early phase. he wrote to burton, hoping that his endorsement of the american

revolution and french revolution would stir up in english, british social revolution and turn out people from buckingham palace and all the rotten boroughs. it is still some sort of genuine egalitarian democracy there. did that make him any friends in england? among leaders of the rights of man, yes. among political authorities, absolutely not. he was effectively chased out of england over the past few years and trust with sedition and treason. england would never be a home for him again. and then two years later, he is in france as the revolution continues, they are enfold and accelerate. the 1793, it is actually very nasty, bloody, anarchic image of the guillotine come into your mind. that is the air without pain

found himself in france. a revolution that had room -- run amok. it had become too radical for him. the only chaos by this time. he made some terrible political mistakes of telling french revolutionaries that they should not execute the king, they should banish them. instead. so he wrote a second work in the 1790's called the age of reason in which he laid the blame for the anarchy of the french revolution at the feet of atheism. >> would you call him a christian? >> he called himself a believer in god. people accused him of being an atheist which was ironic because he wrote a book denouncing atheism.

he was a spiritual person who believed in god but did not believe in organized religion. chris thank you for holding. you are on with our guest, richard bell. quick thank you so much for taking my call. i am wondering what sort of influence thomas payne's writing had on future revolutionaries, i.e., gandhi, ho chi minh and what was indochina and also a different location, i am thinking of the revolution in haiti. and also, why did the quakers reject him? >> thank you, man. question. i am not the right person to answer this. i will defer to other scholars out there but i can tell you a

couple of quick things about tom pain. and slavery and other political causes of the 18th century. pain was antislavery and in his newspaper writing in philadelphia, he published a paper that we think he wrote denouncing slavery and we can also see at the more general level of commitment to making a democracy that works for as many people as possible. a broader human rights agenda. also arguably a friend of the women's rights campaign. some of those were really attributed to him. we can actually be sure. he certainly had a much broader influence than just on the narrow question of nationhood. chris we want to introduce you to noah. she is at the institute for

thomas payne studies. this is in new rochelle, new york. what is the institute? >> thank you for having me. the institute for thomas payne studies was founded to really study the life and legacy of pain. this was the last year of his life in new rochelle. part of the means not only studying pain himself but more broadly examine subjects that he engaged with. objects of expression. that is come up already. we look at these issues not only from the historical past but connected to the present. public history as well. >> a few years back, there was some research that came from thomas payne study. it is refined? >> over the last decade, there

has been a lot of research around leadership and thomas payne. several years ago, a member of our research team, a previously unknown draft of the declaration, possibly attributed to roger sherman which is one of the five established contributors. to this day, ware still learning about fragmend materials from the 18th century. this is one of those instances. there are a small number of working drafts in the declaration. this document was held by a private collector and was originally added to the declarations resource project. and what the research team observed was a reference here.

as everybody heard over the last hour, he was a deeply influential figure in american independence, he was a key part of the munication network from philadelphia and around north america. from one vantage, you can see pain as an 18th century equivalent of social media influences. he was in close contact with the contributors to the declaration answered in the hot and impact on common sense. there was published name in six months prior. this manuscript grants there is a possibility that he had an even more direct hand in the process than necessary. plus augustine from the university of north maryland. richard bell has a question for you. close going to about this exciting research. it suggests the promise of overturning her with all we knew, but cain did not have a

fingerprint on the declaration, if you are able to and so might demonstrate that he did, what is at stake do you think? in that revelation? >> a great question. i so enjoyed listening to the show over the last bit. this is -- it is the writer or artist to make their own distinct impression. with the concept is much more important 18th-century. they were understood to be off anonymous. one of the most intriguing aspects of this research from my perspective is that it happens to better understand the collaborative processes across

time and space. there really shedding light on democracy and media today. your colleague has been working on the specific project and they recently retired. we will see what comes next. >> what is in your view the legacy of thomas payne? while she was starting today? >> i think the conversation should be left alone. just to show that historical knowledge is not -- this as ways of understanding emerge. he is far from an elite, quite the opposite. he had a really deep knowledge of history and how it was formed. how he approached the promises

of documents like the declaration. i think those egalitarian beliefs from this position. there on -- the authenticity as well as democratic institutions. they could help us navigate our current moment. thank you for spending a few minutes on the way that books shipped america. crows there are memorials, england, france, new jersey and

new york. public schools are named aer thomas payne. a couple of plays have been written about thomas. the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty. thank you for holding. please go ahead. quite think of you taking my call. what a privilege and pleasure to speak to you john.

>> thomas payne and john adams had a struggle. he wrote something that is somewhat critical of george washington and his leadership. he died with very -- relatively little money. was he as a person disliked at his time? he may have written great work but how was he perceived by the people? >> thank you, sir, appreciate it. >> excellent questions by all these colors so far. you might say it is a sweeping generalization. a lot of people had a lot of affections for tom pain. they regarded him as one of their own. which of course, he was. they also regarded him as having his best interests.

the limited that because local partisanship, we might call this a polarization starting to emerge. in the decades after the american revolution. before pain died in 1809. by the time he comes back to this area, baltimore and washington, 1802, having been away in europe or 15, 16 years, he is not welcome everywhere. there are plenty of working people. buy him a drink at the local bar which he is happy to accept. there are also politicians usually associated with what is called the federalist party which would be in the tradition of george washington and alexander hamilton. it regarded him as far too for

working people. partisanship really did. even though he was sympathetic to the -- to the business of the other party at the time which was confusingly named the democratic republic and party, that party headed by jefferson, where pain increasingly was a political liability. too extreme, too closely associated with the violence of the french revolution. and his name became martin in political circles. his own social life diminished and people yelled terrible things at him. >> one more quote from commo sense, society is produced by our wants.

all by restraining, long habit of not thinking a thing wrong. and it raises the fermentable outcry. but time makes more converts than reason. we have about a minute left. go ahead. >> have been saying interesting things. i found what was really great for me was how we could as americans possibly see having a revolution because of what i remember reading. and not be as available as it seemed to be. he left the impression that we could indeed do this.

did you mention whether his name was on the declaration of independence? i don't believe it was. >> we will leave it there. professor bell. >>'s name is not on the declaration of independence. new research shows he may have been shown a draft. there were a draft on the declaration as if they would show it to someone. could that have been thomas payne? question to you the legacy of thomas payne in 10 words or less. >> a commitment to republicanism , tooth democracy, transparency, accountability and the rights and liberties of ordinary people. >> if you read common sense please get that message? >> tom crean worked incredibly hard to make sure that you do.

because we have been talking about common sense and the first inerrancy was the book that shaped america. we appreciate you being with us. now, the list the library of congress he met with in 2013 is not a cap reactive list. there are 100 books on there. it is not a copper has of list. it is not the best sellers are the best books. you can go to c-span.org/books that shaped america. at the top, you will see viewer input. you can send us a video of what you think is an important book or books that you want to have includ.

already we have at least 100 videos posted on their plus the 100 or so that we reid. if you want to include your voice in their, here is a selection of some viewers that have sent in their selection. >> hello. the book that i feel shaped america is called unrepentant and repair. this book is very important. there is so much shame and labeling. it can help us find that. this is the first research that questions a woman's fulfillment.

i think it shaped america because this obligation is considered the second wave feminist movement. >> my book that i choose is soldier written by colin powell. sec. colin powell. great individual from the beginning up to the end of his service. that was the benefit for me. as a service member in the united states marine corps. i used all those elements of leadership and i applied it into what i do and how i carry myself. >> i think the book that shaped america is dr. seuss's cat in the hat. it revolutionized children forever. quite the one book that i think influenced america is this first

book of poetry. she was the first african-american woman who had a book published in the in the united states. they can influence the nation. george washington had weekly writings about liberty and freedom. thank you. requesting go our website. you can send us your video. our guest for the past 90 minutes talking about common sense has been richard bell of the university of maryland. we appreciate your time. we will see you next week on books that shaped america.

ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our program. ten years to save the west. former prime minister liz truss on fighting the global left, please welcome heritage

president dr. kevin roberts. thank you and thanks for joining us. person those of you who are joining online, welcome as well, it is such an honor. host any, head of state, former head of state. it's a particular honor as you might imagine. if you remember the heritage foundation owns fondness and great friendship with lady thatcher to the woman we think walks in lady thatcher's and that is former prime minister liz truss has become one of my great friends. perhaps of my closest friends across the atlantic. and you're in for a real treat, having read ten years to save the west, this wonderful book that is being released in united states now, i can tell you that for those of us who, of course, remain about the american and british, but also understand in the short term, perhaps even the

medium, that both our countries have real challenges this is a must read book and tell you a couple of reasons why of ms. truss and my great friend and colleague dr. gardiner will have a wonderful conversation about this. but from this adopted texans point of view, my greatest frustration with washington and london is not, of course, the american or the british people, but the fact that where there is concern tration of power, it is always used as a cudgel. that power is always used as a cudgel against americans and individual brits. and this book is a diagnosis of how that came to be. what we need do to fix it, and really a call to arms, a call to political arms of what we need to do. and in short, just to give you little summary and obviously the former prime minister will be much more eloquent than i. it's all about sovereignty. it's all about returning that

power from whatever institutions accrued that and have over centralized that authority back to the people. and i think those of you who maybe occasionally wake up a little about the present, we at heritage did so this morning, but we're still undeterred. we will fight for another day five years from now, ten years from now, 50 years from now. we do so of the principles that not only liz writes in this book, but dare i say that has personified in her long service, not just to the british people, but very importantly to free people around the world. and so i'm going to welcome her here to the stage momentarily. but let me just say once again, ms. truss, not just on behalf of all of us at heritage, but on behalf of the entire states of america, thank you for service to freedom and sovereignty and to this very special friendship that our two countries hold. please join me in welcoming her.

well, i'm delighted to be here. the heritage foundation for the official united states launch of ten years to save the west and the heritage foundation now under the leadership of kevin roberts and my great to be here also with no gardiner features significantly in the book for the first time in 2015. when i seek to go to the heritage foundation, i'm warned against it by the british ambassador, kim darroch. he says to me, you've got to be wary of this organization. they've spoken out against obama. they've even been critical of prime minister cameron.

are you really sure that you want to go and see them? and i said, yes, i am sure, because i'm a conservative and there are conservative think tank in the united states of america, our closest ally. so so eventually, eventually, i prevail because i am a determined person. the call from the embassy dropped me off two blocks away from the heritage so that the british would be sitting outside the building. now, i was back in heritage in 2019 when, as the newly appointed trade secretary, i was determined that united kingdom was going to strike a trade, deal with the then president, donald trump and. i gave a speech at heritage and i said, the time is now quoting the old reagan campaign about the fact that needed to get on

with this trade deal now that, of course, created massive consternation back home in the united kingdom because the apparatchik in number ten downing street did not want to do a trade deal with the united states, with president trump. and i outlined in my book the fact that that deal would have happened. that deal would have happened if it wasn't for that resistance in. now why am i launching ten years to save the west in united states as well as in the united kingdom? well, i like to think of the united states of america as britain's greatest invention, albeit albeit slightly, an advantage invention. and you know, if you look at our history for macnicol carter to the bill of rights, to the american constitution that we have developed and perfected

democracy. and if you look at what is going on in our societies. first of all, the brexit vote back in 2016 and then the election, president donald trump later year, you can see the same desires of our for change and the same desires for those conservative values and sovereignty. and if you look at the battle for conservatism now and the frequency with which we get new prime ministers in, the united kingdom, and the frequency with which you get new speakers of the house here in the united states. we could see again that there is battle for the heart and soul conservatism on both sides of the atlantic. and i think battle is very important because let's be honest, we have not been winning against the global left. if you look at the history, the turn of the millennium, the left

have had the upper hand. and it's not the old fashioned who used to argue about the means of production and economic. it's the new left who have insidious ideas that challenge very way of life, whether it's about climate extremism that doesn't in economic growth, whether it's challenging the very idea of a man and a woman, a biological sex, whether it's about the human rights culture, that's embedded into so much of us, that makes also unable to deal with illegal immigration. those new ideas have been promulgated by the global left and they have been successful in infiltrating quite a large proportion of society and a large part of our institutions.

let's just look at the state of economics. you you know, i'm a supply sider. i know that it works. we it work under reagan and thatcher. and yet we've seen the domination and of change in economics in recent years bloated size of government, huge in both of our countries on the immigration and rights culture. look at what is going on now on american university campuses is what is not safe anymore to be jewish or the streets of london where a jewish man could not cross the road during yet appalling protest or the fact that we can't seem to deport illegal immigrants either your southern border or the small boats that are crossing the channel or take wukari another

bad neo-marxist idea developed from -- and all those crazy postmodernists in the 1960s. the idea biological sex is not a reality. we now have president biden introducing regulation plans around title nine, which mean that girls could see biological in their changing rooms, in their locker rooms, in their school restrooms, and not be able to do anything about it. and if they complain about it, they could be the ones guilty harassment. how on earth can that be happening in our or the climate extremists who aren't with just stopping coal fired power stations here in america. lng terminals are being built.

fracking in the united kingdom but want to go further whether it's imposing electric or castles, heat pumps or extra taxes on the public meanwhile, our adversaries in china are building coal fired power stations. every week i see that is economic disarm. ament in the middle of what is a various serious threat to the west, how is it ended up that after the turn of the millennium, despite the fact that we have many conservative intellectuals and politician, why have our institutions has so much of our public discourse shifted to the left? well, first of all, to conservatives have not been making argument. now i call them conservative in name only chinos. i know in america you call them, you call them rhinos.

but these in name only, rather than taking these ludicrous ideas instead of tried to appease and meet them halfway halfway. why have they done this? well, first of all, they don't want to look mean they don't want to look like they're against human rights. they don't want to look like they're against the they don't want to be mean to transgender people. so they've allowed those argument rights to affect the views of what is right and wrong. but it's also cynical than that. you know, if you want to get a good job after politics, you want to get into the corporate boardroom. there are a group acceptable views and opinions that you should hold and most of them are on that list. if you want to be popular and get invited to a lot of dinner parties in washington d.c. or

london, the reviews on that list that you should hold and people have chosen dinner parties over principle. but the other i think we've missed on the conservative side of the argument, and i put my hands up to this is the rising power of the administrative state, the fact that power which previously lay in the hands of democratically elected politicians like the more they can be voted out of office, is now in the hands of so-called independent bodies whether it's central whether it's government agents or whether it's the civil service themselves. and what we're seeing in bureaucracy in the united kingdom, i think here in the united states as well is a growing activist class of civil servants who have views on

transgender ideology or climate or human rights, which they are keen to promote in their roles. i saw this hand and one of the key points book is about is my battles i had with that institution or mindset and there's a phrase that we use in britain called consent and evade. quite often the officials will be very polite on the request, but it will take a very long time to do. if it's something like helping deport illegal immigrants or sort out the rwanda scheme, what if something that they like, like dealing with climate change that will be expedited and i think it's very difficult. people who haven't worked in government to understand just how cumbersome and how tricky like it has become. and i don't know if, that's a

product of the modern era. if it's product of the online society, it is very, very now to deliver conservative policies. now, i did many jobs in, many different government departments. i was in the justice, the environment department, the education, the treasury. i was in trade, i was in the foreign and i faced battles against activist lawyers, against environmental police, against left educationalists. but what i saw when i ran be prime minister in 2022 is i saw i had opportunity to change things because that was surely the apex of power. okay? i hadn't been able to change as environment secretary or trade secretary, but as prime minister, surely that was the opportunity me to be able to really change things. now there's a bit of a spoiler alert about book. it didn't quite work out. i ended up being the shortest

serving british prime minister as a result of trying to take on these forces and the particular thing that i tried to take them on was the whole issue of our economy. now, britain's economy has relatively for a long period of time. our taxes are a 70 year high. we are spending 45% of our gdp on the government. and what i wanted to do is i wanted to get our growth rates and start dealing with massive national debt by cutting taxes, by restraining public spending, and by getting on with supply side reforms like fracking. and we put this in a mini budget. little did i know that the night before that mini budget was announced, the house by the

chancellor that the governor of the bank of england would announce that he was selling 40 pounds billion of government bonds. and not in raising interest rates by as much as the market expected. the second thing i didn't know was that we had a tinderbox in the financial markets, liability driven investments, that the uk was uniquely exposed to and that were very to changes gilt rates and interest rates. and i go through the whole story in my book, but to cut a long story short, the governor of the bank of england and, the economic establishment in britain, successfully shifted the blame onto our economic policies, even though to this day i still believe they were the right policies and they would have resulted in higher growth in the united kingdom. they were able to shift the and

furthermore the office of budget responsibility is a bit like a supercharged version of the congressional budget office leaked to the press that there was a 70 pounds billion hole in our plans. therefore putting fuel on the fire of what was already quite a jittery market and at my heart, i'm a patriot. i couldn't sit there in number ten allowing things to melt down. i had to reverse the policies in order to create that stability and ultimately i had to stand down from my job and i a lot of questions from the press about. what was what was going on? what did i do wrong? i have not seen the governor of the bank of england or the officials in the economic establishment held to account. and i think we've got a big problem when a leader with a

democratic mandate is not able to deliver a set of policies that would improve the country's and yet the unelected officials who effectively undermined that policy go unquestioned. it wasn't just british institutions that had a go my policy it was the imf who didn't criticize it on financial reasons. they criticized on the grounds it was unfair. now, why is relevant to you? what elected politicians decide in britain a joe biden criticize my policy from an ice cream parlor oregon and. he you know, he said that is cutting the top of tax was wrong even though the top rate of tax in britain after my proposals was still higher than the top

rate of tax in the states and i think the fact that these international bodies got involved in the pile on is very significant because i think this shows a resistance not just in the british economic establishment but in the international economic establishment to these kind supply side policies that would actually make our economies dynamic and help in our fight against authoritarian regimes. so i come today with a warning to the united states of america. i fear the same forces will be coming for. president donald trump if wins the election this november, there is a huge resistance to pro-growth supply side policies that will deliver economic dynamism and help reduce debt.

what the international institute ions and the economic establishment want to is they want to see higher taxes, higher spending, a more big government, a more they do not want to see that challenged. and we've already heard noises from the congressional budget office and elements of the united market about. what the financial stability situation. say. what have i learned from my experience? what have i learned my time in? i have learned that we are facing a really quite challenging forces of the global, not just in terms of the virulent activists making extremist arguments, but also the power they hold in our institutions. and that leads me to believe that. what conservatives need is what

i describe as a bigger bazooka. now, what do i mean by a bigger bazooka. well, first of all, i mean that we need really strong conservative infrastructure to be able to take on the left. you they are well-funded. they activist. they have many friends in high and we need strength in depth in our political operation. that's why i'm working on a new political movement in the uk called popular conservatism, which is about bringing in more activists, more candidates, more potential legislators, more who can actually in the trenches against, the left in the ideological warfare that we now face. the second thing we need to do is we need to dismantle the administrative state and are lots of people i speak to who say it's just because know you ministers aren't tough enough.

you know, if only you were a bit bold in taking on things, you know, if only you had a bit more political, you would be able to deliver. those people are not right until we actually change the system. we are not to be able to deliver conservative such as the depths of resistance in our institutions and all bureaucracy that. we do have to change things first. and what does that mean? well, you're ahead of us in the united states in that the president gets to appoint 3000 people into the the the positions in britain. it's only 100 people. and those 100 people are junior. they're not in charge of department. so i believe we need to change that britain. we need to properly appoint senior in our bureaucracy. we also need to deal with the

peripheral vision of bureaucratic bodies. they have to go. that has to be a real bonfire of the quangos. but even here in the united. policies like schedule f are going to be very, very important in order to be able to deliver a conservative agenda. and the project that is sponsoring project 2025 is another vital. part of building that institutional infrastructure that can actually deliver conservative policies, having what i've seen on both of the atlantic, i think both of those things vital in order for conservative policy to deliver but we can't just deal with the administrative state at a national level. what we've also got is the global administrative state. we have the united nations, the world health organization, we have the cop process.

and one of the things i tried to do was stop britain hosting cop in glasgow. i but i want to see us in future abandon that process. the best people to make decisions are people that a democrat typically elected in sovereign nations. it is not people sitting on international bodies who would divorce from the concerns of the public. the final thing conservative need to do is appeasement and by ending appeasement. i'm talking about the appeasement of woke or ism at home as well as the appeasement of totalitarianism abroad. we have to do both of those things because both of those things are threatening our way of life. totalitarian regimes like china, russia and have to be stood to the only thing they understand

is strength. and now the military aid budget has been passed through congress. the needs to be more clarity about russia can be defeated and how china and iran will also be taken on and in order achieve that we are to need a change in personnel at the white house. now i worked in cabinet whilst donald trump was president and by while president biden was president and i assure you the world felt safer when donald was in office. 2024 is going to be a vital. and it's the reason that i wanted to bring my book now because getting a conservative back in the white house is critical to taking on the global. and i hate to think what life

would be like with another four years of a placement of the woke left in the united states, as well as continued weakness on the international stage. but my final message is that winning in 2025, winning in 2024, and into government in 2025 is not enough. it's not enough just to it's not enough just to have those conservative that there will huge resistance from administrative state and a left in politics is never been more extremist or more virulent. and that is why it will need all the resources of the american conservative movement think tanks like heritage and hopefully your allies in the united kingdom to succeed but you succeed because the free

world needs you. thank you. why do you think. got to be that next year wasn't a good morning everybody thank you very for joining us here at the heritage foundation. i'm nile gardiner, the director of the margaret thatcher center for freedom and, actually delighted to to host this here at heritage. i have to say, you'll book is is an absolute tremendous read. it's a very robust just a conservative book that really does stand up, i think, very forcefully to the left's nefarious agenda. it's also, i think, a very, very gutsy book. and a it's a book that is very courageous in so many respects, taking on the the ruling left

wing establishment here in the united as well. and that's that's a very important thing. so i very much enjoyed reading the book. and yes i do plead guilty. i have to say, to be a critic of of the obama administration and also quite critical at the time of of prime minister david cameron, a of fronts also. so thank you for the much of the book and i'd like to ask a few questions liz on especially on the current political debate here in the united states the outlook for the world superpower and also like to address some big picture foreign policy and national issues and like delve into the the current political situation in the uk as well. and things are looking somewhat challenging. it has to be said for the conservatives. and so i'd like to get your

thoughts on on the latest developments, but we're kicking off with a discussion of the track of of joe biden. joe biden, as you noted, sharply criticized your tax policies while eating an ice cream and it has to be said that his his i think was was unhelpful. it was an attack upon the policies of america's closest friend and ally but not unusual, of course, for a for joe for joe biden. he has a very controversial record when it comes to to dealing with the united kingdom. and your view is what does. the future hold if have four more years of the biden presidency in what does that mean for the world's superpower? what does it mean for american leadership on the world?

what does it mean as well for the for the us-uk? a special relationship? well i believe that four more years of joe biden would have, first of all, a negative impact on the us internally. now we can what is happening in the streets of major cities in the united states we can see what is happening with the promotion of left wing ideology. i talked about title nine and the appalling situation where girls use the locker room or the bathroom at school in privacy, there is the immigration and, the southern border. now we see still no solution to that no policies being pursued to with that. and i understand because we have the same on our border. you know with the english channel and the fact that we're

getting these small boats in our problem in britain is to do with the legal system and the fact that supreme court judges have us being able to implement the rwanda policy in the united states. this is a political pursuit that could be sorted by the president if he wish. so i think four more years of this would be a disaster for the us internally. i think biden biden omics has been a failure all. it's done is increase the debt and put you know, not made the american economy more competitive, which is what we all need to be. i mean, the british economy also needs to be more competitive as well. so i don't want to see that continue we should have those domestic policies, but also, i don't believe, says joe biden, and instead we've seen it cozying up. we've seen american corporations encouraged to seek more

investment from china. i think that the wrong approach, i can't imagine during cold war when reagan out the ussr as the evil empire that type of approach being taken. so i think new a new approach is needed. and as for the special i mean, the there will not be a us-uk trade deal. joe biden, that is absolutely clear and i know president trump wanted to do a trade deal. the problem lay in britain so we need to fix that side as well. to follow up on your your remarks there with regard to the the huge crisis on america's southern border it's become number one political issue. i think in the forthcoming presidential election and roughly think 10 million illegal migrants have crossed the united states at a staggering figures and. if you have the situation in europe would probably bring down

the government such as the that the of outrage over the massive of legal migration. do you believe that under strong conservative leadership that this can be effectively addressed here in the united states and in your view, why is joe biden so, so weak kneed in the face of this, in the face of this crisis? so, yes, yes, it can be addressed. and yes, it was addressed under donald trump. so absolutely it can be addressed. likewise, our problem in britain can be fixed if we deal with issues like. the european court of convention of human rights, if we deal with the human rights act in, britain. but why have these problems emerged in both of our countries? the answer is that the human rights lobby has not been taken on, and if you look at what's

happened in the legal profession, you look at what's happened in in sort of i've talked about the dinner party circles earlier, but if you look at dinner parties, circles, people don't want to seem they would be accused of being racist they would be seen as being cruel to migrants. and that has that emotive attitude has informed the policy rather than the morality and is the the are hugely out of touch with what the average voter thinks on these issues that that is what is on you've got an elite who are affected by it don't care don't have their being suppressed by high levels of migration and have a population that are very, very concerned about the issue. and in my constituency of norfolk is the one issue that comes up on the doorstep is immigration. and from what you've seen of

donald trump and his record in the first term of it's administration, do you think that a second trump presidency effectively deal with the migration crisis here in the united states? do you see the potential a very strong leadership in dealing with what is an immense challenge for for the us if us is not willing to deal with the massive levels of illegal migration, this will fundamentally undermine the united states for decades to come. so do you think that donald trump really has the leadership drive, determination to be able to effectively deal with the immigration crisis here? i do. i do think so. it is clearly a very difficult issue. and we now have our enemies actively using migration as a way of pursuing their threat.

and so russia has used this with salaries into poland. yet we're seeing things like social media. i mean, it's easier to communicate. it's easier to run a people trafficking operation. but all of these things i mean, these things have to be solvable. they otherwise, if you cannot control your borders how will you a sovereign nation. exactly. exactly. what would a a. second trump presidency mean for for the united kingdom and what are the implications for the special relationship, especially bearing in mind that joe biden been viewed by many in the uk as quite possibly the most anti british president of the all the modern era. what's your assessment of each of the impact of a second trump presidency on relations with, the united kingdom? i mean, the most important thing for me about the second trump

presidency is getting conservative leadership. back in the world. the subtitle of my british edition is called the anti conservative if in the room because it's 80. britain that has a conservative government. we've got biden in, the us, we have trudeau in we have macron in france have schultz in germany. and it's not working. the west is not winning. and so for me the the fact it's conservative leadership is absolutely important i think we are more likely to see a trade deal taking place. i think there will be more working with one of the things i advocate the book is an economic nato where together we take on china, we take russia by having common on what technology they should be able to invest or export or all of that in the same way as we did during during

the cold war. so i would like, you know, i would like to see closer working with allies and of course, has been very critical of of the nato alliance and an unwillingness among some nato allies invest what they need to do on defense and do you think that trump will shake up europe again potentially with with a second, second term and will will europe be be listening to to his message after all? these are incredibly dangerous times, with russia potentially threatening nato territory in the us too in the years to come? will will the european be waking up to to the reality and what would be impact of a of another trump to the europe needs to spend more on defense.

there are still far too many european countries are even spending the 80% and the 80% is not enough. we should be raising it to at least 3%, in my view as a minimum. and there are too many countries free riding at the moment who are in serious threat. if putin succeeds in ukraine, he won't stop there. he will move. he will move further and this is the ultimate short termism of europe has spent more and more money on our welfare states and less and less money relatively speaking, on things like defense and policing, which are very important for the security of our countries. and, you know, i think trump is right to. say to europe, you need to pay up. in a recent interview, he said, i 100% committed to nato but european countries need to pay up. that is right. i make the further point. of course that. if putin were to succeed in

ukraine, that would send the most terrible message to china and president xi. so if we if these totalitarian regimes are successful, it will have huge, huge for the united as well as for europe. yes, absolutely. and talking of totality, korean regimes, the enemies of the free world, the iranian regime, of course, poses a. deadly threat in the east, but also to europe as well and potentially the entire free world, it becomes a nuclear weapons power. israel responded recently to the iranian attack on israel. which 40 did not. the iranians not succeed in in any advance, any of strategic advantage there. the message coming from both

london, washington and also many european capitals, one of restraint towards israel. the term use is the israeli response be should be limited. joe biden has been in many ways more critical of the netanyahu government in israel than it has been of the iranian regime and which we view here at heritage is absolutely a disgraceful and at the same time the the british government has echoed a lot of the language that the biden administration has been using towards towards israel. what was your view of this what what does israel need to do in order to defend itself and to stand up to to the iranian regime and what does the west need to do in order to to to stand up to to iran and send a clear message that the free world will not accept the kind of barbarism that we're seeing

right now from the world's biggest states of terror. one of this. one of the things i talk about in the book is i would often find foreign office trying to change the text, my speeches and i suspected it was confirmed that it was after calls from the state department. so there's a certain amount of coordination between official in both the united kingdom, the united states. so it's no surprise the same message is emerging. the state taking the sanctions, iran, and hoping that iran would sign a nuclear deal was a mistake. and it's been left for too long without action against iran. and this is this is essentially appeasement. and what it's resulted in is further bloodshed in the middle east, most in israel.

and i, i don't see how when israeli are still being held that people can expect israel to behave in any way apart from defending their national interest and i, i think it is a it's important that israeli given the freedom that they need to they need to do what they need to do to protect nation and they are on the axis and dual threat. we know that iran would love to see the end of. yes. without any without any doubt. and we're dealing with a genocidal regime that is explicitly said that the goal is to wipe israel the map and we have to take those threats extremely seriously. but i think all of these cases and the same is true of putin in russia, we are not dealing with some rational actors that can be comparable, mobilized with or you can achieve a deal with these people want to it and our

way of life in the west that's what we have to understand. and the only thing that will stop them, that is by us strength in the face of the absolutely. and it's your message today to. both the biden administration and also to the british government that the western powers should completely consign the the iran nuclear deal the joint comprehensive of action jcpoa to history. yes. yes. i mean, i don't i don't think we should have tried to do it in the first place. i was very much under instructions. foreign secretary from boris johnson to to proceed it. but clearly the iranians had no intention signing it. yes. and also the other signatories were china and russia. right. which does not fill me with hope. yes. yeah, probably one of the one of the worst agreements put

together in modern history, i would have thought and we were certainly supportive of president trump's decision to withdraw from the jcpoa, which viewed as a fundamentally dangerous act of appeasement towards towards iran and on the the home front in the uk, you've seen large scale by pro-palestine indian groups. i frankly, many of these protesters have been even supportive of hamas. and you've seen numerous individuals supporting not only hamas but also an array of islamist terrorist organizations central. london has become become in the eyes of many as as de fact a no go zone actually for many jewish persons who feel afraid to go into london because of these

these menacing, frequently violent protests. a great deal of criticism course of the metropolitan police handling of the protest. also a criticism of the way in which the government has has responded is not being tough enough. after all, is a conservative government. it is it is seen by many in the as far too weak in terms of dealing with the protests. in fact, the french german governments have been significantly tougher in how they've addressed these these in some cases banning outright marches by pro-palestinian, pro-hamas groups. but the british government's approach been has been very, very light in encounter. what's your view on what needs to be done with with the situation on the ground there? after all, you do have an environment where many jewish

britains feel afraid to walk the streets lot of the weekend during these these protests. and it's been appalling every saturday, these protests are dominating central london. and jewish people cannot work freely around central london. and that is that should not be allowed. that should not be allowed. and we also had the scene where. there were messages being projected onto the house of commons. and i think the is not right the approach is not right to policing these protests and and you said that we are not as tough as the french or the germans the same is true on environmental protesters. well. and dealing just stop oil. i mean you're the easier to count the number days there isn't a protest going on in parliament square in london than the number of days and just want to sort of say people in this audience this in no way a

reflection of the british public if i speak to constituents, they are 100% supportive of israel. they are not. it's a small minority of extreme left wing activists who are promoting this. it is not a reflection of the general public of britain, but the tail is wagging the dog and it's back. the point i was making about institutions, i think what is the difference in britain and france and germany i think are institutions are less accountable than institutions are in. the countries i think i've talked about the very limited number of political appointments we get. i've talked about the number of there's 500 of these unelected bodies and so it is actually very difficult in the current circumstances the government to effectively change the policy and politicians never to admit they're impotent, to do

something. but i think we have to look at the overall system and structure and say, how are we going to restore proper democratic accountability? these types of things keep happening. yes, yes and on the on uk front, we're likely to see a general election later this year. it has to be held by january 25. but most likely election, say in november. the polls are pointing to the possibility of a of a labor victory, put very politely. yes, yes. these are, of course, immensely challenging times. and perhaps we could see, you know, rishi sunak writing memoirs at some stage in the near future. but whether you have a far more far, far more conservative and interesting say and, but on the

election front in the uk, labor's been out of power for 14 years, they haven't outline much of an agenda as as i can like i can tell and it's hard to say keir starmer actually really stands for anything. and although he's very quick to to take take the knee and to you know bow down and surrender to the to the work the work left and. this from your perspective, just how dangerous. potentially is a is a labor government actually for for britain and for british leadership in in the world. but you say we don't know what keir starmer stands for. i think we do know what he's done. but when i'm talking about the human rights culture, the developed in britain, things like the development of the human rights act, which blair put in the constitution, reformed i believe keir starmer

was one of the people who was backing those changes. he he is a classic left wing liberal lawyer and a lot of the you said late labor have not been in power. well, might not have been in power in the government. yeah but they've been in power in a lot of british institutions for the last, the last number of years. blair made these huge constitutional changes which outsourced decision making from democratically elected, actually gave more power to to a lot lawyers and bureaucrat, etc., etc. so i think we have more of that now, whether it's the extreme gender or gender ideology, whether it's the immigration and rights policies, extreme green

policies know i can't see things like fracking happening under keir starmer or energy bills getting cheaper and the economy is in a serious situation we have got a debt problem in britain and although the labor party talks about economic growth. they've got absolutely no analysis why we haven't had significant economic growth for the past few decades and. the answer is we're overtaxed, we're overregulated. the government's too big and we're still aligned with even though we've left it. these are the answers. but i can't see labor anything about any of those things. if they if they get into office. say we will just see the increase in an increase in the the sort of decline ism narrative in britain. yeah, it sounds actually ghastly actually. and it is.

i mean, yeah, i want conservatives win in britain. i think the way we we can win is by laying out a conservative agenda and being honest about why we haven't delivered enough it in the last 14 years. that's what we have to do, we have to say, yes, we should have dealt with the climate change act from tony blair, we should have dealt with the equality act which embedded all these woke policies, dual corporations, institution we put our hand up, but please don't vote for keir starmer. things will get a lot worse. that that's we've got to say and what would your message the prime minister today be that the uk should immediately withdraw from european convention on human. yes, yes, yes but. but that's not enough. yeah, it's not enough. and we should learn the lesson. what happened when we left the european, but kept all the european laws on our statute

books? yeah. the problem is, we got rid of the bureaucracy in brussels. we didn't get rid the bureaucracy in britain. so yeah, it had a lot of our problems lie at home. yeah. and they lie with fact that we've outsourced to unelected too much decision making and that is what we have to address. if you were still prime minister liz would there be any eu laws still the books in the uk the the the present administration has declined to remove vast numbers of them under your leadership. would you have completely put them the bonfire. well, yes. and i promise do that in a leadership election that i'm somebody who makes promises and seeks to fulfill them. i don't believe you can make promises in a leadership election, not deliver. that's why even, though i knew there were negative forces

towards what i was seeking to do in in the mini-budget on corporation tax and fracking. i promise to do that and we should do that and it does require taking on quite a major bureaucratic forces to get rid of those eu laws. institutions like the treasury they didn't like brexit in the first place, they wanted to keep as much of the eu regulations as possible and they have be challenged. is hope for the future of the conservative party. do you believe the party will return to thatcherite roots? are you optimistic about the long future of the conservative party, even though the the immediate term looks very looks very grim and sad? i think there are quite a lot of what we would call in the uk wets running around in key in positions.

are you hopeful about the thatcherite who really are returning to take back control of? what has been the most successful political party in history? i think is possible, but i think we will have to fight for it. it's not going to be easy and, you know, americans are very experience with brutal battle that go on within the republican party for the heart and soul of the party and that is we what what what is happening britain and the difference i would describe between people in the conservative party is that some people who explicitly say yes it's true these institutions in britain have moved to the left. yes it's true that they've adopted these extreme change policies locally. a human rights isms, etc. but we have accept that because as conservatives believe in

institutions. i don't agree with that. i think we have to reshape our institutions to reflect values that the public want vote for. and i think that is that is a bold a bolder agenda that conservatives need to back. and i do believe that britain will return to economic dynamism return to success until we do that i think it's just a question of how long we have to wait it very well and we just just a couple of minutes we're nearly out of time but liz, perhaps a final message for us. audience about about why why you believe that there is hope for for and and why you believe that the united really is the is the hope for the for the free world. so you the hope for the free

world this this election place in 2024 is, i think, one of the most consequential election as we already have seen what is happening when is an absence of united leadership. and by that, i don't just mean security in the world. i also. cultural and social leadership in the conservative world. and that is what we need to see. and my message is that you are going to have to fight for this. i think this is presidential campaign is a is a done deal at all. and they will the energy the commitment and the determination of to win. and it's not just about winning the election in 2024. it's actually about winning the administré mission in 2025.

great. well, been a tremendous discussion. thank you. thank you very much. and and your book is a it's a wonderful read. and i think it has a very powerful message for for the united states and a very powerful message for also for the uk as well both sides of the of the atlantic and most grateful to les for joining us and we have come to the end of our program unfortunately were unable to do the books on due to supply chain issues. your books been incredibly popular actually it's already sold in the uk and it's being re published i think second, third, third time and we you did not get the the the copies in time due to the intense competition for them and but it is a it's a it's a thrilling read it's a tremendous a tremendous book. and i hope that all of you will

be able to read this this this wonderful message to to the american and the british people. and this were most grateful to you for for joining us today. we look forward to hopefully see you again soon here in. the united states, we wish you all the best as well with your very important work on the ground in the united kingdom at this time. your efforts to save the conservative movement in uk. it's a very, very worthy cause and a big thank you to everybody for joining us here in person and and online. i would like to ask the the audience they could remain in the seats while, well, the former prime minister. exits the stage. but but very big warm thank you to everybody for joining us today. thanknow it's my particular plee

to introduce my old friend ali

velshi, who is an award winning journalist and msnbc host. many of you know him from your screens over the last 30 years. he's an immersive on the ground reporter who previously was an anchor correspondent and he is everywhere, not just with msnbc, but prior with al jazeera and cnn. ali was born in nairobi. he was raised in toronto, a critical and his new book, the small of courage a legacy of endurance, the fight for democracy, traces his family's courageous journey from freedom to freedom. starting in india, then to south africa, where they escaped apartheid and later emigrating to kenya and ultimately moving to canada and the united states. ali, welcome. thank you. and so the the longer piece of this and the reason why i'm doing this, you know what? you just ask, why is canadian consul general interviewing ali

velshi on the stage just because ali and i go back, god. but 38 years, i think we might yeah population and and we are a kind of a specie of people who emerge on canadian shores and know the 1970s and 1980s and you know your you see sort of residents of in the united states of species of people as well which is the, you know, broader a particular generation of people who draw their lineage back to the indian subcontinent. and this story that ali tells this book and, you know, it's part memoir obviously sort of going through remarkable family history, but it also touches on sort of many of the thematics that most of us care about over the course of the last century, which have been, you know, how has democracy evolved? what have been the fights for