sanity. where do you see the people exurbia well, that's an interesting so first of all, i would say that doug did such an outstanding job tonight thank you very much. originally my interlocutor is supposed to be a guy named david ferris who wrote a book, the kids are all left and that is about how younger generations of americans are more progressive than any previous generation. they're more politically involved than previous generations, and that's unlikely to change for a whole host of reasons that he documents and describes in the book. so that's another reason for hope. and that's another reason why will they vote? will they vote. that's the that's the big question. that's the big question.

know that you know, joe isn't an exciting candidate to name the big race, but they should vote. if you're watching this, you should vote. but exurbia gore vidal wrote, it's bit of a cliche, but he wrote that a clock ticks only in one direction and exurbia is going to become like the rest of america. in fact, in some sense, it's already happening in. parts of rural america, all of discussion of rural america is about voters underlining and underscore a certain bias that exists in the media. but voters of now make between 25 and 30% of rural america. that's going to happen in exurbia well. the eat the will become more diverse and the people who are

opposed to that diversity and opposed to the progressive politics that invites they're not going to have anywhere to go. so i think that the future is bright. if we can emerge this short term danger that currently presents itself against us and of the things that makes the short term so severe, is that the political system works to the advantage the current exurbia night. so we have an electoral college that more weight to land than voters. we have a skewed senatorial representative system. there are 3 million people who live here in. that's more than both dakotas combined. and yet the dakotas have four senators in washington, d.c. illinois has only two. so there some major structural

but culture. the united states of america is becoming an increasingly diverse and progressive polity. so that will an interesting collision. just maybe a follow up and perhaps a little of pushback on that. is i feel like just because trump leaves the scene doesn't mean trump is on leaves the scene. so i think, you know, the party has probably shifted to the right for the foreseeable future. and secondly, there there's a lot data polling out that biden is losing just we can't just rely on diversity just having a non white electoral population necessarily leaning left. african-americans tend to be more socially conservative,

perhaps same thing with hispanic americans. can't just rely on that. so how do we also shift the narrative, kind of get that back in without necessarily just assuming they're going to come back? that's that's a great question. so in no effort to duck or the question, i do think that biden has his own unique problems. we sometimes to forget that these political figures are individual roles and therefore they have individual problems or strengths or weaknesses. if if biden dropped out of the race months to a year ago, i think whatever. whoever would have replaced him on the democratic side would be polling much right now, including with all of the groups that you mentioned. but i understand questions much deeper and broader than that. so i would say that, first of all, there are some things about

the society that we've that are unsustainable. on easter, my wife and i were talking to my wife's niece who has a two young children and. she was talking about how the cost of daycare for the two young children is, what, $3,000 a month or something like that approximate. and this isn't anomalous. it's not like she's experiencing some fluke freak situation. so that's not sustainable end to your earlier about economics. there are people who are going to react adversely against and demand something different just out of necessity not necessarily even out of a political sophisticated or political aptitude. it's just the feeling that we can longer live like this. we can no longer live with a crippling student debt.

we can no longer live with going to the emergency, as i did, i had high blood pressure and then getting a bill for $3,000. and i was there for all of half an hour. so some of those those crises that descend upon people on a daily basis will bear political fruit. but what we need are democratic leaders who are willing to speak to those crises aggressively, but also speak to those crises aggressively in a way that doesn't cancel out issues of identity. because my fear is, is so often people create a binary choice in we can talk about economics or we could talk about culture. we can talk about class or, we can talk about social groups. those issues go together hand in

hand. if you're raising a a gay or transgender teenager right now in the state of florida and you're also having trouble paying for your health insurance, you're not going to live in a way that separates those two concerns. so we need leadership that meets the the moment by speaking in such a way that these issues are not contradictory but complex entry and i don't have the magic bullet for it i mean if i did i wouldn't be here be sitting in the oval office or something like that. but but that's what the future demands in that we have to speak to people's actual lives. and we also have to see that. class. and you class in economics and

sociology are all a piece of the same situation situation. and there's something there's something to your point. i mean, you are correct that many black be because of high levels of religiosity have some social conservatives. same with latino voters but they're also we act as if the maga movement isn't dangerous. but there's something pathetic about it as well. i and and it's it's maybe a little risky to speak this way because you don't want to downplay the threat that it presents but when trump hawking the lee greenwood god bless the usa bible. i it's very difficult to imagine

anyone who has actually read the bible or read any other book putting down the money to make that that purchase. if you're around anyone under the age of 40 as we are routinely it's very difficult to imagine anyone in that cohort out buying the lee greenwood god the usa bible there's there's a quality of punching against the wind with this movement that i if if if the democratic and if leftist organizers can politically suffocate it will be difficult for them to come at least in the short term. but i say that because the united states of america history always moves in cycles, and these reactionary, paranoid pop

pop up excuse me, these reactionary, paranoid pop up, and then put down and then something and they pop up again. so an ongoing battle, but there's something quixotic about all these right wing movements in that they're the source of. their defeat is built into it from the start. it's just a matter of people voting, their numbers in and getting involved. the national and local level. well i will say congratulations on the book. thank you. just before the conversation i had to cram read it over the last 24 hours. so i'm looking forward to rereading and lingering over your anecdotes so that certainly a delightful part of the book as said, i learned a lot about you and i think that was a kind of a brave choice, an interesting choice, a way to kind of thank you, kind of your own experience and observation, reflection. you named an interesting further

establishment. so i want to well, check out well we'll go together the exurban tour. yeah and i say doug is my supervisor at indiana university northwest so i took a major risk him to do this it could not only lead to an awkward conversation, but termination of employment possibility. so i'm glad glad you liked it. sure of writing you have this autocratic power. yes. thank you for coming, erica. thank you.

ss the future of the alliance. ♪

>> in partnership with the library of congress, c-span brings you books that shaped america. we explore key works of literature that had a profound effect on the country. the federalist from 1788, essays written by alexander hamilton, james madison and john j. >> in 1787 the newly drafted constitution was sent to the states for ratification. two camps emerge, the federalists and the anti-federalist. starting in october 1787, essays

published under the pen name publius began appearing in newspapers, urge and the ratification of the constitution. written by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay. theory were later combined into a book called the federalists. because of the authors addressed a wide range of political issues including conflict between the states, taxation and foreign influence, they are still considered vital documents today for understanding the original intent of the constitution. the federalist papers continued to have an impact on the issues of contemporary america. >> welcome to books that shaped america, our c-span series that looks at how books have influenced who we are today. in partnership with the library of congress, this 10 week series looks at different eras, topics and viewpoints. we are glad you are joining us for this walk-through history.

tonight, our focus is the federalist, compilation of essays written by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay. essays known today as the federalist papers. our guest this evening is judge gregory maddox and colleen sheehan, politics professor at arizona state university. professor sheehan, back in 1787, what were the purposes of the federalist papers? >> the federalist papers as it is commonly called, was the brainchild of alexander hamilton. hamilton was born in the caribbean on a little island called me this. hamilton came to the united states when he was a teenager,

went to kings college, now columbia and attended the constitutional convention. but he was outvoted there by the other two new yorkers who attended. new york is going to be a very important state for the new constitution. hamilton put together a team to push for the ratification of the constitution and he enlisted the support of john jay local james madison to work to persuade the voters of new york to ratify the constitution. >> judge, our partner in this endeavor, the library of congress on its website describes the federalist papers the most significant american contribution to political thought in our history. do you agree? >> i think it is true. there were a number of unique

contributions to political science that came out of the federalists. in discussing the nature of government, madison said the government had to accomplish two things. it had to be able to control itself. the three things he pointed out were essentially new things -- separation of powers, but he also focused on the checks and balances, where each house would check the other house, each branch of government would check the other branch. perhaps the most original contribution was federalism, the idea they having two governments would do more to preserve liberty than just having one government. >> let's range from the federalist number one. this is alexander ha. after an unequivocal ence

of the inefficiency of the subsistent fedal government, you are called upon to deliberate on the new constitution for the ute states of america. the subject speaks its own importance. comprehended in its consequences nothing less then the existence of that union. what was alexander hamilton saying there? >> that is the opening salvo of the federalist. it goes on to say it seems to have been reserved to the people of the country to decide the important question whether society is a minor capable of establishing good government or whether they are forever destined on accident and force. think about that. what he is saying essentially is free government has never worked. in the history of the world, there are momentary rains of

glory that break forth from the gloom and while they dazzle us with fleeting brilliance, popular government is a history of failure. we have the chance hamilton is saying to do it right. to show that all people is really capable of governing themselves. that is what the american project was about. the federalist papers starts out by saying so. >> judge, structuring society in a sense. >> yes, i think in your quote, one that -- thing that comes across is sounds like the articles of confederation was a disasters. in many ways that was an overstate. if you read the federalist, they were quite respectful despite seeing its flaws. under the articles of

confederation, congress kept the union toth. it won a war, and negotiated a favorable peace treaty, it figured out what to do about the western lands. but there were problems and most of what he talks about is how to improve the situation. not that everything was wrong, but that there were specific problems that might make this a flash in the pan if they do not get fixed. >> how different was the constitution approved in 1787 to the articles of confederation? >> some of the major problems with the articles of confederation was congress did not have the powers to govern. it could not raise taxes directly. it cannot raise an army by itself directly. it could pass laws, but had no way to enforce the laws. a had no judiciary. without the ability to raise

taxes, it could not successfully borrow money. another problem was that because each state had one vote, it was not a very fair system because some states were larger. the constitution attempted to address all of those problems by giving congress the powers the directors thought were necessary. >> why were these papers published under publius? >> publius is the pen name they chose. publius valerius publicola was a roman aristocrat who was known to be in favor of republicanism. a man of the people. they chose that name. it wasommon in the 18th century to have a pseudonym.

it is not from whom the advice comes that is the most important thing, but whether the advice it be good. the papers are put out there. nobody except probably one person knew who publius valerius publicola was. otherwise it is kept a secret for some time. the one person who was told is the man whom everybody respects the most. and that is washington. >> judge, do you invoke the federalist papers today in your work at the u.s. court of appeals for the armed forces? >> i have not had much occasion. the federalist papers are a

source of evidence of the original meaning of the constitution. but they are not the source where you can look up a sentence and that decides a legal issue. they are a collection of the arguments that were made by supporters of the constitution that addressed key themes such as -- when we say congress has powers and can do everything necessary to carry out those powers, what we mean by that, it is the big ideas i think in the federalist papers. whether or not you cite them in a particular case does not mean the big ideas are not still important. >> let's give you a sense o what america was like in 1787. the population was close to 4 milln. washington became the president

in 1789. there we 11 states admitted to thunn by the end of 1789. the economy was based mostly on farming. the federalistapers themselves, 85 essays publisd in 1787 and 1788. alexander wrote to 51 of those essays, james madison 29 and john jay route 5. -- wroteiv they were written under the pen nameubus. the independent journal in the new york packet where the original publishers. the library of congress has an original federalist in book form and we are going to show it to you here. this is at the library of congress. they also have a letter from

thomas jefferson to james madison talking about the importance of a bill of rights. here is a little bit on that. >> i am julie miller. i work with early american documents. this is a letter from the james madison papers. this is a letter that madison wrote to jefferson in the summer of 1788. james madison was one of the authors of the federalist essays and later on he would draft the amendments that would become the bill of rights. in this period, he was not sure yet of the bill of rights. in this letter to jefferson, he says the delay of a few years will assuage the jealousies artificially created and will point out the faults which really call for amendment.

he thought it would take a little time before they knew it would need to be amended. what he is saying is that a bill of rights should wait until later on. this is thomas jefferson's reply. what jefferson does is she thinks madison for -- he thanks for the news but says he knew it already. madison has sent him a copy and jefferson says he already has a copy. jefferson flatters madison and says with respect to the

federalist, the three authors have been named to me. he says i read it with care and pleasure and was satisfied there was nothing in it by one of those hands and by that he meant john jay. and he continues and not a great deal by hamilton. jefferson continues, does the highest honor to the third, by that he means madison who he is writing to, as being the best commentary on the principles of government. these two letters by jefferson and madison preserve the context of which the federalist essays were written and also how they were received. >> arizona state university

professor colleen sheehan, what was the role of the bill of rights in the federalist papers? >> first of all, i have to mention that arizona state university and the school of civic and economic thought and leadership also has a first edition of the federalist papers. it is a real treasure here at our university. what is the role of the bill of rights and the federalist papers? basically, publius and is why we do not need a bill of rights. both hamilton and madison argue we do not need a bill of rights. the anti-federalist our argument for it -- the anti-federalist are arguing for it.

the reason he said we do not need a bill of rights is because the american government is different from the british government. in the british model, the government granted rights to the people gradually. think of magna carta. the american government is very different. government does not grant rights to the people. the people delegate powers to the government. the people are sovereign. and so madison was concerned that if there were a bill of rights that any rights not listed would be assumed that we do not possess them. ultimately, he comes around and introduces the bill of rights and the first congress to bring the antifederalists on board to create unity. if we