"1968: america in turmoil." concludes with a look at the cold war. we'll hear from elizabeth cobbs of the hoover institution and mark kramer from harvard university's project on cold war studies. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] host: good morning. the house and senate both back this week. the senate continuing to take care of judicial nominees. the president beginning this week at the white house while a delegation led by his daughter and son. for tomorrow's opening of the u.s. embassy there. following a week of developments in the middle east and north korea, we're going to begin with your calls and comments on american foreign policy. it was in a speech that former president george w. bush quoting winston churchill saying the people of the united states cannot escape world

responsibility. former publish -- former bush warning about the dangers of ice living room. our phone lines are open at 202-748-8000 for democrats. and 202-748-8001 for republicans. we'll hear from former president bush in just a moment. and for independents, 02-748-8002. join us on facebook at facebook.com/cspan or send us a tweet @c-spanwj. happy mother's day. this is a story that we posted on our facebook page and it's on the atlantic council website as well. a speech by former president bush warning about ice living room. -- isolationism. >> oceans no longer protect the new world from problems of the

old. the only way for peace was to partnership and engagement. if we are together, nothing is impossible. we are divided, all will fail. that's why the atlantic council is important today and i appreciate your good works. [applause] it is very important for our fellow citizens to remember these words from winston churchill. america is inexpenseable -- indispensable for the world. and the dangers of isolation loom. the price of greatness is responsibilities. one cannot rise to be in many ways, the leading community in a civilized world without being involved in its problems. without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes.

if this had been proved in the past has it has been, it be look indisputable in the future. people in the united states cannot escape world responsibility. i wholeheartedly agree. host: those comments from former comments george w. bush here in washington this past week and we'll get your tweets, send us tweet @c-spanwj. and the "atlantic magazine," in an essay written by elliott cohen, all the visible damage that the president has done, there are much more worst things to surface. the headline "how trump is ending the american era." here's part of what cohen where is on this sunday morning. foreign leaders may consider trump alarming but they do not consider him serious. they know they can cot rely on him. and so already, they have begun reshape alliances and goes on to the -- he

write that we will be living with the consequences of trump's tenure and command in chief for decades. americans after trying to every other alternative can also be counted on doing the right thing, winston churchill supposedly said. let's get to your phone calls. joe is first up on our line from independent from massachusetts. former president bush warning on the dangers of isolationism. your thoughts, joe. caller: i think president trump should go back as being the other presidents and get rid of the tweets altogether and just run his office perhaps as like president eisenhower did or even truman. and that's my summary for today.

host: president trump was in elkhart, indiana, this past week, talking about the success in north korea and how america s now back on the world stage. here's president trump. president trump: this is an exciting time for our country. jobs are booming. remember? i told you. i told you. [cheers and applause] president trump: confidence is soaring and optimism is at the top of every chart. [cheers and applause] president trump: this is a great time for our country. a lot of things happening. every day, we are unlocking new opportunities for prosperity and for peace. all of these changes are happening because america is being respected again. cheers and applause]

host: what about president bush warning about the dangers of being isolated on a global stage? give us a call at 202-748-8000, that's our line for democrats. and for republicans, 202-748-8001. don is joining us from california, republican line from salinas, california. good morning, don. caller: hi. you know when president obama was elected, president bush said he didn't want to say anything because he didn't want to criticize another president and he doesn't want to interfere with him but with trump, he can't shut up. it really flies in my face. and also, this whole so-called isolationism is what you would call fake news. no one can point to anything that trump has done that has isolated us from the world. in fact, he has been more inclusive.

he's seeking bilateral trade agreement with china. he's actually talking to the people in the middle east and getting allies with them and fighting isis which he's been super successful and almost eradicating. if you look at any part of the world stage, president trump has been an inclusive president, an open president. and i just don't understand where all this stuff is coming from. to me, it's like a big fat lie. where is trump isolating us and in what way, shape, or form? host: don, thanks for adding your voice to the conversation. mike, also on the republican line. he's joining us from north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: we're doing great. how are you? caller: good. the previous carson palmer pretty much summed it up. i agree with him 100%. i'm baffled. i truly am baffled by the

article you wrote that, again, t didn't list any specifics. the only thing that this is coming from as is everything is simple trump derangement syndrome and the pulling out of bad agreements. pulling out of bad agreements does not necessarily indicate that president trump and his administration are taking any type of isolation and stance with the world. as the previous caller said, we're choosing to approach it differently. you cannot argue about the success. it's not a done deal yet. but the success and the progress that has been made in the korean peninsula, the opening of the embassy, the american embassy in this coming week which was something approved by congress president 5, but clinton, president bush 43 and president obama just couldn't pull the trigger on because they were too afraid it might upset

the angry muslims. well, president trump is moving forward with that. jerusalem is a historical capital of israel going back 4,000 years and we're going to move ahead with that. he's also called nato out not to berate them or belittle them and not to isolate ourselves from them but to step up. and they've all agreed years ago to at least contribute 2% of their g.d.p. to their national defense budgets and i believe the only two countries that are doing that are greece and poland for crying out loud. so he's shining a light on the disparitys and the deficiencies in our international relationships. and somehow, the political left and you guys seem to love to help it out a lot are making out be some type of isolationists. i agree. host: this is -- disagree.

host: keep your eye on dear leader. a reference to kim jong-un. and another one saying we are not in this world alone, friend or foe. we are all in this together. trump royals the globe with the iran deal withdraws and peace begins as follows by rebecca eel. a major rift with allies and raising tensions with middle east. host: this morning from "the hill" newspaper from thehill.com. bubba from dallas, texas. good morning. caller: good morning to you. historians in the future will probably rate bush the worst

president we've ever had. and for him to make this statement of isolationism is going on in this country when his policies in the middle east were probably the most disastrous foreign policy situations we've ever gotten into. look at all the fellas that are walking around on one leg, on no legs, bush himself is a disgrace. thank you. host: this is from robert who says george w. bush was silent for eight years and now he is pining. that is tweet, at @c-spanwj. henry from cambry ya height, new york. our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on the air. go ahead. caller: basically, i'm calling in because i agree with mike from north carolina and the caller, gentleman from texas. mr. bush was very quiet for a

long time. and now he wants to speak out but he spent about $7 trillion of our money, taxpayers' money and lots of our blood as been wasted in two wars in afghanistan and iraq and now he wants to quote winston churchill and that's fine. but i don't think he's the one o be speaking on this subject. it took two dogs and two helicopters to get osama bin laden. george bush put half a million boots on the ground in iraq. it took president obama two helicopters, 24 men, two dogs to get osama bin laden. so, basically, i don't think he's the one to really be hastising president trump.

host: the wipeout of obama's legacy. decisions taken by the president alone are vulnerable to being erased by subsequent presidents and that is what's happening to he pact with iran. next up is -- we'll go to ann from westerville, ohio. good morning, ann, independent line. caller: good morning. good morning. -- [indiscernible] and i totally disagree and i think he should stay out of it. for 20 years, we've been in this hole and i think that we need a new approach and i don't think quoting something and taking out of context what churchill said, he wasn't referring to that either. but i think it draws attention to bush and the job dat he did which was not very good. and i feel that we're a new --

it's a new frontier and we need different strategies. and i'm excited about this. so i think that he should retire gracefully as our president should do now -- not this president, but the previous president. they should all do what they've been doing and let this president have an opportunity to use a new strategy that appears, it seems to be working quite well. i'm very proud of him. host: we were able find some solve oh sounds of the winston churchill speech. he was joined by then president harry s. truman and talked about the iron curtain descending across europe and here is the last minute or so of this speech in which he made ronchese the translake alliance and the

relationship between the united states and great britain and our role to the world. from 1946 they can voice of winston churchill. in ll over the globe, and moral -- there will be no -- [indiscernible] on the contrary, there will be an overwhelming security [applause] if we had to the united states and walk all that in with sober strength, speaking no one's land or [indiscernible] no control of the -- of men. if all moral and material and

conviction are joined with your own in fraternal association, the high road and the future will be clear. not only for us, but for all. not only for our time, but for a century to come. host: prime minister winston churchill in a 1946. he was the former prime minister at that point but then came back in to return at downing street before resigning in the mid 1950's, that speech in fulton, missouri. and from "time" magazine, there is this. the aftershock across the globe. ian bremmer reporting on the impact of the's decision to pull out of the iran nuclear deal. warning about the dangers of american isolation. his speech at the atlantic council. you can check it out on facebook.com/cspan. let's go to john from the

republican line. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: hello. are you there? host: we sure are. go ahead, john. caller: ok. the bushes are so ticked off and se they beat the stuff poor jeb, and the all them bushes for a new world order in this country, doping up the borders and everything. know, i think that y'all hate america and hate trump and you're trying to destroy him because all this stuff you put on about him every day and we're not falling for this stuff that you're all going to do for this man. he is the greatest president that we've ever had. everything that he's ever done is right. and i don't know why y'all don't put on some positive stuff. you allow these people to call in and call him names and everything else, but if a republican calls in and says

illegal alien, y'all hang up on them now. host: stop it there, john. that is not there. this is an open dialogue. we've been hearing from a lots of people like you who support president trump. all we're simply doing is letting you know what former president george bush said. that's a judge off conversation. we're not bashing the president. we've had the same kind of calls from supporters from president obama and president bush when they were in the white house. this is a open discussion and we're not here with any agenda. caller: that's your excuse. we know what you're doing and everybody knows what you do every morning and a whole bunch of you. host: what is it that we do every morning? caller: try to threw all this bad stuff on trump and what he's not doing and trying to lois late the country and he's not doing that and i don't know why you bring your stuff on there. put positive stuff on there. host: we do that too, john.

caller: you hear all the republicans call in and tell you exactly the same thing i'm telling you. host: and we appreciate that. wore glad to hear from you. we want to hear from everyone. caller: why do you allow them to call him all them bad names and then when you say illegal alien, you hang up on them people? i don't understand it. but you allow them to call him dirty names and everything else. and tell him he's crazy, a lunatic and all of this stuff. and i just don't get your show anymore. and a lot of people don't. host: well, we're glad to hear from you. and we want to hear from all of you. this is an open forum to hear all that support and oppose and this is a democracy and there's a lot of different points of view and a lot of heated discussion. we appreciate you. caller: jeb was a poor president when he was in florida. maybe it was so bad because he didn't get elected.

it's time to put him down. host: john, thank you. we're glad to have your choice to this program. -- voice to this program. this is from myelin burks, a tweet. this is the few times that george w. bush has said something i agree with. and this is from carol. peace through strength is our president's motto. i agree. no, we are not all in this together. weren't allowed to check iran's military situations. where do you think iran would keep their inspections? duh, in a place where inspectors do not check. it's got to be really bad for the worst president in history to come out and scold you. and then finally from t.j. trump is getting things done that bush and obama could not. they are jealous and bitter. next is josephine joining us from new jersey, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. let me begin by saying happy mother's day to all mothers

alive and dead. host: thank you, josephine. i agree. caller: i'm 74. born during world war ii. started school during the korean war. was in nursing school during the vietnam war. i mean, we've always known war. and unfortunately, people have what i call convenient amnesia. they forget what it means to get into war. and how do you get into war? you ever see children in a playground and there's always a bully in the playground? he's not the peacemaker. he's the bully. ow, there's an article -- it's actually the cover. host: we have it and we'll show to it you in just a moment. caller: show to it the people because europe is outraged. remember, he's going to be going to london shortly. you're going to see the outcry.

europe is -- how can i say? our backup. whenever -- when 9/11 happened, what who was there? europe. the idea that we are socializing ourselves with saudi arabia, the one who caused 9/11, makes one to wonder. did you know we just sent troops yemen because of saudi arabia? really? where are your heads, folks? and yesterday, the other day, he tapped in his cutting the prescription program. so i thought well, maybe this will work. so i went to look up the stock market. let's look at how they look at it. do they think it's going to work or it's not going to work? stock markets said hoke'em poke'em. the stocks went up on the pharmaceuticals. why? because they said none of it's going to work. why? because he didn't allow medicare to fight for their prices. he wants other countries to fight for their citizens to do what we do.

and fortunately, senior citizens can't afford it. i know i went wide in range but i get upset when people don't look at the bigger picture. they got tax cuts. love the tax cuts. you know, the bottom line is by 2025, the republicans are going to come around and say oh, we have this debt. i don't know who's going to be president then. who knows if i'm even going to be alive. the bottom line is tear going to say we don't have money. we got cut medicare and social security. it's always there underneath. you've got to watch the ulterior motives. we have the tax cuts. the gentleman got a billion dollar tax cut to his family. he never -- he said in 2000, his exact words, i will be the only president to make money in office and it's happening. he does it right in front of you and you don't see it.

you think oh, he's worrying about me. more coal miners and remember carrier, the thing that first when he went to down south? oh, the jobs, where did all the jobs go? mexico. doesn't tell you about that. you know the motorcycles that everybody was there? where are they going? to the other yenlt. wake up, folks. he jobs are leaving. for 92 months, we've had success uptick in the stock market. 92 months. not 15, 92 months. so to put that person that means the god of all thing. now, he's the god of money and unfortunately has other roblems. host: raw mom by the way? caller: no, i'm not. host: thank you for the call.

we're seeing isolation from america from europe, parts of asia and we don't have an ambassador to south korea. the u.k., france and germany will not be a coalition to attack iran. send us a tweet @c-spanwj. this from foreign policy magazine. dennis ross helped craft that nuclear deal. trump broke the policy. let him fix it. he where is the following. i don't know if donald trump is a fan of the pottery barn rule of if you break it, you buy it. t now applies to iran -- host: that's your -- back to

your phone calls. kelly from daytona beach, florida. democrats line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. give me as much time as you gave the last person from florida. first of all, the reason george w. bush didn't criticize obama is because he had his pitbull dick cheney doing it all the time. george w. bush and chaney blew up our -- chaney blew up our economy, blew up the middle east. the tax cut asks two unnecessary wars lay this country flat. they wouldn't give obama a chance before he even stepped over the welcome mat into the white house to try to fix anything. and he did a good job. cheneyies under bush and did not remember the lies. this trump administration is really a continuation of bush and cheney. you got a lain chow.

she used to be the secretary of labor under bush. she is now in the trump white house. you got john bolton who wants to continue blowing up the middle east. of course. israel and the saudis are our friends. what strange bedfellows. now you've got the head of the department of health. he was to the department of health under bush and cheney. wake up, folks. it's a cofpblgs we're being played! host: thanks for the call. we gave you the full time so much we thank you. from new kensington, pennsylvania, republican line. your students all of this, mike. caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. just to go what that last fella said about criticism of c-span. i do not agree. i think that c-span presents a wide range of topics and views. my only criticism is that too

much emphasis put on what the "new york times" and "washington post" says when i do think that they are very biased and very slanted and are a very poor news source in many respects. nonetheless, my point on bush and trump is that naturally, you're going to have conservatives in the trump administration who were in the bush administration. absolutely. that's going to happen. so it's better than what the obama administration did and presenting us as world leaders thing.-- is not a good i think presenting the president as a world leader is not so good. it is an improvement of what trump has done in presenting himself as a leader of the united states. and we should be supporting freedom around the world, not

necessarily with inventionism but at least from our own perspective and supporting freedom wherever we can but not to change the governments and everything. george that policy that bush was wrong and she believes in a world without borders and that's my take on it. host: so mike, you stay on the line for a minute? caller: sure. host: and i apologize for our radio audience but i'll explain what we're looking at. this is a german publication portraying trump as the middle finger lifting off europe and it says "goodbye europe." this is one of our closest allies. it was on the report getting a lot of traction. when you look at this cover about europe, your reaction? caller: i think europe has been

wrong, had it in what they've been trying to do and it's not an interest of capitalism. it's not -- and it is an interest of globalism what, they have done with the euro. and these types of mortgages that are supposed to compete with the united states and if the united states falls for that, we're going to be done. i think and that trump has done what needs to be done as you take on these global markets and this european union as something that is not in support of freedom around the world. and you can't have a free economy and have a free -- you cannot have an economy that is not free and still have a free country. host: mike, thanks very much for the call. and this is from michael saying europe has rid then gravy train and now they whine and the eurofiles join in holeheartededly.

nick from sarasota, florida. independent line. caller: good morning, steel. i agree with the california and the north carolina caller and the other first florida caller. trump's on track to be the best president we've ever had. they keep saying since reagan, and he actually has interest in america as a country. bush is a globalist and so is his father and so is obama. he created the problems in the middle east. they have no exit strategy and now we've got somebody in there who's trying to look out for our jobs and economy, and making them pay their fair share of defense, making them -- give us fair trade or we're not the ones that being the handout to everybody. and, you know, you guys could stand in bring in more rubble indications and it's about 3-1

against trump. i don't know if that's just because you picked him up and try maybe invest on business daily. every time somebody calls in and has a positive call like myself, you can tell on the post space. you were wondering why. you look like your dog got run over and so are a couple of other hosts when i brought up the fact that the problem in america are the education systems because the communists have taken over in colleges and schools and greta almost had a heart attack. look at the outcome. you know, this is america. it's about individualism and the constitution. it's not socialists and i hope we have a led way in november because it sounds like the callers at least on this show were saying. thank you.

caller: based from all these deals and climate, the iran deal, but i just want these people to do what he has done. tell me what particular bill or legislation he has passed where it has made any progress or with respect to the economy, the stock market or even the fight -- when did trump bring all his business back from all these countries overseas

where he sent him businesses and the globalness -- globalization where he has all these businesses? when did he bring back all these businesses from other countries where he had the clothing and other stuff made? we have never heard anything about that. please, someone, let me know when that happens. host: thanks for the call. caller: i'm hopeful for what president trump is doing and i hope the summit goes well it and would benefit the whole country. and the other other comment would be i was happy to see yesterday that kimberly was not on, mainly because seeing her on msnbc and she was on "meet the press" last week when she mentioned about the white house

telling lies. i'm just shocked that c-span would have her as one of the hosts. and beyonce what some of the other -- i don't understand what system of the other speakers have said. i would say greta and john usually pose the questions in such a way that a trump supporter had to be a defender of him and they usually come back and say well, why, you know, do you feel the way you do when those who may not be in favor don't necessarily get the same sort of questions as to why they support him. so that would be my feeling. but i'm pleased to see that kimberly was not on yesterday. and i don't think she should be a host on c-span. and i really liked her from the beginning. i thought she was very fair, very good, but after seeing her on what we know how msnbc and nbc treats our president, i'm glad that she's not on. host: well, diane, thank you. she is a guest host. kimberly is fair as all of us try to be in presenting all

points of view and the great thing about this network is we are an open book. all of our programming is available at c-span.org and you can check it out and draw your own opinion. this is from "u.s.a. today." today's talker from iran to north korea. trump is fixing the world. a series of ed toirls that you can read at usatoday.com. john is joining us from baltimore. caller: you said john but i'm shawn. host: i'm sorry. go ahead, shawn. caller: all the people who criticize you as being biased, they're wrong. i call them trump worshipper. this network is great. you allow people to give their opinions. you allow people to talk bad about bush, obama, trump. keep up the good work.

and also i want to say i don't know if you ever heard of a book called the 48 laws of power. with trump, he's jacking up law number 19, do not offend the wrong person and the way he's going about things is just so crazy. you can't go out here and just act like a lunatic and just do -- just think everything is about you. and that is what trump is doing. it is so amazing that people just give him such a pass and that's why a lot of people think white privilege exists because if obama did the same mess that trump is doing now, let me say if obama did an eighth of what trump is doing, he would have been in jail a year ago. so trump has done a few good things, but this man has done a lot of crazy things. and our country is in great danger. he's going to bring down the country and let me just say this about the iran deal. the iran deal, it was kind of

bad, but i don't think trump should got out of it. he could have made it better. but also, people got to realize we wouldn't have been in this mess if the c.i.a. in 1953 along with british intelligence didn't go in there and overthrow the president who was democratically elected by the people of iran. we went in there and help stage coupe and put that country in chaos. we just stayed out of iran. we wouldn't be in this mess. but trump needs to read the 48

laws of power. keep it great. don't worry about those people. host: oh, no, it's great. e appreciate it. host: the scrashing views on iran bear a deeper split on president trump's security team. in the a-section of the "new york times." for those listening on c-span adio, we're asking about president bush talking about the dangers of isolation. michael joins us from our democrats line. good morning. caller: first off, i want to tell you, steve, you got a really good show here. and contrary to what everybody

says, you are more fair and balanced than fox news. because you give everybody a voice and that's what this whole hing is about. we're going to make america great again, and this is how we're going to do it with his economic agenda. and the agendas he's putting out there, he's already proving to us he's giving huge tax breaks to corporations and actually, i work and my taxes didn't go down like he said they were going to. these were false promises this president is making. and he is running this country right into the ground. we have to get rid of this guy. we got our horse blinders on. come november, we need to vote blue. we got to have a change here. you can't continue on the same path and because you're going to

get the same result. and except this time around, i think the results are going to be a lot worse with donald trump. and his whole family is taking a trip on airforce one at the tune of over $100 billion in expenses. those are things right there, actions speak louder than words. get the horse blinders off and let's get rid of this guy. he needs to be impeached. if this was obama, he would have been out of there already. the hypocrisy has to stop. and this is just gusing. i'm disgusted with politics now. i know our country can and a lot better than this. host: a couple of articles from the "new york times" sunday review. liberals, you're not as smart as you think. self-righteousness is rarely attractive. it's even more rarely rewarded. also from the "new york times." is the united states too big to govern? our society may become

unimaginably large and complex. for those following next week, next saturday is the big wedding, prince harry and meghan arkle. jimbo is joining us from bakersfield, california. independent line. ood morning. caller: i want to explain to everyone that i understand that bill clinton is a rapist and that hillary clinton is an enabler and she used her position to enrich herself through the clinton initiative. i'm completely aware of that. ok? just because bill clinton is a rapist and hillary clinton is a criminal does not mean there are other criminals out there. what i ask to all trump supporters is there any moral or criminal behavior that you believe, even if there was a preponderance of the evidence would make you withdraw your support for the

president? can you explain to me any set of circumstances which would make you publicly withdraw support f support for the president? i mean, if you were to execute babies on fifth avenue on live television, would that make you stop your support for him? here are the fact, trump supporters. the "washington post" has already shown that the president had lied to the american people over 3,000 times. how can we trust this man? he is an adulterer. if he cheat on your wife, how am i to trust you in any other areas? your most intimate relationship, you cannot be trustworthy. and he doesn't pay his debts to the point that he can't get lawyers, ok. because they know they're going to get burned by him. he cheats contractors, ok? this entire -- his entire life has been based on fraud, manipulation, cheating other people. why we should be surprised --

it's no surprise to me. the real problem, my real sustain is where people like kevin mccarthy and devin nunes who are enabling someone like this. kevin mccarthy with judy sitting down there talking about, you know, the president's sorted affairs. host: and he is your representative, right? caller: yes and probably one of the most shamelessly german derd districts in california. there is nothing that kevin mccarthy could ever do like the president to have anyone withdraw their support. but again, here's the next question that you really need to ask on c-span. trump supporters only. describe a set of circumstances which would create an

environment in which you would no longer support the president. there. >> any. this is a new religious cut. i mean, jesus is envious. host: this is from steve france. france is encouraging the rest of you to ignore sanctions and to work with iran. dn't we learn the lessons of isolationism and what militant nationalism leads? we have better things to do than to retreat from the world from a cloud of hate and we know better. and carol saying to me and the others, we always appreciate you and the rest of the c-span host. we appreciate that. again, this is an open forum and we want to hear from you. good, bad, indifferent, what's working, what's not working and what did you think of the questions? we appreciate that. malik from arlington, texas, independent line.

good morning. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: we're doing great. caller: i've lost a job because of bush's tariff at general motors here's -- here in arlington to believe i applied for a job at general motors and they have lost two shifts at a plant in ohio who said they're not making the chevy cruz because of the previous tariff deals with president bush soism personally lost a job. but i work with a plant right now, currently and we have trump support thrers and they brag about these tax cuts. none of them received any additional money since the tax cuts have been enacted and it befuddles my mind that people would make up these things that he has done to improve their lives that don't exist. but as far as the isolationism is concerned, he's watered down neo-fascist. he wants to bring fork in an

arrow where the united states and russia functions as the same entity where no one could challenge their authority or their military might. there's a difference between authority and power. host: malik, thanks for the call. and the conversation continues at our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. stuart eizenstat is going to be joining us from new york in just a moment. he is the author of a new book, "president carter: the white house years." the forward by madeleine albright who served in the clinton administration and later, we turn our attention to "1968: america in turmoil" the ninth and final installment of our series and joining us is hoover institution senior fellow elizabeth cobbs and mark kramer from harvard university as we discuss vietnam, the cold war and america's space program.

here's an excerpt from "newsmakers." >> you know, really, right now, there's not a race. so i know that's going to disappoint you because everyone says there is a race and there is a race behind the scenes and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. there are no negotiations going on. i'm not in it or anything for me. that puts me in a good place to negotiate. i don't want a chairmanship. i don't want a position. but what i do want is to make sure that my members, freedom caucus members have their fair representation at the leadership table and on committees of jurisdiction and whomever is going to emerge as that leader will be the one who best articulates that and until we get that, there won't be a new speaker. i can tell you there's no one who has 218 votes today. we have a sophisticated whip operation and i can assure you that no one without on the republican's side can get to 218 without democrat vote.

>> follow up. about three dozen still. and you guys will probably vote at the block, i assume. >> yeah. we have 47 people who said they're willing to vote as a block right now, which really probably means that we have a hardcore 32. but those are numbers that are based on real discussion that are out there. and so some who even say they will be here or there, so beyond the freedom caucus, i think there are a lots of people who are frustrated with the way washington, d.c. does work beyond the freedom caucus and so i'm getting moderate members who say we got to change this. the way that we do things. and that's what's creating the do i nascar. >> i'll do a real quick follow-up. have you had a conversation with kevin mccarthy the presumed, i guess frontrunner for the next leader about winning the support of the freedom caucus? >> i've talked to leader mccarthy a lot.

i've talked to steve scalise a lot. i have not had any negotiation discussions with leader mccarthy in terms of that. he does know that we need to have a broad section of representation. i've had those conversations with him. we've had a number of conversation as it relates to that. and those are going well. but in terms of if you give me this, you get votes that hasn't happened. host: the chair of the house freedom caucus, mark meadows on our "newsmakers" program. you can listen to it any time on our free c-span app. joining us from new york is stuart eizenstat. his latest book from st. maarten's press, "president carter: the white house years." more than 900 pages. an in-depth look at his four years in the white house, 1977

to 1981. thank you for being with us. and why did you write the book? guest: i wrote the book because i wanted to have a reassessment of the carter president schism his political hero was harry truman. he brought his slogan the buck stops here and put it in his oval desk. both truman and carter left the presidency as highly unpopular presidents. truman is now remembered much more for his achievements and his failures and i wanted the book to have the same impact for president carter to have a reassessment of his presidency not to be seen as just a great former president and indeed, i make the case that he was one of the most accomplished one-term presidents that we've had in modern american history and indeed, accomplished more than many two-term presidents congress passed almost 70% of his legislation just under the legendary percentage of president johnson got in the white house.

so i wanted to have a reassessment of the presidency. now, steve, you read the book. it's a candid and honest book. i go into the rap against carter, inflation, iran, inexperience by himself and the georgia mafia and the inner warfare and i deal with them honestly and candidly but they have come to told obscure the very real accomplishments that he made both at home and aboard and i wanted after all these years, almost no living eyewitnesses will remain in future decades to write this now. to try to put the presidency in a more positive vain -- vein and a more candid vein to it. a real assessment to a consequential presidency. host: you research the book, you wrote the bock but you also lived through those four years. you give the audience a sense of

your tenure in the carter white house? guest: yes. i struggled with eart carter and was a policy director i was the domestic adviser for four years. and i was involved in many foreign policies as well. i was the backchannel to israel during the midwest process. i worked on a number of sanctions issues against the soviet union and against iran. an what i think gives authenticity to the book is based on 5,000 pages of notes taken of every meeting, every phone call i had with president, vice president, the cabinet, the congress. plus, over 350 interviewss and i was not selected. i interviewed everyone, republicans, democrats, those who were favor to believe carter, those whether or not. i interviewed the president himself five times. so it's really based on very

contemporaneous being there, and i try to do it as an insider but also to try to take a historian's objectivity and make it candid. i knew that if it was seen as just a whitewash, it wouldn't be taken seriously. so i really tried to put everything in order but having done so, to see major accomplishments, our energy security today is based heavily on the three major energy bills that the president signed which decontrol the price of natural gas and crude oil and puts conservation at the center of our agenda and scomploor wind power and the environment, he was the greatest environmental presidents since need door roosevelt, doubling the size of our national parks, putting in ethics legislation, appointing more women and minorities to senior positions and judgeships

than all 38 president put together and having a social policy that was very progressive, food stamp reform, health care remple and the like -- reform. and even with our achilles' heel, which was double-digit inflation, he took the position, steve, and he said to us in an election year i'm going to take tough medicine. everything i've tried, tough budgets, any inflations, nothing's work. i'm going to appoint knowing that chairman of the fed, he was going to in effect, squeeze inflation out of the system to hire interest rate asks he ahead i would rather lose my election. so president reagan and the beneficiaries afterwards but it was carter who did it. and on foreign policy, even more

so, camp david inaugurated 40 years of peace between egypt and israel. how many rights at the centerpiece of this policy reach touting latin america to the democratic movement arguing for democracy in latin america which did happen and doing the same with soviet union. reaching out in the soviet jewish movement. building up our defenses after the de: of defense spending in vietnam. everybody assumes that was p.m. reagan's doing and he deserves credit doing it but we started it. we raised defend spending at 3%. recognized china. all of these things were done in a quite conventional -- questionable -- consequential

way and made it more of a peaceful world and took on the soviet union with afghanistan. it was not just soft power, it was hard power. when they invaded afghanistan, he increased defense spending. had an olympic boycott. a grain embargo on the eve of the iowa primaries. and imposed a whole range of sanctions and inaugurated what was called the carter doctrine saying to the soviets any penetration in the gulf will be met with military force. and so i wanted to put all of these positive things on the record as well as dole honestly with the problems that we had. host: our guest is stuart eizenstat. he is joining us from new york. we'll get to your phone calls in just a moment. in the book title "president carter: the white house years." and let me follow-up on some foreign policies that you just touched on. and in the bock, you write with regard to foreign policy, "carter was the first american president to make human rights a central feature of his foreign policy.

his was the anti-this of the nixon-ford kisner concept of balance of hour." and you take that one step further. no one can draw clear line between the collapse of the soviet union and the human can you paign -- explain? guest: yes, steve, i can. for him, human rights and foreign policy was the flip side of the coin of civil rights at home. and for him, human rights was not a sort of doo we-eyed naive policy. he struck at the soft underbelly of the soviet union by reaching out to the dissident movement, the democratic movement to the soviet jewish movement.

he saved sha rance i can's own book, his life by saying he wasn't a spy during his trial and that increased soviet jewish immigration but it also gave hope. and along with pope john paul ii who came at the same time, it really gave hope to those in the soviet union and the east block that there was light at the end of the tunnel. this repression did not have to go on indefinitely. and he combined that, steve, that what i would call soft ower of human right, with hard power, increasing defense spending, modernizing our military and taking a very tough stand that the soviet invasion of afghanistan. so ronald reagan deserves all the credit for taking tough positions but the ultimate collapse of the soviet union, but president carter created the foundation with both human right, democracy promotion and hard power upon which president reagan build. host: let's get to your phone calls. harold is joining us on the

republican line from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. look, nobody would argue that jimmy carter wasn't in some ways a fine man. the problem is for those of us who are old enough to remember him. he wasn't exactly a successful president. he was a man who couldn't see the forest through the trees. it's just unbelievable. he spent his time trying to figure out who should play tennis on the white house tennis court. i mean, this is crazy. he just didn't get the job done. and when you say that he, you know, somehow built up american strength and did these things overseas, look, there was a reason that ronald reagan got elected. there was a real reason. and if you want to look at the armed forces and how they were doing, try to see it as it actually was. there were some real problems

with our troops in germany. i would rather not get into what they were but i mean, real problems. host: harold, thanks for the call. you addressed the issue about his attention to detail. caller: i do. and i appreciate the caller's comments. first of all, he did not micromanage the tennis courts. it was a gesture of grace to his staff to allow us to play on the tennis court. he did not motorcycle manage the hours. he only wanted to make sure when he wanted to play, nobody else was. but his attention to detail, which you mentioned, steve, and it's certainly true that he read every memorandum before making a decision. but one winter storm warnings in retrospect if that's a worst way to govern or wouldn't be better to have an informed president than one who acts on tweets and without full action. and in terms of foreign policy, we reached out to our allies. with ked with germany and

france with the u.k. to build up nato and missiles in europe, which the russians themselves said was a key reason for the ollapse of the soviet union. derelating airlines. bringing airline travel to the middle class, camp david, china, normalization, the panama canal and lat tin-america u.s. relations. these are ardly accidental things and one of the problems was that the benefits of those oftentimes only came to the fore at the -- after he left office. inflation is a great example. we had double-digit inflation just like nixon did after the first oil shock.

with the iranian revolution. and you will have car did the job and carter let him do the job and the benefit of lower inflation came later. it was a very accomplished presidency. it was a presidency with real problems. and again, i deal honestly with those but they shouldn't obscure the very real achievements both at home and abroad. host: with regard to the military, you write the following "far from hollowing out america's militaryings he was the architect of the beginning of the revival, increasing spending 10% but the impression stuck that he was soft on defense." guest: yes, steve. so you can take two independent voices. robert gates who was secretary of defense and republican and democratic administrations and a new study on the tenure of our defense secretary harold brown. both say the same thing.

it was carter who laid the foundation for the military modernization upon which reagan uilt and enhanced. so why was he viewed as being weak on defense? for a couple of reasons. first, in the campaign against president ford in 1976, he did call for reducing ford's levels of spending by five to seven percent helmet did call by removing troops and when he we seesaw rerealities, he increased defense spending. and with the afghan invasion, 5% a year and put in place all of these other modernizations. now, there was one other thing that gave him this wrap of -- rap of being weak on defense. he killed the b-1 bomber and he thought it was insufficient, too

costly and would be subject to soviet radar and so he opted for modernized cruise missile that could come in under the soviet radar systems. but the killing of the b-1 took on a symbolic importance. so this is another example of problems on curing very real accomplishments. host: and he knew in the military having been the first u.s. president to graduate from the u.s. say? value academy and serving in the u.s. navy. guest: not just serving in the navy but being an officer in the submarine corps. he nuclear navy. just after he announced his melanoma and just before he was oing to get new treatment,

remarkably, he's been cancer-free now for over two years. he's back to all of his activities at 90 plus. using your d.n.a., activating the immune system to block the cancer rather than chemotherapy which kills the good cells in and the bad and going back to the presidency, he was a great advocate for health care expansion. we proposed a major expansion in health insurance. we had food stamp reforms. he was fiscally conservative but he was progressive on poverty, race and bringing us together, reaching out to the african-american and hispanic communities and as i mentioned, literally pointing more the

senior positioning as judges and in the administration than all 38 presidents put together before him. host: we'll go to steve who has been patient in florida. democrats line. good morning. you're on with stuart eizenstat who is joining us from new york city. caller: yes. thank you. i'm really anxious to read your book. it's really refreshing to hear someone honoring the legacy of president carter. i live in florida but i was born and raised in a town in northwestern pennsylvania. and i remember sitting there in disbelief when i was oh, 23 years old, watching the election and seeing jimmy carter lose the race and seem still angry with my father's generation for crossing the line.

voting for president reagan and all the baby boomers were so cstatic. i feel the i feel like he had to make some unpopular decisions. he was the first one that told us that the energy crisis was real. he was an environmentally minded president. i feel like we went through the cycle again. right now, president obama is getting discredited. here we go again with supply-side economics, taking credit for everything, one of the things president obama did.

he found a parallel. host: a response. guest: good question. had a highirchner view of policy. he was a firtash president carter had a high view of policy. he thought you should put politics on the sideline and do what was right. on one level, a weakness. the other, a great strength. it allowed him to take on challenges and accomplish something. the middle east is a political landmine, but he accomplished it. a political landmine, but he accomplished it. able toronment, he was broaden our natural -- national parks system. heel, our achilles' double-digit inflation. inflation during the 70's for next and and forward. taken into the

stratosphere because of the iran crisis. challenge ofough this, knowing it was going to lead to tighter control of higher interest rates, higher unemployment. we pay the political price for that. the country and reagan afterwards, the benefit of the system. in terms of president -- host: go ahead. president obama, they had a similar, more academic fields the presidency, give and take. one of the things i want to .tress, taking it to today we've lost the sense of bipartisanship. where so polarized. president carter had weekly breakfast with the democratic leadership. regular leadership breakfast this with republican

leadership. the panama count -- tree was doing. the republican minority leader howard dickerson, her energy bill was due to support a republican senator. accomplishments we made, senator stevens is a republican. has sense of bipartisanship been lost. that's one of the great problems we have. it's the unwillingness to compromise. able tot carter was bring republicans and democrats together for some accomplishments. the book.aphs from president jimmy carter walking down pennsylvania avenue. carter at the age of nine. joining us from ripley, new york. yes.r: host: you are on the air.

caller: i'm a vietnam veteran. what i've seen over there, what we did to the people. i cannot believe the american people are so greedy for what we've done. dosomebody says they will what they say, and this is what our president is doing. it's very disturbing. the only work is to move a banana tree because we will rip it out. building orphanages for the blewe, the kids that we their legs and arms off. not including what we did with agent orange. people complain about agent orange. those people are dying because of this. >> thank you. >> and think it's very important. dies off of staff

serving in vietnam. his own son served in vietnam. interestingly, president carter began to reverse this negative view, not from the vietnam war. people took it out on soldiers who were fighting in the interest of their leaders. they were prorated. he set up a special commission set up theand vietnam memorial. it's hard to believe when it's the most visited memorial in washington. people said, you are trying to elevate the soldiers. we felt soldiers should not be blamed for the mistakes of their leaders. day, january 21, they have this inauguration.

the first act was the executive order giving amnesty to those -- not because he thought it was a good thing, he served in the military. he wanted to feel vietnam. that was another unpopular but one that did bring us together. it's emblematic of so much of what he did, taking up unpopular causes and doing the right thing, though not often advantageously. >> a tweet from matt smith that teachestilts -- still sunday school. attending a class is on my bucket list. good morning. >> good morning. .hank you lectures you put on in atlanta, i attend them regularly. to carter, goes standing in the jewish community. i know your book is about the white house.

, but obviously you know there are many in the jewish community who believe that he is predisposed towards the palestinian -- called an anti-semite, because in particular, one book he wrote and other things he has done. i'm wondering if you could comment on that from your perspective. as someone newhim and worked with him. >> i'm so pleased that you did that. president carter got 8 -- 70 percent of this straight yet only 40% of the jewish vote in 1980. despite the fact that he had the first boycott dutch to prevent companies for the boycott of israel. despite the fact he was the father of the u.s. holocaust memorial museum, despite the fact that he reached out for champions -- cause, and despite

the fact that he's negotiated over 15 arduous days and nights. happen.that life does he view this negatively? , andnk it was because wanted to achieve peace -- in order to achieve peace in the middle east, he had to push this. he pushed the prime minister hard. 70% of the jewish vote in the illinois primary in 1980. resolution, 465 , which contrary to his commitment to the prime minister at camp david, on six occasions mentioned jerusalem as occupied territory and in the resolution against any settlement. personally hit point

to get all the secretary of state to jerusalem out. outflow a mass of support. since he left office, in my opinion he's in many wonderful things. shocked.w that, i was i think that one single phrase toalways mentioned succeeding israeli prime minister's. it stuck to carter like glue. the thingsso many of he did for israel. increased spending for israel. all the other things i just

mentioned. soviet jewry.o all these things weren't scared. he had topositions take to achieve these. it's really unfortunate and incorrect to half that. if you ask most american jews today, it's the one thing -- all things accomplished during the administration. >> can i get a quick comment with regards to opening up tomorrow in jerusalem? what effect would that have on relations with allies outside of israel? move has not, that occasioned the kind of anger, demonstrations one would have thought. initially, i thought it was something that should await a full process. two-state -- opening

solution. it appears to me the palestinians are in no mood to negotiate. i think now it's a positive thing, but it's important not to let that move prevent us from pushing for the student -- everyate solution that president has supported up to this point. it is still critical to deal with jerusalem. embassy, weing the are putting it in west jerusalem. an eventual two-state solution -- whatyou think the president trump has done is positive. has not been except -- accepted with the anger 11 have expected. is stuartst

eisenstein. his book on president carter, the white house years and with regard to iran. shutting off iran's oil exports. what has led to the hostages please -- and -- release and not their murder? full force -- would be met with the full force of the united states. while some of the countries prestige with iran. ,he book is more than 900 pages focusing on policy issues president carter faces. good morning. >> doing a great job as usual. i wanted to ask quickly about pakistan. one of the certain outcomes that proved -- was housed -- how the carter administration got caught

in pakistani intelligence operations. both east pakistan as well as here, it's led to the dividing clifford. falling through the back channel. implications not just for clark, but at the same time, purposefully a motion with elements of saudi intelligence. push an agenda. if that became muddy, questions about bert lance, what was going on in the white house with respect to pakistan. to this day, we have not sorted out what we are going to do. and, how we will contender -- entangle ourselves.

fcc eye, what occurred after our administration. i went to come back to your quote. i'm candid and honest about this. president carter cannot be anyed for the shaw's demise more than the president eisenhower can be blamed for the castro resolution -- revolution 90 miles away. mistakes.e many our intelligence was atrocious, one of the worst since world war ii. that thet realize shaw's political support had evaporated. we didn't realize that and now i come on the shaw six presidents had given tens of millions of dollars for our sophisticated -- was being treated for five years for incurable cancer. we didn't realize the impact of

the khomeini, radical islamic .leric, exiled outside of paris coming back to iran to ferment the revolution. mentioned, iu believe i recommended, as did her national security adviser, that we should not have taken immediately -- immediate military correction. but blockadingn, harbors. crisis, preventing flow out of iran. it also hold himself up, didn't travel. more press attention. this is the sole focus of his latest year. for ted koppel. every program for cbs news

saying, 210. crisis --ain hostage and the rescue mission, which .as a disaster not because of president carter, but sufficient practice between the four military services. all of that combined to be the themate -- straw that broke camel's back. nothing to pakistan. host: joanna is joining us from damascus, maryland. democrats line. new york. caller: i'm so happy you wrote this book. i'm going to read it this summer. i'm in a book club. it's changed to the book club regiment. ends in june. president carter is my favorite president in modern history. on and 1947. year. be 71 this i loved his passion and commitment to this country. i wrote him a letter a few years ago. i thought, if i don't read it

now it will never get written. he wrote me a note back. .hanks me for the letter he's a wonderful man. the fact that he had cancer, i that was onry when tv. i find him so beloved. i want to disagree on one point. i want to second what you said touched theing original roosevelt, original environmentalist. .e was made fun of at the time he took solar panels out of the white house. i find that outrageous. i want to disagree on one point, and that is your comments on his use of the word apartheid. i read that book. here's my feeling. what he was recognizing, he was a man that believed in fair

play, democracy, a full rights. squeezing theere palestinians further and further. putting jewish settlements there. he saw that. he called it for what it is, what it was, the fact that palestinians did not have the same rights as israelis. >> thank you for the call. a response. >> two things. first for palestinians, i agree with you that palestinians need more rights. so did president carter. he said he saw palestinians as being the equivalent of the african americans discriminated against when he was growing up in the south, but the problem is this. by using a lowe's and -- loaded term like apartheid, they are as we had the treaty, the

palestinians should have full crossed theen he line by using the provocative fords. feels that the two-state solution is important. .- provocative words he feels the two-state solution is important. it was a term that is difficult. let me focus on your initial comments. steve, this is one of his points. he was not just ethical in office. he have laws more important than ever today. the ethics act of '78, assets going into office. more important than ever today.

and, respecting the presidency and the institution. denigrate his attorney general or cabinet officers, or the courts, or the press. he respected the institution, and he respected the executive branch, and the free press. even when it was critical of them. i will let people draw conclusions with what's happening now. president carter in person that -- i wrote it with president carter in perspective. this is a critical part of his domestic legacy, along with the environment and energy, creating the modern vice presidency, taxing, inflation. respecting the presidency and its institutions is something , more todaymportant

than ever. have about a minute left. we talk about the 1980 campaign. you the following. it's difficult to conjure up a more catastrophic final year than 1980 four presidents office. november 4, 1979, hostages in iran. on novemberr reagan 4, 1980. profound level, carter was a moderately conservative democrat, partly to -- dominated. today in seeing that the democratic party. >> yes we are. 1980 was catastrophic. we had the challenge from the left. carter was a moderate democrat, but not liberal enough for ted kennedy.

we have afghan invasion by the soviet union, the hostage crisis. we had his brother. we have the rise of inflation, because of the iran crisis. the hostage crisis with the rescue effort. we had even as we completed, arms control treaty, like afghanistan. --many ways, a point of tough. when you have all of them, it was difficult. the ted kennedy challenge, inflation and iran would take this from 1980. host: the book president carter, white house years. joining us from new york. thank you for being with us. --t: we continue our series and welcome our viewers

on american history tv. joining us, elizabeth cobbs and mark kramer, the program program on harvard's american studies. that begins in a moment. but first, this is from a nasa film from 1968 about the launch of apollo eight. [video clip] mosttor: one of the significant days of the year. 14, 13, 12, a, 10, 9 -- 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.

have commenced -- we have liftoff. 7:01 a.m. eastern standard time. >> tower cleared at 13 seconds. narrator: 11 astronauts taking man.ost distant voyage by for the first time, three americans wrote the saturn moon rocket. >> over. static] radio >> apollo 8? loud and clear, apollo 8.

the first stage was clear, and this one is smoother. you have your trajectory and guidance to go, over. you're looking real good. narrator: they were about to leave the cradle of earth to face the infinite frontier. 8, houston. >> go ahead, apollo 8. [indiscernible] --rrator: tli this was the commitment. they were ready for the movement that would send them home. as the world listened and

watched, its people were overtaken by a new awareness, and awareness they perhaps witnessed in the overture to the ultimate destiny of man. >> ignition. >> lowell confirms ignition. and the thrust is ok. board theon spacecraft and at mission wasrol, the men of apollo 8 the readouts. velocity in feet per second, the numbers snowballing, the velocity that would allow the spacecraft to escape earth's gravity. film from nasa december 1968 as we conclude our .ine-part series here on c-span joining us in our studios in washington, mark kramer, project rector for the cold war program at harvard university's and elizabeth cobbs, professor at texas a&m university, also a

senior fellow at the hoover institution. let's talk about this intersection in the 1916. the escalation of the vietnam war, the political turmoil with lyndon johnson announcing he would not seek another term, in large part because of vietnam, and the heightened tensions with the cold war, and the soviet expansion into check was a voc you. caller: -- into check was a voc slovakia -- caller: bad year. the russians looking at opening thecond firm -- front with tet offensive. and at one point in 1968, it beks like everything might better.

host: explain that milestone. way, was so, in a significant because czechoslovakia helps create the cold war. when they began a program of lifting censorship am a creating a more open government, the soviets come in and shut that down and what happens after -- theeonid brezhnev president of 1968, all the wonderful flowering of possibilities for greater has been cut off, and brezhnev says we will intervene any time a socialist, communist government is threatened. host: what was the domino theory? caller: that was the -- that was the idea after

world war i that if one country fell to communism, the others would as well. the concern was if south vietnam was overtaken by the communists in the north, that laos and cambodia would soon follow. notionctrine was -- that was inspired in part by what had happen in eastern europe right after world war ii where governments, especially in central and eastern europe had direct soviet occupation. the concern in east asia was it might come out through who might guerillas take over. who was arming the north vietnamese? guest: they were heavily armed

by china. the soviet union and china were competing for greater influence and not vietnam, worried about the north vietnamese because they could play off -- play them off against each other. host: it's late what was happening and how that is relevant to what we are seeing today. korea, they had again, they could play both sides against the middle. they had patrons in china, but at the same time, they were always doing their own thing. they seized an american ship. host: what happened to their? guest: what happened was the pueblo was on a spy mission in what we would consider international waters. in january of 1968 was the north americans seized

in this navy ship. it was lightly armed. it was unprepared. and they were unable to fight off the fighters that went after the ship. the interesting thing about that is neither the chinese nor the soviets were aware this was going to happen. so this was really something instigated by the north koreans and they saw it as possibly an opportunity to start another war 2 -- as that would say -- as they would say, to liberate the south. politically, you mentioned leonid brezhnev, the leader of the soviet union. we have pictures of him much older in the 1970's and 1980's when he was dealing with jimmy carter and ronald reagan. where was he politically in the soviet union in 1968? been a rising star for a long time within the the process and in of consolidating his own power.

when he ordered the invasion of czechoslovakia, he was consolidating his him power. host: take us back to what you think president johnson was thinking when he sent more troops back to vietnam and looking at the broader sure of where the soviet union was and where the cold war was headed. the major buildup of u.s. forces occurred before 1968, starting in 1965. at the height, u.s. forces reached 500.5 thousand, which is missed down the number in a fairly small country. the tet offensive, which was a victory for u.s. military forces, but a political disaster because it may clear the vietnamese communist had far greater strength and staying power than the u.s. government

had been letting on, particularly secretary of defense mcnamara. it was a turning point in the war. until that time there had been majority supports -- diminishing, but still majority support in the united states for the war. public support was never an a majority again and increasingly turned against the war. johnson was consumed by that and was not sure -- and it led to his disaster -- to his decision in march not to seek reelection and thus de-escalated war. in films that highlighted what he was doing, this is from 1968 as president johnson travel to hawaii meeting with the south korean president. [video clip] on july 18, president

johnson arrived in honolulu for a series of meetings with south korea's president. president johnson: at all of our meetings over the past two and a half years, you have stressed policy ofry's reconciliation and peace. since we met in candor last december, formal talks have begun in paris. we devoutly hope they are the first step on the difficult path peace,e -- an honorable under which the people of your country will determine their own future. , our pledge to

help your people defeat aggression stands firm. against all obstacles and dissection section. we want you to take back to your country our hope and our conviction that their courage and their faith will be rewarded with a just peace with full freedom. president johnson with these south korean president 1960. mark, let's set the stage for the country was out. we had the assassination of president kennedy. the republicans were nominating richard nixon, and lyndon johnson trying to bring a peaceful end to the war in vietnam. where was he politically? where was his military?

where was his defense department in all of this? shakenjohnson was deeply not only by the assassination in june of robert kennedy, but two earlier, the assassination of martin luther king. mide was violence in the 60's that escalated in 1967 and 1968, including here in washington, d.c. johnson wanted to focus on , but he wasorities consumed early on by the war in vietnam, and that is why his final year in office he wanted to focus on whatever priorities he could do what time to bring a peaceful and to the war. was hubert humphrey initially not the favored was pute, but certainly

forward by johnson as someone who could continue his program, could stand a reasonable chance at against richard nixon. like kennedy.t that is no secret. but he was deeply saddened by kennedy's assassination. whileat the same time, all of this was happening, the apollo program continued to grow. apollo eight, we saw that video moments ago, launched in december of 1968. guest: the curious thing about the cold war was it always brought out the worst and the best in america. part of that was a peaceful competition with the soviet union about space. the soviet union announced it was going to put a satellite up.

the soviets immediately got going. they launch the first satellite, sputnik. and when sputnik would gore the world it would go beep, beep, beep until it got over washington and then it would go ha, ha, ha. to theiets had beaten us first satellite. they had beaten us to the first man in space. they were beating us again in 1968. turtles and some mealworms and the first orbit, so the united states decided it would have to change the mission of apollo eight, and they orbiting thecus on moon, and so that is what apollo eight's mission was. host: we're looking at really from 1968.pictures we look at that, america in turmoil. there are three key players. guest: right.

i'm sure it must have been thrilling to them because they were supposed to run a much more pedestrian orbit of the united states, and instead, here they , the first human beings to be in that part of space, orbiting the moon. it was this remarkable thing that on christmas eve, they beamed back to the world a thatge to everybody, it's kind of thing where the cold war, it is this combination of who do you want to be and who are you forced to be by terrible circumstance? and the message on christmas eve -- goodwill to everyone. dividing up our phones little differently. for those of you who are 50 and 2022-748-5002.

guest: i remember the kennedy certainlyion and martin luther king's assassination because my parents were upset. as a scholar, i have written extensively about 1968, particularly the invasion of czechoslovakia, the press spring that preceded it, and it is that combination of things we have been discussing, the combination of the vietnam war, the unrest in the united states, the change in the communist world brought to a crushing end, the pueblo incident with the north koreans. the despair that was there at the end of the year despite apollo eight.

there was still a real sense of --rican society host: why was 1968 such a consequential year in american history? guest: i think it was a year of moral crisis. everything that had been building since 1940 five cents -- since world war ii -- since 1945 since world war ii was over. the u.s. was taking responsibly for every major crisis around civil rights, discrimination in america always delighted our enemies and despaired our friends. so, we were working on all of these things, and i think 1968 was the combination of that. plus, that was true all over the world. we forget there were major riots

in mexico city, major riots in paris. the cultural revolution in china. it was a turning point in world history. host: why was peace so elusive for president johnson that your? guest: it was mostly the tet offensive and the political effect in the united states. led to overtt campaigns against the war by leading democratic candidates, eugene mccarthy, particularly kennedy -- robert kennedy who tried to pick up that mansell. mantle.p that even though johnson and kennedy it had an on raise -- uneasy relationship they had worked together quite productively on civil rights issues. the search for peace though -- the north

vietnamese were not interested. they wanted to win on the battlefield. the soviet union was a different matter. the soviet union began to raise the question of these overtures to the north vietnamese. out thesehould put talks taking place in paris. more from 1968 and the johnson white house. [video clip] on march 31, president johnson had avoided a halt to all bombing programs expect over the dmz, an area where massive numbers continue to fall. as a result of this decision, the much awaited truce talks

with hanoi began. december, president johnson's chief negotiator at there stillported had been no substantive discussions. the north vietnamese negotiators clung to their long-held demand that all bombing must stop before they would discuss anything else. the president, in close counsel with his top military and foreign affairs advisors for assuranceed of de-escalation should the stop -- be stopped. no such assurance was forthcoming. host: back to your point --mark kramer, but, elizabeth cobbs, you had richard nixon who had his own plan to get out of

vietnam, and -- but did he? know the evidence is there, archival evidence, that nixon's maiden effort to halt the two really foiled johnson's peace efforts in 1968. in many ways, people think this is worse than anything we did in watergate. he wanted to put the monkeywrench in the efforts and late october because of the concern that maybe johnson was getting close, that they could trade this bombing halt for a movement by the north vietnamese. we will never know. mark is completely right. johnson's program was able to proceed without the south beaten me is being told, don't compromise because you're going to get a better deal under nixon, something else might have happened. it is a terrible tragedy, for vietnam's -- the north

vietnamese and vietnam. 1968, -- "1968: america in turmoil." joining us here as we wrap up our nine-part series, mark kramer from harvard university from thebeth cobbs hoover institution, and texas a&m university. stewart is joining us from mechanicsville, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. happy mother's day. i was born in -- i went to high school in a 68 at the age of 17. i asked my father if he would sign me out for the corps. he told me in bold the labels to remove my head from another part of my anatomy.

i turned 18 in july. i signed up. ,t any rate, the army took me but talking bout the cold war. i will tell you what the cold war was. the guys that did serve, they came back, if you had short hair, you were shunned. i had one friend come to the airport in california, and , howody asked him, said many babies did you kill? he said i did not kill one soul, but if you do not get off my face, you will be the first. host: from your standpoint, why was that sentiment so prevalent in the late 1960's, early 1970's? caller: i don't know. i really don't. if you had a short haircut, good luck on trend to get a date. it was very difficult back in those years. it really was. host: go ahead. i'm sorry. caller: i don't know why it was.

percentage served in the armed forces. most people in college or something -- but you know, it was -- i have one friend, one was with the tip of the cavalry. was he was only in the theater 44 45 days. he was in 27 firefights. he was only 19 years old. think about it. rough times, and thank you for the mother's day wishes. . think there was that moment there was a moral crisis and some people looked in the mirror and said, i don't like what i see when i see a america today.

.t became this test did you wear your hair long and did you have a beard? at one point early in history, the peace corps, the peace corps thenteer had a beard and peace corps made him shave it because it looked too much like fidel castro. there is this weird thing that happens where we become very attuned in a way to the fashions that seem to speak volumes and say things about who we are identifying with. so, there were terrible times, and for the young men who served , some of them in toward incredible circumstances. terrible, terrible events. two george, next -- to george next, in gainesville, florida. caller: good morning. a happyish everyone mother's day. i want to ask dr. kramer. i grew up in florida.

soldiers in the vietnam war. my question, as i have come back and read a lot about the vietnam -- i took a trip back to vietnam in 1998. we flew into hanoi, and i was to reader there mainly books and the area where i served. but what struck me, the eagerness of the the emmys people wanting to engage me in conversation, the young people wanting to get my email address -- it just is amazing the reception i got. and no one talked about the vietnam war. just recently a few months ago we had the u.s. navy carrier

denying for the first time in 50 years. here is my question for dr. kramer. i believe in a sense, we as veterans, we were young, we just happen to be the age of being rotc.d or serving an i believe we did accomplish something in the sense that that --t domino, maybe it fell laos, cambodia, thailand, malaysia, those countries did not. question, do you see maybe we changeved did have some in the sense of ending the cold war? that is my question, dr. kramer. host: thank you, george. --st: thank you to yours thank you for your service to the country, which i appreciate. the outcome of the war cannot just be judged by what happened

in april in 1975 with the fall of saigon. what if the south had followed much sooner? and the west vietnamese have been overwhelmed, at a time when ies couldng countr have fallen as well. the war achieved a good deal, there was no question that the south, which had a corrupt political system, was much more pluralistic, did advance and that was largely because of u.s. positions and the influence of u.s. troops. i think overall, for whatever reason you can point to, domestic backlash or other things, you do have to look at vietnam ultimately is a failure for the united states, even if potentially it could have worked out more successfully.

there's no question, i agree with you that there were important things achieved. things, it made a deterrent for other guerrilla forces for contemplating what the north vietnamese had in vietnam. things, it made a ultimately, a failure, but with certain successes along the way. the key element was the buildup of the nuclear stockpile. you can see that we had more , the sovietwarheads union had just over 9000, great britain had 317, france, 36 and china 35. 1970's, you can see the decline in nuclear stockpile but still significant for the u.s. and russia.

can you explain? guest: the nuclear arms race have been going on since 1949, when the soviets dropped their first bomb. was adity of it is this part of the logic known as the neutrally assured destruction, if you can get enough bombs and everyone is afraid for the trigger and it created a kind of stability within the world. but it was mad, mutually assured fromuction was mad and so the beginning, they have been talks about how to create a situation where you can begin to drop back down and one of the big accomplishments of that period was the signing of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, then effort to bring back kind of escalation that had been going on for such a long time, and by the way, it wasn't always the big countries who were

leading in that, ireland but for the first proposal for the u.n. general assembly back in 1961. everybody was really affected by that. something that we began to get a little bit of a hold on after 1968. host: you wrote a piece called the five myths of the cold war. who was our enemy during this period? guest: there was the soviet bloc, but there were numerous enemies. the united states and the soviet union ultimately, was the chief enemy, but there were smaller ones like north vietnam in what became communist control vietnam , united vietnam, north korea, and certainly the people's republic of china. 1960's, the prc, the chinese had replaced the soviet seen for a while as being

as the most hostile to the united states. ultimately, until the late 1980's, the soviet union was the overriding enemy from the united lates from 1945 with the 1940's until the in of the cold war and gorbachev. host: the next caller is from michigan, ron, go ahead. they can for waiting period -- .hank you for waiting perio caller: i turned down my deferment and i volunteered to go to vietnam. to thented to send me preparatory school, but i had to go to vietnam, i had to work against the war. workers, i rights had to have a gun and bomb the funds go to work against this government. while it was in transit to my station, i read bernard falls

autobiography, ho chi minh i learned my father who spent three years in the pacific, alcohol helped my father -- that war. were by identity to the vietnamese -- i had a debt to pay for the vietnamese to help my father's day life. the biggest piece march was held at the beach at july. there was a frightening incident and my base and i reported it, and a year later, there was a fracking a week. the reporting of it of us running of the word through g.i. antiwar papers, that's what stopped the war. is that i had to get this army out of vietnam before destroyers itself. we were going to take over the military, that was my goal area i had no affiliations, just a working-class kid from chicago and i saw that i can 68 convention on it not want to

fight with the cops, i wanted to go to vietnam to work against the war. we succeeded, we stopped the war, we stopped the draft. the gis and the people in the streets, god bless them. kent state happened while i was in vietnam i was outraged. was coming, i don't know what i would've done if nixon came into my sites. you had to be there. every g.i. ipass to paper out to come nobody refused it. i have to jump in, we can sense your motion in her voice and it's been 50 years. caller: it has not stopped. i have two sons and they did not going to the military, i have a 20-year-old son now who was on a path to brilliance, and started bragging, but i've instilled in him the same notion and he loves his country, i love my country. we do not want to see our country destroyed back then or now. host: mark kramer.

difference,'s a big i think the military is an honorable profession and your sons should certainly be proud of the do serve in the military. that said, there's a big difference between nowadays and the time you were there in 1968 and other was military instruction -- conscription the united states, which had the grain of the u.s. philosophy during most of the existence of the united states. the shift to military conscription after the second world war, and particularly after the korean war was a big change and it was always uneasiness about it in american society. in 1968, when young men were being conscripted into the united states, it helped to spur the domestic opposition and there was one of the major factors in the growing unrest on u.s. campuses and the sense that

american society was coming apart with civil unrest and violence in the streets, large-scale protests on u.s. campuses. the movement amongst some veterans as well as serving soldiers in vietnam against the war. together andame that's why the united states over the last more than 45 years now has had an all volunteer force and that makes it very different today. the: the culmination of cold war and the vietnam war and the political turmoil here in the u.s. and the raced first-base -- race first-base -- four space -- for space. a twitter poll, did the u.s. win the space race? follow us at c-span history on twitter. did we win? guest: i think we won.

kennedy said we are going into space now because it's easy, because it's hard. he said this is a challenge that we intend to win. , the u.s. did win. but that's the point of the cold war, it's not like it was just a challenge of who gets to be king of the hill, it was what is the world going to be like? it will be an association of peaceful states are not? on the, we got a man moon and the soviets didn't, but ultimately, we shared a space station with them. the larger goal that i think both countries always had of a more secure world where people don't have to send their children out to be slaughtered to protect the sovereignty of the nation was something that both countries were striving for and i think that ultimately, we got together on it. host: this mission from apollo

eight really set the groundwork for neil armstrong july 1969 to be the first man to walk on the moon. think of the difference -- guest: think of the difference. just a year before, apollo one had exploded, the deaths of those three astronauts. in that time, think of the bravery of the men who did that in one of those capsules, knowing i can happen to them and in short order the next year we had somebody in lunar orbit and the next year we had three men on the moon. did the united states within the space race? that's our twitter question. back to your phone calls, bob in canton, georgia. good morning. caller: having been born in the late 1950's, i just rumor growing up in my childhood seemed to be dramatic. magazine was a news and radio, he consumed

information on information is flowing into our household and all of the turmoil of the time is just seared into my mind, beginning with i was for five years old when president kennedy was killed and then towards the latter part of the decade, the trauma which i don't read into all of it, all the matters the country was dealing with. uniform i served in under reagan during the cold war and it's hard to explain to veterans and young guys in uniform now how the country was locked in this battle for control of the globe and i know your guests don't want to get into current politics, but that's why it just boggles my mind how the current commander-in-chief enjoys the support of the military, many of which are old enough to remember the cold war. and his countenancing this gentleman who was part of the kgb during that time, during my

time in office, there would have been talk amongst us of the firing squad. thank you. first of all, bob, thank you for your service in the 1980's. the major thing i would say is that times of change and there are things that are feasible now that would have been inconceivable during this time the cold war was underway. progress,as seeming especially in a communist bloc, and came to a crushing and with the invasion of czechoslovakia. the war in vietnam have taken a very unfortunate turn, the north koreans had seized the u.s. is pueblo and the cold war was very vividly underway at that point. nowadays, there are still major problems with numerous countries, iran, north korea,

russia, china, but there's a different order compared to what was there in 1968 and during other years of the cold war. host: the caller brought up what it was like on the homefront as we have the escalation of the cold war and rising concerns of vietnam, this is from the defense department from that era taking a look at how children especially should prepare for the possibility of a nuclear attack. [video clip] ♪ at the request of the office of civil and defense globalization, the united states army chemical corps as developed a mask especially for civilians use. this mask protects the wearer against biological and chemical attacks by purifying the air inhaled. filter pads in the mask of zorro toxicgases -- absorb

gases and screen out radioactive particles carried in the air, particles which are called microbial organisms. the mask is comfortable, features good visibility and ease of breathing and permits conversation with others. that from the defense department and advising students to hide under their desks. guest: right. there was this apocalyptic sense and our color -- caller was right on the money. it's hard to convey today. i remember growing up thinking world war i, world war ii, of course there's going to be three, i can count. there was many people have the feeling that that would happen. what is so different today though and i think we so easily lose sight of is that war between nations has declined every decade since the 1940's. and so the attempt to create a more harmonious world environment, believe it or not,

has actually worked in the caller was saying his dad was a news man in the soviet was in a sense living the 24 hour news michael at that time that we all live today. sometimes it gives is this impression that things are much more apocalyptic than they actually are. currentiminish present-day dangers, but that's why history is so important to understand what's happened. we actually cooperate with the soviets in space. those elements of progress need to be appreciated and recognized. is a elizabeth cobbs professor of history at texas a&m university and the author of how many books? guest: seven. host: mark kramer joining us from harvard. david is next from los angeles. caller: good morning and again, happy mother's day to all the ladies listening in. tie mine in with the

assassinations as well as the cold war and the military-industrial complex. as far as the cold war is concerned, in its beginnings after you mentioned the marshall states,re in the united we were at our peak of apartheid withhe only difference south africa and the united states was our mandela was assassinated. said thatsomeone who amnesia andtates of the way in which we do history, period washat hmerica's is enough -- zenitc into its apartheid. guest: the united states has been a deeply racist society,

not only with a lengthy history with slavery but with 100 years with racial segregation and institutionalized racism in the united states. johnson, who in 1968 decided not to run for reelection, he deserves immense credit for his instrumental role in getting past the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965, which i would largely agree with you, until that time, you could argue that the united states had a kind of apartheid system. but came to an end at least legally at that point. there continued to be problems with racism and continued to be thatis day, but i think you shouldn't underestimate the crucial role that lyndon johnson played. there might have been no other president who could have done that, because the other

credibility as a southerner and he had the usually positive relationship with various key figures in the u.s. guest: the key difference, and in many ways i absolutely agree, and the height of segregation throughout the 20th century was terrible. the critical difference between the u.s. and a country like south africa is that the united originalve a law, and way of looking at itself, which is that all men are created equal and even though was thomas jefferson who wrote those words, an unrepentant slaveholder, that those words established a direction it was very hard ultimately for the country to resist. and that's what i think a lot of people not only at the beginning 13th, 14th,ry, but and 15th amendment to the u.s. constitution and in the laws that lyndon johnson was in a groundswell that had been created by people like martin luther king, was able to bring

to freshen. yes, the of saying ways that people acted were just as vicious and violent and cruel , but that law is what was like our guiding star, and think of this people like johnson and king helped us together. host: different country, different time period, different players. with the soviet union and the chinese government really cropping up and supporting north vietnam, are the lessons to what we are seeing in north korea today with russia and china? guest: i think absolutely. there's always this thing where the united states plays the bad cop in countries like china get to play the good cop. it seems to be very important for us to be putting more of the onus on those other countries, because they are the ones who have a border with them. the chinese are quite fearful that if things go belly up in

north korea, they are going to get all those north koreans to take care of. whatever can be done to push those countries to call their bluff, because otherwise the united states is left carrying the burden. , the thinguld agree that is very different now and works in the u.s. favor is that , and the russia, china united states have a lot of overlapping agreement about north korea. that wasn't the case with north vietnam. the interest of the soviet union and china, particularly china, were starkly at odds with those in the united states. in this case, it's in some ways an easier issue to try to deal with, there is greater room for negotiation it would be helped by the russians and the chinese. host: if you're registered, design part series, american turmoil, looking back in 1968 is

available as a podcast and you can check it out at c-span.org or wherever you get your podcast. vicky is joining us from twin falls, idaho. period of time, i lived it. i was born in 1951 and a little while ago, the lady said that war has been on the decline. soldiers, american soldiers have been dying for my whole life in some place in the world, somewhere. all the time. and the building of this international socialist system -- i feel like i was deceived my whole life. while we are told we have a capitalist country here, we don't. we have a central planned economy. and this international socialist

system they are building, globalization, they call it, iny plan on ruling the world what you could call tech fascism. host: response? i'm an ardent supporter of globalization, so it might not be to your liking. states in the aftermath of the second world -- set about fostering international economic system that promoted open trade, open, free trade and it was immensely beneficial for the world. it led to huge increases in global income, and has certainly been beneficial for the united states. overs why i regret that the last year or so, there have been attacks on that system. still, the system of globalization should be described as international socialism, quite the opposite.

it was the spread of capitalist institutions to much of the world -- china, and integrating itself later on into the international economic system discarded some of the elements of its socialist economy. it still is a communist dictatorship, but it has increasingly taken on elements of capitalism. it's the opposite, i think of what you are describing. host: elizabeth cobbs. guest: i would respectfully disagree. although i absolutely empathize with his worry and concern that decades upon decades, your whole life, american soldiers have been dying in various places in the interesting thing about that is that number has declined. the 24-hour news cycle future mining is all terrible things that are happening tends to overlook the longer-term trend, that trend has been made fortive by globalization,

the reason that before world war ii, the idea was the other way a country to get ahead, countries like the soviet union or nazi germany thought they had to take over other countries and absorb their resources to become more wealthy. instead what happened is we developed a world system where you can get ahead in trading feasibly with your neighbors and that system that the vietnamese, the south koreans and also the chinese communists have come to embrace because they see in action works better, not that we won, in fact, we lost in vietnam and the chinese came to this on their own, largely because the united states always held to the idea that if we could provide a better model for the world, if thatuld be our best selves others peaceably would want to emulate out over time. and for the most part, they have. host: brian in pottstown, pennsylvania, you're next. quibble about to

something, but apollo one didn't explode, it had oxygen fire. it might have been better for the three astronauts it had -- it's hardause to believe that nasa would think they could keep 15 pounds per square inch of pure oxygen in that cap still and not have a problem if there was even a spark, and that's what killed those three astronauts. guest: you are absolutely right about that, excusing a quick word to describe it, but it was a terrible thing. the use of pure oxygen and also they have flammable material's inside the castle and the door couldn't open. they all these mistakes that were later corrected. guest: this illustrates the impact of the cold war, the cold

war was driving the space race and it led to the cutting of corners and some safety concerns. ultimately, the number of apollo small, so itvery worked out ok, but looking back you may be somewhat disconcerting to see how the cold war fed off of the space race and led to the carrying out of certain missions, probably before they should have been. i'm very happy with the way it worked out overall, despite the loss of the three apollo astronauts, but it is illustrative of the way the cold war caught both the united states and the soviet union to do certain things that were not done otherwise. host: stephanie is next in long beach, california. good morning. caller: good morning, happy mother's day.

i was born in 1950i graduating high school in 1968. i skipped my prom so it could go to washington and demonstrate against the war. it was such a year. it was like everything happened so fast. you couldn't even recover from one events before the next event happened. it was like you were constantly thinking what happens next? and that nuclear threat that we were raised with since kindergarten, it under your desk or run home so you can see her parents one last time. they said don't trust anyone over 30, we didn't think we were going to get to 30. it all happened so quickly and then it all kind of just disappeared so quickly. the 1970's when the war was finally over, it was

just a different time and place again. one of the reasons why people were so against the war was you could get drafted and 18 years , so but you couldn't vote was like these forces were so beyond your control. that you would just be buffeted by these things and later i learned that communism while he was a dirty word in the united states really was an economic system more than it was a political system. and we were taught to be so frightened of it. it was just a very hard time i think for everyone. and i think it's a very hard time for everyone now. host: stephanie, thank you. elizabeth cobbs. best: communism was meant to an economic system, but it also was a political system, because it was associated with totalitarianism beginning of the soviet union and every country which came under communist rule, and so that was always the kind

of confusing thing about it and i completely relate to what you're saying, because in many ways we thought why should we care about someone else's economic system? but there was such brutality, prague springhe was crushed, the weight of the soviet union rollover its neighbors after world war ii, so i think one thing we forget is that sometimes things seem to happen all at once and i think that for a lot of policymakers at that time, they had lived through six weeks or eight weeks in which nazi germany conquered all of western europe. so the idea of a domino seems silly to us now like why would anybody care, but some of those threats were real and the solutions were not as clear and i think we did make some important mistakes in trying to solve the problem. but there was a real issue that people were concerned about. apollo one, the three

astronauts who lost their lives, this is from time magazine in 1967. died, laterauts who leading to the apollo eight's mission in the neil armstrong who successfully landed on the moon in july 1969. david joining us next from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. war, mr.g this cold gorbachev sat across the table unitedorge h.w. bush and the germanies, gave the warsaw pact base in their independence, the soviet union was split up and all bush had to do to promise was to stay out of this business. americans, the miss kravitz's of the world, violated that immediately with bill

clinton and kosovo. around -- ourmind own damn business. host: does he have a point? guest: in the aftermath of the cold war, from the late 1980's or there has been a steady pretty much steady decline in the number of people killed in conflicts and the number of international conflicts going on but still the decline remarkably. tragic member who lost their lives in iraq and , it still was a tiny fraction of those who lost their lives in vietnam. it is true that the united states has had a propensity for

the last 70 years of being a kind of global policeman and there is significant support for that role, even though there is also a very significant counter sentiments. it's hard for u.s. presidents ultimately when called on by other countries or when pushed by domestic forces to refrain from somehow taking a leading role in the world. guest: madeleine albright said you are dammed if you do and you are dammed if you don't. there's a nice vacation that others have and we will step in whether it's world policeman or umpire, united states is trying to umpire always conflict all the time and i think what we are lacking still is a kind of leadership that will look beyond to the next 70 years. mark is completely right, we have been doing this officially since 1947, but it's always this

odd thing where it's expected, but not legitimate. it's not legitimated by international law, it's not legitimate by american law, and yet people expect it and demand it. so it's a kind of conundrum we faced for a while, how do we get others to take more badonsibility without being partners ourselves, because we have created this wonderful or helps to great a wonderful structure of world security and we need to appreciate that and sustain that. of sustaining that is by developing good partners and making sure we are not carrying this burden that has us ricocheting from one issue to the next. another film in just a moment from the old library as the johnson white house chronicles is 5.5 years in the white house. we are going to see president dwight eisenhower left in january, 1961. did he have influence in american policy in the 1960's as a former president? guest: eisenhower?

yes and no. eisenhower was so remembered and some of our viewers have indicated this that the military-industrial complex, when he left office, one of the things he did was to warn against the creation of the military-industrial complex. i think those words echoed throughout this time. statementn as a wise -- statesman in that respect. kennedyresident consulted with eisenhower during the cuban missile crisis, but on the other hand, kennedy had run against the then vice president under eisenhower, richard nixon and was harshly critical of the eisenhower administration, including unfounded allegations of a missile gap. there was not i would say very warm relationship between kennedy and eisenhower, and that continued under johnson. it was always going to be consultations on important issues came up, including about

vietnam, but eisenhower remained a more revered figure in american society and not so much of an influential political figure. they made reference to czechoslovakia and you just returned from the czech republic. guest: i was there about year and a half ago when i found myself i kept wanting to say czechoslovakia, which it no longer is and is part of what's happened in this time, with a number of countries has multiplied. i was in the czech republic recently. host: how were soviet troops received in czechoslovakia? guest: with shock and dismay. the idea that you don't have control over your own country was a terrible thing. it had been seen in hungary in 1956. again, people kind of hunkered down and survived, and i was the case in eastern europe of them through 1989. guest: in 1956, hungarian

revolutionaries used violence against soviet forces who came in, there were 750 soviet troops killed, about 2500 hungarians killed in a 1968, there was no violent resistance. checks -- czechs and slow backs shocked, forre they knew they tried to resist violently, it would be mercilessly crushed. they were about 100 people killed in the invasion, but there wasn't anything like the carnage in 1956. host: from the white house in 1968, the johnson white house and the settlement includes former president dwight eisenhower. [video clip] reed, former

president eisenhower suffered a heart attack and when all the critical list, but the general had never taken kindly to defeat and when president anderson mrs. johnsond visited him, they found he had rallied and was in good spirits. as allied commander in world war ii, one of the countries general eisenhower helped liberate was czechoslovakia. pushing out a tyranny from its boundaries. tyranny from its boundaries. but the central european republic was again ravaged by the forces of aggression. on august 20, armies of the soviet union, poland, hungary, bulgaria, east germany invaded czechoslovakia. seizing control of the country in a few hours. soviet embassy lights burned

late that hot and muggy evening in washington, in as russian tanks reveled in the proud -- -- prague. -- croc the memorandum which said that soviet bloc forces had acted at zech leadersof c sounded hollow indeed. of 1968om the summer and the courtesy of the johnson library and the johnson white house, back to your phone calls as we look back 50 years, 1968, american turmoil. deborah in richmond, virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning, happy mother's day. it's always a bit unusual for me to think about how all the devastation that we have done and making itorld into something heroic. i never could understand that.

america -- american bombs the rest of the world. , weoesn't make any sense try to european eyes everything in its host: wrong. elizabeth cobbs. guest: i completely understand what you're saying and i know that that is the common belief and there's a lot of evidence for it. but what we tend to not remember or not even really know is the extent to which other countries have asked us for our protection. you look at what's happened and you say why didn't they all just caicos out, we got bases all around the world, we have those bases because those countries want us there. most of the places where american soldiers serve abroad, south korea, japan, britain, if the, etc. i'm italy,

united states was an empire, they could ask us to leave. and america isn't an empire, because we would leave. in 1956 andd us out the united states same was true the philippines. we are we live here, very aware of our own motivations, but if you travel abroad and you work some abroad, what you realizes a lot of those folks want us there. they are critical of us and only likes to be dependent on somebody else. it's both critical and at the same time, desired. playerark kramer, a key is dean rusk. guest: he started out of secretary of state, under president kennedy was the -- one of the few homeowners -- holdovers who stayed to the johnson a administration. mcnamara and others who served under kennedy, very few of them

stayed until the end and that included mcnamara, who left. dean rask with someone who was a very capable figure, a southerner, like johnson. and he had a very close relationship with johnson and rusk who became the national security advisor in 1968. meant that rusk on the one hand it certainly committed to the vietnam war, wanted to help johnson in that effort. but also was increasingly conscious that things weren't working out very well there. that didn't diminish his support for the war, but it did mean that he himself again to look for other issues and he accomplished quite a bit and policies with western europe because elizabeth mentioned charles de gaulle and the

president of france pose a direct challenge to the president of united states and that required a great deal of finesse and diplomacy to try to mend those breaches and to try and keep nato from falling apart. dean rusk was one of the major figures in trying to work that out. even though vietnam did work out well for him, he did have some other significant compliments. host: in north vietnam, ho chi minh, what motivated him? guest: vietnam as his long history, 2000 years of warring about its independence. it's been conquered by china for 1000 years, and when china came back and try to copy -- conquered them again. the amount is a country, not a war. and they were really passionate about reuniting that'll country. and of course, he felt that the way to do that was through a communist system.

the longer-term trend has been there throughout the emmys history. ,efinitely a communist definitely a feeling that he was on the vanguard of will revolution and that's when i can 68 was about, this feeling that world revolution was spreading everywhere. from the plo to the other factions in other countries, and so ho chi minh sent on that. host: elizabeth cobbs from texas a&m and mark kramer from harvard. they are you are next from new hampshire. caller: happy mother's day and thank you for c-span. an earlier caller mentioned it that the military people are in power presently would remember how bad the amount was in some of our experiences and want to avoid war, but i i served from 1960 to 1963 and took my discharge over there and i became quite

friendly, with an officer with a captain and a few days before i was discharged into the cold weather in germany, he said to me that she was ready to talk me into staying in, i wish i have found is to vietnam isn't much, but it's the only war we've got. it, and i useed the term lifer not derisively, because i went into the reserves and finish out my 20 years. i love the army, but sometimes people forget that eisenhower would have retired as a lieutenant colonel had it not been for world war ii. everyone in the military may say -- the air force like to say pieces our profession, but secretly come of the year and for advancement and it's understandable. washington what advised us to avoid, which is a

standing military. cashee created a military on the military side and the officer side and i don't think it bodes well for the country in -- iways i recall it was think it was beneficial to see the southern boys, the rednecks who claimed they will never integrate ole miss in the morning have to take orders from a black nco from harlem. want i know our guests away in an and is something you brought up earlier. right, the united states was the lower -- the world's largest information for the first 150 years of its existence and then made a fairly conscious and deliver decision that was debated in congress openly in nice and 47 as to whether or not to take on this bigger role between the truman doctrine and the marshall plan, the military part of this and the financial part of helping to

promote world peace and it was really to our vantage, to the vantage of everybody that that happened. what has happened since is this sort of logic has remained more or less unquestioned and no system works forever, it's always good to plan for what comes next. i think you're right, we have this industrial complex that is problematic for the united states. and that has let us down roads that are not always good roads to be going down. i think you make a very important point. one of thekramer, major achievements for president johnson was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. what was that? guest: the nuclear nonproliferation treaty had been under discussion for several years and initially mostly between the united dates and the soviet union, but increasingly as elizabeth mentioned earlier, there were much smaller countries, ireland and india -- india is not smaller, but still,

-- host: in terms of weapons capability. guest: a less controversial actor in the global scene. they have been pushing this for a long time. ultimately a way of trying to deal with the german question, short of an outright settlement of the thend world war, because status of germany wasn't really resolved until 1990. there were important agreements achieved in the early 1970's, but one major step towards all of that was the nonproliferation treaty, and that was crucial for the united states and the soviet union to ensure that west germany would be a part of it. aboutrmans were hesitant it, but ultimately, certainly, agreed to sign on. and so the nonproliferation treaty was an attempt to contain

the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and the spread from two other countries. ultimatelyis and what has limited that spread, but it has certainly provided in international political framework that makes it easier for countries to do that. at the time the treaty was signed, there were already five nuclear powers and nowadays, depending on how you count, if you want to still count a country like south africa, even though it gave up its nuclear weapons, there has been very little spread of nuclear weapons since that time. nonproliferation treaties set the framework for that, even if ultimately its larger security concerns that have contained that spread. from that ceremony, 50 years ago, signing ceremony for the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. [video clip]

representative of 67 nations affects their signatures were the most significant and meaningful document of the 20th century. the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. this treaty is not the work of anyone country, but is in fact a product of all nations, which shared our concerns over the danger of nuclear proliferation. easy for has not been basic security, technological and economic interests of so many nations are deeply involved. yet our collective and

persistent determination has today been crowned with success. >> today, we are here to add another stone to the edifice which one day we all pray will ensure lasting peace to mankind through complete and general disarmament. host: from july 1968, elizabeth cobbs? guest: we just saw lbj in that clip and i think mark was so right to point out that because of what happened in vietnam, we tend to remember lbj in that way, but here was a person who did so many other things as well, advanced civil rights more than no president had done since a republican, advanced nuclear nonproliferation treaties, the major compliment a change our world. host: charlie is joining us from new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. in the late 1970's, i was assigned to the second armored cavalry regiment and our mission was regarded the border between

east and west germany and czechoslovakia. of hundred feet into czechoslovakia, there was an apple tree and i was there, picking apples, walking back to our lines and i heard movement behind me. man czech army patrol, and they smiled and waved. in the morning, they would give us hot coffee and they would give us hot soup and we got along very well with the -- czrs of the chezh army ech army. guest: the czechoslovakian army which had been very capable of until that time was not allowed to resist and that led to a widespread demoralization in the army and subsequently, there was a major purge in the army as well, because they too had been affected by the reformist

sentiment of the prerogative -- of the prague spring. those people were removed from the czechoslovakian army was pretty ineffective. host: these are some of the images from 1968. are they still visible today in the czech republic? guest: the czech republic looks complete the different today. it's this beautiful pastoral place with music on every street corner, but if you talk to people of a certain age, they will remind you of how terrible it was. i think there is such a different feeling in western europe from eastern europe in terms of how they saw the u.s.'s role in the cold war. europe youtern attended a very self-critical of our role in the cold war and eastern europeans have a very different attitude. they felt left behind and they also felt that the united states was one of the few countries which continuously was at least expressing a desire for them to

become free. host: mark kramer, another key player was chinese leader mao. guest: china had been plunged by revolutione cold war in 1966 and i was a very harsh time for china. there have been millions who died in starvation of famines policies in the late 1950's and early 1960's. what happened in the cultural revolution in some ways was even more dramatic for chinese society, even though there were fewer people who died, it was still vast numbers and it was in the most grisly way, often through ritual torture and through humiliation of people needlessly, university campuses, for example, were occupied by who would then force out which was outage

of the open they would be degraded and often beaten violently and sometimes killed. it was an extremely violent and chaotic event in china. and mao was very much at the center of that. mao, at this time, was aging. he was already by this point in his late 70's and he seemedviol. to look on the cultural revolution as a way to rejuvenate that revolutionary spirit that he had instituted in china when he came to power with the communists in 1949. host: dimension 68 change congress -- did it 1968 change process? -- change congress? guest: the rockets came to washington, d.c. itself. united for a very turmoil within the capital and of course, n wasdent nexen -- nixor elected. it was a tumultuous time. host: from your standpoint?

guest: in the case of washington, d.c., that was violence on the streets and there were protests against the vietnam war and also protests that were sparked here in the aftermath of martin luther king's assassination. for people who lived through those events, they often remember it as one of the callers mentioned, there was a rapid change of events and it seemed like one thing would ease and then suddenly a new crisis would develop. guest: the great difference is we are sitting here talking about it. i happened to be in china two weeks ago and there the great lake forward famine is described as a time when china was just trying to repay russia back for its help to china and that's where food went. i was talking with someone else who said we never saw that picture of the young man standing in front of the tank in tiananmen square. this question about whether communism is economic or political is complicated by the fact that really what you still

have in so many of those countries in a place like china is a system that is so authoritarian that you can't have the protests that we had here that were traumatic in washington, d.c. in 1968. but we came back from them and the didn't mow down our people to stop their protests. host: richard joining us from missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. old, so i know about the cold war. 1960, i was going to be drafted so i joined the national guard. nobody wanted to be in the guards. you had to go to the meeting every monday night. out and findt everyone wanted to get into the guards to keep from being drafted. have been to me in the

construction business and we went into building ammunition oxus for the vietnam war -- ammunition boxes for the vietnam war. also, 1968, i had truck drivers kansas when martin was the king was assassinated. that was fun times. living about johnson, everybody don't like him, but anybody over 65 years old ought to like him, because he's you signed medicare in. the real dichotomy between the foreign-policy approach and the domestic policy by the johnson white house. guest: i remember the first time i walked into the lbj library, and i came in as a person who were members of the vietnam war and i protest -- who remembers the vietnam war and i protested myself.it johnson, how many kids did you kill today. was, what youct

walk in and you start to realize everything else that this man over whenarrel he was it came to foreign-policy that we forget, there were five vietnam war presidents. truman got us engaged in vietnam, eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon. this cold war logic, the sense that we had at all costs to maintain this pushback against the spread of communism really trapped people. what is so fascinating about johnson, and i'm so glad the viewer mentioned this, is that he brought us medicare. she greeted social security system that allowed people to have living support. very complex man. host: the year began with the tet offensive and as linda with political violence and assassinations -- in the year ended with political violence and assassinations. in december 1968 as we view planet earth from based.

-- from space. these men were on board the apollo eight mission on christmas eve, 1960. [video clip] >> god created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. and the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters, and god said let there be light. and there was light. , and itsaw the light was good. and god divided the light from the darkness. awe-inspiring and makes you realize just what you have back there on earth. the earth from here is a grand oasis in the great vastness of space.

have the division which i love in spite of human failure. give us the trust of goodness inside of our ignorance and weakness, give us the knowledge that we will continue to pray with understanding and show us what each one of us can do to that apollo eight mission christmas eve, 1968. the program itself was begun in tragic know. by the end of 1968 it was pretty clear it was going to leave in the near future -- lead to the future of an astronaut landing. apollo was a fitting way to try to bring out the contradictions and conflicts of 1968 because it is itself has its contradictions within it. of 1968, achievements the nonproliferation treaty, the

staving of nato through the reports, the subsequent steps taken by the secretary of state were conflicted by the grim situation in the vietnam war, with north korea. oft: relaying a lot telegrams had received. the one that stood out the most he said from an american citizen congratulations to the crew of apollo eight, you save 1968. guest: i think the cold war pushed america to examine itself and to try to define what it was for, not just what was against. , what they said was here's perspective on our world. here is our work.

christmas to the good earth, in a sense that's what they were trying to say, we are all in this fragile little plant together and we need to work together. host: that concludes our nine part series, will want to thank elizabeth cobbs and mark kramer. to you and all the guests, we ,hank you very this program 1968, america in turmoil is available as a podcast and all of our coverage is available online any time at c-span.org. america, a 1968 nuclear attack preparedness video. this cold war era film explains procedures for assessing damage and security military base after a nuclear attack. that's coming up next on c-span3's american history tv.

tomorrow morning, c-span's washington journal, the house and senate both in session this week. they busy week for the president. joining us is a congressional reporter for bloomberg news and hunter walker from dr. is a white house correspondent. is a what -- from yahoo! is a white house correspondent. from mom's two on's to grandmothers, we wish you a happy mother's day. thanks for joining us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. ♪ >> next, newsmakers with mark meadows.

chair of the freedom caucus. then president trump's announcement on the iran nuclear agreement and in the confirmation hearing for gina haspel. this week, congressman mark meadows, republican of north carolina and chair of the conservative freedom caucus. thanks for being here. we also have with us our reporters, the washington post congressional water -- reporter in the chief congressional correspondent with the washington examiner. mike: congressman, thanks for being with us. you are in the middle of a whole lot of stories happening on capitol hill. now more than ever. but start with one of the biggest, you have been one of the biggest critics of the department of justice and how they are handled many aspects of their business recently.