there is a little bit of humor in alexis de tocqueville that you might find refreshing. he says on page 388, there is nothing more annoying in the experience of life from this irritable patriotism of the americans. the former would gladly to praise a great deal in their country, but he would want them to allow them to find fault with something. and that is what they absolutely refused. we don't have to go to these lengths. i'll describe them to you. is america a patriotic country? do you think we are more or less patriotic than other countries around the world? we have high marks for patriotism in world value surveys. these are surveys that are conducted by social scientists and does prove the fact that americans love their country and more so than other people love their country. but where is the paradox here? do we trust our government? the president's trust numbers are very low. congress' are very low. they would be thrilled to have 38% approval and trust. isn't that strange. we love our country but don't trust anything about it. this might be part of the american way

the courts, de tocqueville had a lot to say about the courts.e thought americans were terrifically litigious in a way. very sensitive to the possibility of entry but he was an astute observer about the court in the we struggled this explain to students. they can do anything they think is unconstitutional. until there's a live case or controversy that comes to. he recognized that. even with that inherent passivity there's an enormous body. binder number three is going to have three supports. the first one is party. channels for information and expression, party. here tocqueville tries to separate between parties that are fashioned in a coherent society and parties that imitate different societies that are not contained under one sovereign umbrella. he says there are countries so fast that the different populations living there have contradictory interests that give rise to a permanent opposition among them. then the various portions of the same people did not form part is strictly speaking but distinct nations and its civil war should break out,

but de tocqueville wasn't important to these people. and had he been realize, he would have been seen as hopelessly petty bowj boy. there's a great, there's a great short essay by d.h. lawrence, "how beastly the bourgeois." anyone familiar with this? if you get a chance, you know, it's all about how the bourgeoisie are subhuman. not metaphorically. [laughter] it's this attitude that gets, that gets picked up. and sometimes in the case of mencken, literally. >> hi. my name is tom curry. i had trouble fitting what i thought was my understanding of liberalism and progressivism in with some of what you said. at one point you used the phrase some of these people had a sense that america was the worst of all possible places, something like that. if you think about what happened just a few years before the period you were talking about, you know, woodrow wilson signed into law a law against child labor. >> yes. >> and then it was struck down, and later in the new deal child labor was banned. it's not that liberals and progressives thought that

what do you think that tocqueville's opinion would be on the way our current campaigns seem to be run by super packs? >> good question. i think you would understand periodically and practically how people are offended by money in politics. anwould argue that is association is a form of form of if money as a speech, to prevent people from acting there own political interest as they see fit is not something that should be put down. not everybody would agree with that. as we saw in the last election, money is competitive. it does not always win. the question is what is the point of this. if money doesn't always win, it sounds like it is a neutral arena. he woulda downside, argue that perhaps even though he wants interest groups to push back against majorities, i don't think he would say they should overwhelm majorities. the danger would be if majorities cannot get their vote heard. if regular people have no ability to transform an empty street into a demonstration to be heard. i would argue that apathy would make the void that much strong or. we like to complain about interest groups, so

what do you think that tocqueville's opinion would be on the way our current campaigns seem to be run by super pacs? >> good question. i think you would understand periodically and practically how people are offended by money in olitics. he would argue that is an association is a form of liberty, if money as a form of speech, to prevent people from acting there own political interest as they see fit is not something that should be put down. not everybody would agree with that. as we saw in the last election, money is competitive. it does not always win. the question is what is the point of this. if money doesn't always win, it sounds like it is a neutral arena. there is a downside, he would argue that perhaps even though he wants interest groups to push back against majorities, i don't think he would say they should verwhelm majorities. the danger would be if majorities cannot get their vote heard. if regular people have no ability to transform an empty street into a demonstration to be heard. i would argue that apathy would make the void that much strong or. e like to complain about

de tocqueville is certainly a reference. always a reference that is current in france. can you go when it comes to equality and how far can you go when it comes to freedom? and the revolutionaries who wanted the independence of america. those who wanted a republic in france had this thing in common. they wanted to be as bold as possible when it comes to freedom and liberty. and they wanted to be as respectful as possible when it comes to equality. this is precisely what the american dream is made of, and it is also what the french dream is made of, even though many have their own little dream. but the ambition remains exactly the same. we want to be together again. thank you. >> all right. i think we've got a couple questions each. let's start with -- where is mark? there he is. "new york times." >> reporter: good afternoon. both of you talked about syria a good deal in your opening remarks. and i wanted to ask a bit about that. the latest round of the geneva ii talks have proven to be as unproductive as the first round was. the chemical weapons agreement that you both

john quincy adams, alexis de tocqueville, john wesley jesser sen so there wasn't a single figure like that in the personnel of the arabist? >> amongst the arabists, there is this belief in a need for christian and muslim civilizations to move closer together in the religions in the ways of life and sharing things in common. for some of the older arabists like william eddie eddie who is perhaps sort of the founding father of u.s. espionage in the middle east almost cast this mystical belief in the links between islam and christianity and he sees himself almost as a kind of a bridge figure between the two civilizations. i think his happiest moment comes when he acts as the interpreter between franklin roosevelt and king saud at the end of world war ii. it's in the book yeah so he is the interpreter because he knows arabic. i'm not sure that the roosevelt cousins have quite this kind of intense belief in the convergence of christianity and islam that somebody like eddie did but it's still there i think. the american friends in the middle east is geared towards trying to generate dialogue

. >> host: daniel has spoke out about british exceptionalism and have basically i think de tocqueville says the american is the british man left alone, or something like that. and one of the things that comes through of us try to get at earlier is, that so much of what accounts for american principles, an american way, individual rights, is really a cultural product of the english, right? and so the question i have, fairly unfair to bring this up with two minutes left, but if that's true, they say that our liberties are more contextual and it cultural product than are necessary from abstract rights on a piece of parchment, what does that say about immigration? where would burke come down on immigration? and can you have the protection of these rights and the culture product if you lost sort of cultural cohesion of consensus that once took them for granted? >> guest: i think america, what it means america is an actual living thing and not just a set of ideas on paper, is one what you think about that is that it means we need of cultural continuity and so it's hard to come into the socie

theowed by a discussion on inspired bymocracy alexis de tocqueville. "washington journal" has a look n, the online currency. the obama administration released its cyber security framework report, guidelines for companies to improve security. a discussion hosted by the air force association today, live at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. later, u.s.-russia scholars review the history of the relationship between the two countries. from the collapse of the soviet union to the relationship between president obama and live coveragen, at 2:00 p.m. eastern from the brookings institution. the title is "down to the crossroads." writes march that begins in memphis and ends in jackson. you can make an argument that the civil rights movement aproaches across road -- crossroads. the call for black power is first heard on this march. it immediately jennife generates controversy and a swelling of enthusiasm. it ignites a new direction in black politics. those changes might have happened anyway, but the merit of march dramatized this shift. together civil rights leaders and regu

by the themes expressed alexis de tocqueville. steve wozniak will discuss the origins of the company. steve jobs and the creation of the first personal com puter. tonight, we conclude our series, "first ladies." >> she brings financial resources to the marriage, as well as managerial skills. makes mount vernon a successful operation and makes it possible for washington to be away for eight years, fighting a war. aboutre's something abraham lincoln. she saw his potential and encouraged and helped to develop it. lessons in etiquette that helps to polish them up for washington society. theyolitical parties, invited important people. the strawberry cream parties, lking with the wives of those important people. she wielded a lot of power. >> the development of mrs. roosevelt is right from the beginning. she becomes much more active in her role after 1921 when franklin roosevelt cannot should polio. she would encourage franklin roosevelt continue with his political ambitions. >> first ladies, influence and image, from martha washington

. >> host: talking about british exceptional is some and as to tocqueville's says america is a british man left alone. one of the things that comes through that so much that accounts for american principles with the constitutional order is a cultural product of the in english. the question that i have this is not fair but if that is true in and do say our liberties are more conceptual plan from the abstract rights on a piece of paper what does that say about immigration? where would he come down? to have the protection of these rights if you lost that consensus? >> guest: what it means to reserve is a living see not just a set of ideas one way to think is to have continuity. but what it can be in is it was transmitted self to the future generations. i was born in israel and i will truck patriotic because the idea of the idea has been the case for generations and generations. barakat is able to be open to immigrants because it is not just simply britain but our way of life does not require our family can trace itself continuously but not because it is defined by abstract principles but

. >> i was thinking of that as my career ending goal, travel around the world and do what de tocqueville, democracbyy in different countries. >> exactly. the thing that confuses me about america, the two-party system. you think we'll ever get to place more voices than two-party system. >> no. even if we do, it will be like israel where likud bloc has whole number of people that participate in the likud bloc. even now liby is part of the government. i like her. leaker man who is far right. so britain you have the new democrats, whatever they're called, liberal democrats. you have twod parties there, tories and middle of the road party. i think if you had three parties one would gradually replace the other, just like republicans replaced the whigs and replaced liberals in britain. nature of politics, need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. if youn don't goes to the house. do you want that? no, nobody wants the house picking next president. that is scarier than ever. we want the voters to pick the president. so, 270 electoral votes. 218 to pass the house. you know, i don't want to s