The following is a conversation with germany. Sorry, a historian! A u t! Austin and now a quickie circumvention of each sponsor check them out in a description is the best way to support the Spock ass. We got eight sleep for naps, better help for mental health in sidetrack or for bio monitoring and athletic greens for multi lineaments jews, why's that my friends and now onto the fuller reads, as always ads in the middle? I tried to make this interesting, but if you must skip them friends, please to check out the sponsors I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too, this episode is sponsored by eat sleep and it's new pod, three mattress I saw a meme recently me bishop, to look it up as a mean those highlighting different ways. You can do a self care which is depending on how you feel was the best solution. I think it was if everybody hates you go

sleep. If you hate everybody, I eat some food and if you hate yourself take a shower, I think those adviser obvious is just a meme but there's some truth to the, at least the first and the third. For me, a shower is a refreshing way to take some control of your life and it feels like a fresh start, and sleep is just magic to me and not even a full night's sleep, but a little bit of sleep like a nap can completely transformed my worldview just having of a melancholy outlook or may be being a little bit cynical about the world. For me, I take a nap and everything feels new issues that I can see the beauty in the world again, and I also It is, of course, a gift. It is built on a foundation of irregularities.

size, a good diet, and some of that is genetics and biochemistry in the brain, but really sleep for everybody it is. It can give a positive delta to your mood, so I take sort of the bed. I sleep on extremely seriously. Some of that is temperature control. I think for me, temperatures essential to a great sleeping experience and a sleep does a good job of that. They control the temperature, obviously in a technological way, so he could do it with an app it's a wonderful thing, check it out get special savings. When you go to aids, the dot com, slash lex, this episode is also brought you buy better help. Spelled h e p help actually have a conversation with the amazing scientists and a psychiatrist coming up and is going to be very wide ranging conversation? I think about different specifically the behaviour of the good

and the ugly, so I think as much of his specialization is, a trauma, but he he really Oh so much about. Narcissism, so she apathy. apathy, just the nature of evil, the nature of hate. All those things in the human mind is just really fascinating, and I do think that talk therapy is a really really good way to explore some of the darker corners of that mind of that human mind. I been a big fan of that from a historical perspective affording young, I just psychoanalyst The berlin instinct to me obviously is a big fan of podcast. I see a huge value in the power of conversation to achieve a kind of lectures spiritual emotional intimacy in this. In the realm of ideas and ties, it feels like way, but you know, as a fan of a lot of park, as it doesn't feel, one way fills a career conversation,

even though I know I'm just the listener. Anyway, am a big believer in talk therapy and better help allows you to do that really easily. So the barrier to access is a nil. You know it's surprising that that's essential the first step. The first step is really the hardest julius. So you can check them out at better help, dot com, slash lux and save on your first month. These shows also brought to you by inside tracker a service I use to track biological data. I love tracking stuff about my life. I do want to be extremely careful not to over optimize everything. I think in some way optimization is the death of romance, because I think roma suggest the appreciation of the beauty of the human experiences in part, grounded in chaos, the unpredictability the uncertainty, the mystery of that right and, I think, a getting perfect data and coming up with a perfect point.

Optimizing everything. A little thing is, I think, suffocate the possibility of magic. That is the human condition. That said, you do, I believe, have to build a foundation of health health, broadly defined. As for that, you have to collect as much data from your own body as possible and take action based on that day. That's what inside tracker, helps you with india special savings for limited time and good inside tracker. Dot com slash lacks, they show has brought you buy a flat agrees and its aid, one drink. This set of vat rates. I'm doing today is just the all stars of woods. A brings joint happiness and health to my life, sleep matter, health collecting, good long term data about your body and now, with a flood of greens, I mean it's really my favorite source of happiness in the health space, my personal life, a drink, the age one drink twice a day.

I break my fast with it. I do it after a long run, put it in the fridge get a little bit cold. While I take a quick shower jump out, drink the drink, I feel refreshed and ready to continued the day. Now that all the dark, deep exploration of my own mind, the process are running. Were there, into audiobooks and brown noise. All that is done, and now that's kind of a trigger that says, I'm going to start a new and I will take on the rest of the day. That's what a jewel symbolise symbolizes. For me, I wait I'll give you one must supply visual when you sign up at a flat agrees that calm, slash lex. This is elects written podcast to support a preacher caught our sponsors in description and now, dear friends, here's jeremy surrey,

the. What is the main idea, the the main casey, making a new book civil war other means, america's long and unfinished fight for denmark, so our democratic institutions in the united states, they are filled with many virtues and many elements in their design. That implies our society and allow for innovation, but they also have many flaws in them. Is any institutions created by human beings have and the flaws in our institutions go back to a number of judgments and perspectives that people on the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had, and those flaws had been built into our institutions and they continue to hinder innovation and growth in our society. Three of the flaws that I emphasise in this book are flaws of exclusion,

the ways are institutions exclude people, not just african americans, many different groups, the ways our institutions also give power to certain people who have position rather than skill or intelligence or quality. and third and most of all the ways our institutions embed certain myths in our society, myths that prevent us from gaining the knowledge we need to improve our world. In all of these ways, our democracy is hindered by the false. Reverence for institutions that actually need to be reformed, justice need to highlight the good elements of them. That's really what my book is about and though the myth that the false reverence. What are you talking about So there is a way in which we believe that if we love our country, it somehow wrong to criticise our institutions. I believe, if you love your country, you I do encourage your institutions to get better and better. I love my university where I work, but I want it to be better. We have many face. I love my family, but I'm constantly telling family members

They can be better. That's what true knowledge leadership is about. Not just cheerleading was the kind of Point two that cause the other extreme is a deep all encompassing cynicism towards institutions. So for me I like the idea of loving america, which seems to be sometimes a politicized statement. These days. that you believe in the ideas of this country. That's it to be pursued be either naive or political statement. The ways interpreted so the flip side of that having a healthy sky This is a most is good, but having a complete, paralysed cynicism seems to be bad. Absolutely both are a historical positions I try to do as a historian, his work in between those spaces, the virtue is, is it middle ground for better or for worse and we have to recognise is that our institutions are necessary. There's a reason. Government exists.

A reason our union was created. That's what Abraham lincoln was heroically fighting for. So to believe in our union. We have to believe in our government and we as business people intellectual. We have to be part of the solution, not the problem, but that doesn't mean just ignoring the deep flaws in our institutions. Even if we find personally ways to get around them, really worries me is that there are a lot of very intelligent, well well intentioned people in our society who have figured out how to live with. laws and our institutions, rather than how to use their skills to correct the flaws in our institutions, this folks, like Samir lives next door to me MIKE is an anarchist philosophically, maybe more than practically just sort of argues for the opposition is it. It's interesting thought experiment I would say and so. If you have these flaws institutions, one thing to do as the communist did at the beginning of the twenty centuries to burn the thing down.

and you and the other is to fix from within. Why must step on slow step at a time was what's the case for both from history perspective short, so historically, there has always been an urge to burn down suggestions and start again start with a blank slate. The historical record is that almost never works, because what happens You destroy the institutions. You gave the example of the bolshevik revolution when you destroy the institution. All you do is in the jungle. That's left behind you give advantages to those with the most powerful institutions always place certain limits upon the most powerful in the jungle. If you go back to the jungle, the most powerful are actually going to

I have the most influence and most control, so the revolutionaries who are usually the vulnerable turn out to then be the victims of the revolution, and this is exactly what we saw at the french revolution with the russian revolution. So the record for that is not a great record. Them still might be times to do that, but I think we should be very cautious about that. The record for working through institutions is a much better record now. What we have to be careful about is as we're working through institutions not to be I bought into them not to become of those institutions, so are what I've written about in this book and in other books. My book on Henry Kissinger, for example, is how it's important, when in an institution to still bring an outsider perspective I believe, in being an inside outsider, and I think most of your listeners are inside outsiders, their people care about. What's going on inside, but they're bringing some new ideas now outside, I think the correct them. With the same most, the listeners, most people aspire to be inside or outsiders but we human nature such that we easily become insider insiders. So I got we like

that idea, but the reality is- and I've been very fortunate because of this podcast, to talk to certain folks that live in certain bubbles and it's very hard to know when you're in a bubble that you should get out of the bubble of thought and that that's a really tricky thing, because, like yeah when you're, where there's politics, whether it's science where there is an end any pursuits and life, because everybody around you all your friends, you like a little rat race in your competing with each other, and then you get from. I get excited and you could see how you can get more and more power. Is that it's not like a dark, cynical rat race, it's it's fun as the process of life, and then you forget that there you just collectively have created a set of rules.

Game that you're playing you forget that this game doesn't have to have these rules. You can break them. This happens in the a guy in wall street, the financial, the financial system, everybody starts to, like collectively, agree on a set of rules that they play and they don't realize, like. We don't have to be playing this game as tough it really tough. It takes a special kind of human being, as opposed to being anti establishment on everything which also gets a lot of attention, but being just enough anti establishment to figure out ideas how to improve the establishment as a such a tricky place to operate. I agree I I liked the word iconoclastic. I think it's important to be an iconoclast, which is to say you, love ideas, you're serious about ideas. But you never comfortable with consensus, and I write about that in this book ever about that. I shall out of the new york times too. I think consensus is overstated,

as someone who's, half jewish and have hindu. I don't want to live in a society where everyone agrees. Could my guess is they're gonna come after people like me, I want to the society that's pluralistic. what Abraham, lincoln, was really fighting for the civil rights, but this war is really about. I want my books about, which is that We need a society where institutions encourage, as you say, different modes of thought and respect, different modes of thought and work through disagree. and so a society should not be a society with greece. A democratic society should be a society where people disagree, but can still work together. That's the lincoln vision how do you get there? I think you get there by having a historical perspective, always knowing that, no matter what in Turin and a matter.

Room urine was really smart people. There are always things their missing. We know that is historic and no one is clairvoyant and the iconoclastic is looking for the things that have been forgotten, the silence in the room and also, I wonder what kind of skill what kind of processes required for that kind of class. Too. reveal what is missing to the rest of the room yeah, because it's not just shouting with a megaphone that something is missing, because nobody will listen to you. You have to convince them right, it is honestly, were I have trouble myself can often find myself in that kind of class to grow and people who like to hear it. You know I like to believe that people are acting out of good will, which I think are usually are, and that people are open to new ideas, but you find very quickly even those you think I'm open minded once they have committed themselves to put their money and their reputation on them.

they don't want to hear otherwise. So in a sense, what you say is the bigger than even being an iconoclasts, its being able to persuade and work with people who are afraid of your ideas in it. The key is like in conversations is to get people out of a defensive position make them realize we're on the same side or brothers and sisters and from that place. I think you just raise the question. It's like a little. It's a little little thought that just lands, and then I've noticed this time and time again, widget just a little subtle thing, and then months later it percolates somewhere in the I like my little doubt because I also realise, in these battles and dip when special political battles, people often don't have folks on their side like did that it can really trust, as as a fellow human being to challenge them as a very difficult role to be it.

and because it's in his battles, you kind of have a tribe and you have a set of ideas and there's another trying to get a set of ideas and when somebody says something connor to your viewpoint, you are I was told we want to put them in the other tribe, as opposed to having a truly listening to another person that takes skill, but ultimately, I think that's the way to bridge the divides is having these kinds of conversations. That's why I'm actually again optimistically believe in the power social media to do that. If, if you design it well, but currently the ban Rage is on on twitter. What I think what you're getting at, which is so important, is storytelling and- all the great leaders I've studied, some of whom are in this book, some of whom are not right that, whether they're politicians, social activists, technol technologists and it's the story that gets people and people don't respond to an argument where we're trained, at least in the eyes.

It's often trained to argue or you're used to you're told in a class okay. This part of the room take this position. This part of the room, take this position and that's helpful because it forces you to see different sides of the argument but in fact those on one side never convince those on the other side through argument, it's too a story that people can identify with it. bring your argument to life in human terms. and someone again like Abraham lincoln was a master at that? I told stories he found. Ways to disarm p and to move them without their even realizing, they were being moved yet not make it a debate and make it tell a story As far as a cause- yes, once some of the most convincing politicians, I don't feel like their arguing point. Does your tongue story and it gets in there right. That's right. That's right! We look at what is a list.

is done in ukraine in response to the russian invasion, and I know you, you were there on the front lines yourself. It's not that he's arguing a position that persuade us. We already believe what we believed about russia, but he's bring the story of ukrainian suffering to life and making us see the behaviour of the russians. That is moving opinion around the world where the interesting stuff sometimes is not actually the story told by the person. But the story what about the person- and some of that could be propaganda? Some of that could be a legitimate stories which is the fast anything. The power of story is the very power this leveraged by propaganda to convince the populace. Yeah and one of the most powerful ideas, my trout in ukraine and in general to me personally. The idea that presents Zaluski stayed in kiev and in narrowly did s war and everybody from

In a circle to the united states, everybody in the west, the nato everybody was telling him and even on the russian side I might soon they thought he would leave, he would escape right and he didn't from food It is our firm heroism. I don't know, but that's a story that I think united, a country and its such a small thing right, but easy powerful. It's the most basic of all human stores, the store we have human courage, a courage- and I remember, watching his social media feed on there and he was standing outside not even in a bunker,

standing outside in kiev right as the russian forces are attacking and saying I'm here and this minister is he and this ministers who were not corrupt, were not stooges of the americans were, who told us to leave were staying because we care about ukraine and the story of courage. I mean that's the story that you know: babies grow up, seeing their parents as courageous right into the most natural of all stories and there's also the stories for better or worse, that are told throughout history as because stories of courage and stories of evil. Those are the two extremes are the ones that are kind of a it's. A nice mechanism to tell us stories of wars, of conflicts of struggles of it. Now the tension between us too, and the reason I believe, study, history and writing about history is so essential is because it gives us more stores,

album with much of our world, I think, is that we are confronted by data were confronted by information and, of course, its valuable, but easy to manipulate or misuse information. It's the stories that give us a structure, its the stories were refined morality to the stories where refine political value and what did get from studying history, you learn more stories about more people, yeah sucker for courage for stories of courage, I've been in too many rooms of often seen too many people sort in several ways, sacrificed their integrity and did nothing and people that step up when the opinion is unpopular and ate it do something where they really put themselves in line with its their money, where their well being, and it gives me, for by humanity during the war like ukraine, you see that more and more now the people have a very simple perspective of it. That saying are those

Now it is that are constructed for propaganda purposes. But I have seen with my own eyes: there's hear us out there, both small and big. So just right We citizens and our leaders one set of heroes. I learned about writing this book that I didn't know about that. I should have are More than one hundred thousand former slaves who become union soldiers during the civil war, which is extraordinary story, we think of it as north versus south white, northern troops, verses, white, southern, Perhaps there are, as I said, more than a hundred thousand slaves, no education, now anything then slaves who flee their planting I join the union army and what I found it, search another other, to run about this, too, is there. Come some of the most courageous soldiers because they know what they are fighting for, but there's something more to it than that. It seems in their stories that day there is a humanity, human desire for freedom, and it my desire to improve oneself.

Even for those who have been denied even the most basic rights for all their lives, and I think that story should be inspiring to all of us as a story of courage, because we all deal with difficulties, but but none of us are starting from slavery. That's really powerful that that that flame, the longing for freedom can't be extinguished through the generations of slavery. so there's something you talk about their some deep sense in which, while the war was about in part about slavery, it's not the slaves themselves for their freedom and they won their freedom. I dont think its a war about slavery. I think it's war about freedom, because you say to war about slavery, then it sounds like it's an argument between the

slave masters and the other white guys who didn't want slavery do exist and, of course, that argument did exist, but it wasn't. It was an hour. It was a war over four over freedom, especially after eighteen, sixty three into the second year of the war. When lincoln, because of war pressures, signs emancipation proclamation, which therefore says that the contraband, the property of southerners- I either slaves, well now be freed and brought into the union army that makes it about about freedom already. The slaves were leaving the plantations, knew what was going on and they were gonna get out of slavery as soon as they could, but now it becomes a war over freeing them over opening that opportunity for them. And that's how the war ends at really important right and that's where we are in our politics today. It's the same debate is: why wrote this book? The challenge of our time is too

stand. How do we make our society open to more freedom for more people? So, let's go to the beginning How did they make a civil war start and why the american civil war, starts because of our flawed institutions. The founders had mixed views of slave. but they wanted a system that would eventually work its way to war. Opening for more people and more kinds not necessarily equality, but they wanted a more open democratic system, but are instead, actions were designed in ways that gave disproportionate power to slave holders, in particular states in the union through the senate through the electoral college to many the institutions. We talk about an hour politics today, therefore, that part of the kind He was in the words of abraham, lincoln, holding the rest of the country hostage for a poor white man like abraham, lincoln, born in Kentucky, who makes his way in illinois.

Slavery was an evil, not just for moral reasons. It was an evil because it the denied him democratic opportunity Why would anyone higher poor aim to do something if they could get a slave to do it for free and as you can, me of effort of opportunity for him had to be an economy that was open and that did not have slept particularly in the new states that were coming into the union, lincoln was one of the creators of republican party, which was a party dedicated to me. In short, all new territory was open to Anyone who is willing to work any mail figure who would be paid for their work, free labour, free soil, freemen, basic capitalism southerners. Southern plantation owners were an aristocracy that did not want that I wanted to use slavery. Expand slavery into the new territories causes civil war. The clash and our institutions that were unable to adapt and continued to give disproportionate power to these southern plantation slaveowners? This

in court was dominated by them. Senate was done headed by them, and so the republican party came into power as a critique of that. An southerners unwilling to accept southern confederates unwilling to accept that chain, went to war with the union, so who was any side the union confederates? What are we talking about? One of the states? How many people would like the the demographics and dynamics of of inside the union Side is much much larger right in terms of population that twenty two million people and it is what we were today recognizes all the states basically north of virginia. The south is the states in the south of the mason dixon. and so sw virginia and are on south west through tennessee, so texas for examples and the confederacy tennessee's and the confederacy ah, but other states like missouri or border

border states and the the confederacy much smaller entity. Made up of about nine million people plus about four million slaves and it is a agricultural economy The northern economy is a more industrialized economy. Interestingly enough, the confederates it's er in some ways more international than the northern states, because they are exporters of cotton exporters of tobacco. So they actually have very strong international economic ties. Very strong ties to great britain, the united states, the largest source of cotton to the world before the civil war. Egypt replaces that a little bit during the civil war, but me english textiles were american cotton from the south and so it is the southern half of what we would call the eastern part of the united states. Today, with far fewer people

It's made up, the confederacy is of land, did families wealth in the confederacy was land and slaves. The northern united states is made a predominantly of small business owners and then larger financial interests, such as the banks. york and what about the military? Who are the people they picked out guns? What are they numbers there. So the the the union also numbered a government by far, but it is a really interesting question because there's no conscription in the constitution, unlike most other countries, our democracy is formed on the presumption that human being should not be forced to go into the military's that want it most. Crises in the world today actually still require military service. The united states is very rarely history done. That is not in our constitution, so during the civil war in the first months and years of the civil war, Abraham lincoln to go to the different states to the governors and asked the governors for volunteers,

So the man who take up arms, especially in the first months of the war, are volunteers in the north and the south. There actually conscripted and then, as the workers on the union will pass the conscription acts of eighteen sixty two and eighteen sixty three, which, for the first time in this is really important. Is it creates new presidential powers for the first time, lincoln will have presidential power to force men in the army, which is what leads to all kinds of draft riots in new york and elsewhere, but Suffice it to say the union army throughout the war is often three times the size of the confederate army. What's the relationship between No conscription and people standing up to fight for ideas, And the second amendment A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or in texas

has the role of that in the story. The american, population is already armed before the war, and so Though the union and a confederate armies will manufacturing. Perches arms it is already in our population, so the american presumption going into the war, is that citizens will not be for forced to serve. but they will serve a malicious to protect their own property and so the second amendment, the key for a second moment for me as a historian, is the well regulated militia part the presumption that citizens as part of their civic do We do not have a duty to join a national army. Prussian style bought supposed to be involved in defending their communities? And that's that's the reality. It's also a bit of a myth, and so americans have have throughout their history Ben gunn owners, not He forty seven owners but gunners and got ownership, has been for the purpose of community self defense. The quest

in coming out of. That is what does that mean in terms of you, have access to everything and Scalia even himself asked this question on a supreme court. You know he said in one of their guns gun cases? I have the right to defend yourself. but you don't have the right to own and lucy the right to have a tank- I don't think they let you park a tank lex in your parking right city. I looked into this. I think I think there the gray area round tanks. Actually, I guess I figure legit allowed to own a tank. Are you really? I think there was somebody looking to cause somebody told me, but I could see like that, cause it's very difficult for them to get out of hand, we gave them- maybe one guy in a tank that you could be breaking laws in terms of the width of the vehicle there you using to operate anyway. That's a hilarious discussion, but to make the case speaking of a gay voice, evans and rifles and backed ukraine for second one of those fascinating social experiments that happened in ukraine

at the beginning of the war. Is they handed out guns to everybody, rifles and crime went down. Jetting is really interesting. I hope somebody does a kind of psychological did collection analysis effort here to try to understand why? Because, if not obvious to me that in time of war, if you give guns to the entire populous, anyone who wants a gun is not going to, especially in a country who has historically suffered from corruption, not result in robberies and saw Isn't all that kind of stuff? There's a deep lesson there now I dunno. If you can extend that lesson beyond wartime, though right, that's the question: what happens after the war? I mean my inclination will be to say that can work during war, but you have to take the guns back after the war, but that they may be very high. We tried. That is the problem. No, that's precisely the problem that that's actually part of the story. For me, what happens after the civil war after Appomattox in and eighteen sixty five is that many

southern soldiers go home with their guns and they may use their weapons. two, quite frankly, shoot intimidate farmers. Aids who are now citizens is a big problem. I talk about this in the book in Memphis in eighteen. Sixty six, It is former confederate soldiers and police officers and judges who are responsible for hundreds of rapes within a two day period and destroying an entire community of african americans and are able to do that because they brought their guns home. But underneath beneath the issue of guns. There is just the fundamental issue of hatred and inability to see other humans in this as well as having equal value as another human being well, The election of eighteen sixty like that brought lincoln to power, so election eighteen sixty was a very divisive election.

have divisive, contested elections from aids, in sixty really until eighteen. Ninety six, the eighteen sixty election, is the first election were Republican is elected president, that is lincoln bodies elected president, with less than forty percent of the vote, because you have to say- democrats running democrats who are out to do the confederacy in everything and then the Democrats who on a compromise but still keep save slavery, most famous stephen, was who argues for base we allowing each state to make its own decisions popular sovereignty as it called it? and you still have traditional wigs who are running. That was the party I proceeded. The republican party or for candidates lincoln wins. A plurality. Lincoln is elected largely because the states that are anti slavery or anti expansion of slavery, or not a majority, but there are plurality and the other states have basically factional ized, and so they are unable to have a united front against. Him was the main topic.

And slavery think the main topic at hand at that time was the expansion of slavery into new territories into new territory. it was not whether to abolish slavery and lincoln is very careful and his correspondence is clear here once no one on his side during the election to say that he is arguing for abolitionism, even though he personally supported that. What he wants to say is the republican party is for no new slave territory's. Did he make here that he was for our abolition. No, he was intentionally unclear about that would do you think he was throughout his life. Was there a deep because it takes quite a vision, and you look at society today? And you it takes quite a man to see that there is something deeply broken where a lot of people take for granted in modern day. You could see factory farming as well.

those things that, in a hundred years rights, he is like the torture, the mass torture venom could be, could be seen evil, but just to look around and wake up that is pushing the leadership position yet was able to see that in some ways: s in some ways. No, I mean you. The premise of your question is really important, that to us it's obvious that slavery is, is a horror but to those who had gone, up with who had grown up. Seeing that maybe it was hard to amend in a different world. So your right lincoln's machination like everyone else's, was limited by his time. I dont and lincoln imagined a world of equality between the races. But he come to see that slavery was horrible and historians have differed in in how he came to this part of it is that he had a father who treat him like a slave, and you can see in his early correspondence how much he hates that his father, who is a struggling farmer, was basically trying to control lincoln's life,

and he came to understand personally, I think how horrible is to have someone else, tell you what you should do with your labour giving you your own your own choices but link was also a pragmatist. This is what made him a great politician. He wanted to work through institution. Not to burn them down any favours, he said that if he could preserve the union and stop the spread of slavery by allow slavery to stay in the south. He would if he could do it by eliminating slavery in the south, would if he could do it by buying the slaves and sending them somewhere. Ass, he would his main go, but he ran on was that the new tab tories west of illinois the day would be areas for free, poor white man like him, not slavery. what do you learn about human nature if we step back and look at the big picture of it, that slavery has been a part of human civilization for thousands of years that this american slavery is not a new phenomenon,

I think history teaches us a very pessimistic and a very optimistic lessen the pessimistic and is that human beings are capable of doing enormous harm and brutality to their fellow man and woman and we see that with genocide in our world today that human, These are capable with the right stimuli, the right incentives of of of enslaving, others. I mean genocide is in the same category rent the optimistic side is that human beings are also capable with proper leadership and governance of resisting those urges of putting those energies into productive uses for other people, but I don't think that comes. Naturally, I think that's where leader ship and institutions matter, but leadership. Petitions can take us we contain. We can civilized ourselves for a long time Stop using that verb to civilised, I believe in civilization. I believe this.

civilising role lincoln spoke of that right, so we franco rules about this lies role. That government play education is only a part of that creating laws, minimal laws but laws nonetheless, that incentive eyes and penalized us forego, to the dark side? But if we are, that to happen, or we have leaders who encourage us to go to the dark side. We can very quickly go down and a deep dark tunnel, since I believe that most people want to do good and the power of institutions if done well. They encourage and protect you if you want to do good so, if you're, just in the jungle, thus gained from a game theoretic perspective punish for for doing good, so being extremely self centred and greedy, and even violent and manipulative can have from a game theory perspective benefits, but I think that's what most humans

Institutions allow you to do we actually want, which is to do good for the world too good for others, and actually in so doing, do good for yourself institutions protect that nature human instinct, I think at and what you just articulated, which I think the historical record is very strong on- is the classic liberal position. That's what liberalism is in a nineteenth century sense right: You believe in civilising human beings, through institutions that begins with education, kindergarten is an institution laws and and just sick habits that are enforced by society. How do you think people thought about the idea. How did they square the idea of all men are created equal, those very powerful words at the funding, this nation part of this court that was slavery for many a merry in saying all men were created, equal required slaver, because it meant

at the equality of white people was dependent upon others doing the work for us in the way some people view animal labor today and maybe in fifty years, will see that as a protection, but the notion among many americans in these seventeen eighteenth century- and this would also be true for those in other societies- was that equality for white men meant that you had access to the labour of others that would allow you to equalize other differences. So oh, you could produce enough food, so your family could, equally well, nourished as other families, because you had slate on the land doing the farming. For you, this is thomas jefferson worth so like animal farm, all most are equal, but some are more equal than others. That's right and I think that's that's still the way people view things yeah right. I don't know that

as a liberal position, as just a human position that down that all humans have equal value just on the basic level of what kind of humanity. But do we really believe that we were two I dont, nor so I dont know if our society really believes there And I don't know exogamy suit is super complicated, of course, when you realize the models, Offering that's going on in the world or theirs Children die from starvation in africa and to say that all here are equal, while a few dollars can save their life and undisturbed by starbucks coffee and who are willing to pay ten fifty hunter, thousand dollars to save a child archer like somebody from our family and donors. two dollars to say the child over in africa. So there's and I think some errors or others have talked about like. Why I don't want to live in a world where we do Other send two dollars to africa.

something deeply human about saving those there really close to the ones. We love, so that that, like hypocrisy, that seems to go attention with the basic ethic. Of alleviating suffering in the world. That's also really human. That's also part of this ideal. of all men are created. Equal is accomplished bessie world ethically it it. It is, but I mean, I think at least the way I think about it is so. What are these things even within our own society, where we choose to do something with our resources that actually doesn't help the lives of many people, so we as in all kinds of things that are often because someone is lobbying for them. This happens on both sides of the others is not a political statement right Rather than saying you know, if we invested. A little more of our money. Really a little more, we can make sure every child in this country had decent healthcare. We can for every child in this country had what they need, to start life healthy, and that would not require us to say.

quite a lot, but it would require us to sacrifice a few things, yes is about there, and I also noticed the passiveaggressive state me you make but how I'm spending my money I don't mean to spending it a little more wisely. I you know I like to eat the nice meals at nice, restaurants, as I'm I'm is guilty of this, as you are, I gotta couch in accounts says no purpose. It looks nice that night, I thought that was announced in the house. It is actually very clean. I gotta for occasional is around for us to look like and adopt a gap because everything else in my life is a giant mess were did ideas at the funding documents of this country play. in this war, the between the union and the confederate states and found seeing ideas that were supposed to be unified those countries there is there interesting tensions there. What they were certainly tensions because built into the founding documents, of course, is slavery.

and inequality and women's exclusion from voting and things of that sort, but the real brilliance of abraham, lincoln, to build on the brilliance of the founders, and turn the union position into this into the defence of the core ideas of the country. So the confederacy is defending one idea. The idea of slavery lincoln takes the basket of all the deeper ideas and puts them together. three things, the wars about for lincoln, and this is why his speeches still resonate with us today. You know every time in washington I go to the lincoln memorial as the best mama, our best monument, I think in the world, actually and there are always people their reading. Gettysburg address and the second inaugural lincoln had to you education, yet he found the words to describe what our country was about better than anyone else, because he went back to these founding values. Three values, we are taught by one freedom that

and freedom is, it is actually complex, but it's also simple the simple lincoln definition, that freedom is the right of each person to work for himself or herself Just to say does mean your company. They missed you enjoy your labour. I know, one can tell you, you have to work for a certain wage. You might not have a job, but you decide you decide. Right. You can see where that comes from his own background as a poor man right. So freedom is control of your own labour. Second, democracy, government of the people by the people for the people, the governments to serve the peoples to come from the people and then the third point, justice and helping all human beings he at the end of his life as a civil war. Ending he never declares that the south should be punished. His argument is that we shouldn't apologized for their misdeeds, but that all should be part of this future

he's not arguing for consensus is arguing for a society where everyone has a stake going forward, so justice, democracy, freedom, those are those those are the gifts. I talked about the flaws in our system. Those the virtues in our system that our founders coming out of the enlightenment planted and and lincoln carries them. Forty gives us the two point over seven of them, So a few tangent questions about the each of those are one and democracy people offering of the united states democracy is the republic that they represent is there some interesting tensions there in terminology or is now? Can you may be, could expand different versions of democracy, so the philosophy of democracy, but also the practical limitations. It short the founders intended for us to be a democracy. This argument that they want us to be a republic. A set of a democracy is one of these made up myths.

They believed that fundamentally, what they were created was a society very few of which it existed before a society where the government would be of the people by the people for the people? That's what they expect it right, that's what it meant. So the legitimacy of our government was knocking beat the person in charge, was of royal blood. That's what europeans did it whether the person in charge had killed enough people, Allah, genghis khan, or that the person in charge was serving a particular class. It was at the person and are the institutions were to serve the people. They adopted republican tools to get there because they were fearful appropriately of simply throwing every issue up to the masses, democracy not mob rule democracy, he is where you create procedures to assess the public will and to act in ways that serve the public without harming other elements of the public. Debt are not in the mood

That's why we have a constitution and a bill of rights added that for there I'm the founders did not believe that women should be part of this to sit discussion, that they were not capable. They were wrong about that in their time. That's how they thought. We've of course change that they believed you had tat property to have a stake. We don't believe that anymore, so we can argue over the details and- and those fifty years from now will criticise us read for the way we think about these things. but it was fundamentally about this- is the radicalism of the american experiment that governments should serve the people or people So democracy means of the people by the people for the people and then it doesnt, actually giving the details of how you implemented, because you could implement all kinds voice will, and I think what we've learned as historians, either what the founders knew, because they were very well read in the history of rome and greece was that democracy will always have unique characteristics for the culture that it's in If coming out of the war against russia, ukraine is able to build a better democracy they had before

It's never gonna, look like the united states is things could be worse or better. A cultural matters to particular history of society's matters. Japan is a vibrant democracy. I've been there many times It does not look at all, like am american democracy, so so democracy is a set of values. The Implementation of those values as a set of practical institutional decisions, one makes based in one's cultural position, suggest the The topic is there: if you do representative, he said like democracy should not one failure mode is mob rule, so it should not descend into that. Not every issue should be up to everybody. Correct hook, ass. You have. indentation buds Stalin similarly felt that he could rapid

and the interests of the public, he was also helping represent the interests of the public. So that's a failure mode to the. If, if the people representing the public become more and more powerful is to be becoming detached from from actually being able to represent or having just the basic human sense of what the public wants I think being of the people by the people, for the people means you're in some way accountable to the people and the problem with the communist party. The soviet union. This was already evident before Stalin came into power, is the same. problem. The communist party of china has today, which is that you have leadership, that's not accountable wont. Let me go then to one of the other three principles of freedom, because one of the ways to give government accountable, the freedom of the press, so that the internet and on the internet as social networks and one of them's called twitter, I think give an account their pupils Value and recently people been throwing her recently for why

the words of freedom of speech, just that curiosity for attention upon a tangent. What would you think of freedom of speech as it is today and as it was at that time in june of civil war after the throughout the history of of america, so freedom of speeches always been one of the core tenants of american democracy and near absolute estonia, because I think that people should have the right to speak. What what makes our democracy function is that there is always room for. Quite frankly, people like you and me who like to disagree and have reasons to disagree. So I am against almost all forms of censorship. The only time I believe in censorship is if somehow an individual or a newspaper has stolen the ukrainian plans for their necks military movements in the next week. You should not be well to publish that right now, maybe after they act

criticism opinion interpretation should be wide open now doesn't mean, though, that you, have the right to come to my classroom and starch. Shouting and saying whatever you want yeah, you have the right, the street corner to do that. But my classroom is a classroom from my students with a particular purpose side, that from last week, I'll never do bruce. I it's how are we gonna get draft can be people who don't know you're you're, professor joslyn is just as nearby. Sometimes I get a little. Wandering there upon the only one for you. I don't even know, as you also said, that the point is that of free speech is not licence to invade someone else's, yes and I also believe and private enterprise. So I think that you know if if, if I owned a social media network, I don't it would be up to.

to decide who gets to speak on that network in who doesn't and then people could decide not to use it. There are ones, but there is Yes, that's one of the founding principles. So often when you talk censorship, that government centre, so a social media. If you're on a social media company, you should be able to decide from a technical perspective what freedom of speech means, but there's some deeper ethical philosophical it's of how do you create a world where every voice is heard of the people by the people for the people? That's not that complicated technical problem. When you have a public square, how do you have a productive conversation or critics aren't solid but at the same time whoever has the bigger megaphone is not going to crowded Nobody else, so I think it's very import and to create rules of the game that to give everyone a chance to get started,

and that allow for guide posts to be created from the will of the community, which is to say that we as a community can say we can't stop people from speaking, but we as a community. Can say that in certain forms, we're will create certain rules for who gets to speak in who doesn't under what terms, but they can still have somewhere else took out. So am, I believe, an opening space for everyone, but creating certain spaces within those spaces that are design. and for certain purposes, that's what a school bus. So I will not bring someone to speak to my students who is unqualified, political judgment, the rules at a university, our an education institution. You need to have the educational credentials to come, speak about artificial intelligence. I'm not gonna bring some bomb off the street. To do that right. We have certain rules, but that bomb on the street can still in his own space or her own space can still say what he or she wants to say about artificial intelligence. The zone newspapers, work

When I write for the new york times, they have an editorial team. The editorial team I'll make certain decisions. I check facts and certain points of view. They don't allow anti semitic comments. Might you not gonna, be able to publish an anti semitic screen, whether you think it's true or not true in the new york times, but that doesn't prevent you from finding somewhere else, so we allow entities to create certain rules of the game. We trance we make transparent what those rules are. And then we as citizens know where to go to get our information was was problem the last few decades, I think, is it hasn't been clear what the rules are in different places and what are the legitimate places to get information on what are not together, trespass This used to be very critical, their yearn for the new york times. I think there's a lot of scope. These are about which way the editorial processes lean and there's a public perception its especially for opinions

it's going to be very left, leaning in the new york times and without transparency about what the processes like about the people involved. You all you do like a conspiracy there is in and the general public opinion about that is going to glow go wild and I think that's ok than your top speed in in a collective way figure stuff out. I think a second your times Only three percent of the timescale lean left there had to have like a loose estimation or whatever, but for a platform twitter, it seems like there is more complicated. Of course. There should be rules of the game, but I think there's a maybe I want to say a responsibility to also create incentives for people to do high effort, empathetic debate versus throne, but each other yeah. I think those are two sided everything's. I agree. I think that my view is that the failure of facebook,

in twitter and others and in recent years has been that they have been completely and transparent about their rules. So what I would think would make what advances. is if they had a set of rules that were clear that were consistently followed and we understood what they were That would also tell us as consumers how much what what the biases are, how to understand. What's going and it seems I might say that since you I must have taken over twitter- it's been arbitrary and whose thrown off and was not thrown off, whose profound and that's it that's a real problem, arbitrariness, is in some ways the opposite of democracy, but there's also, hidden arbitrariness. In the interpretation of the rules of, for example, what comment incite violence is really really difficult to figure out to me like that, the grey area. Obviously, there were very clear versions of that, but if I know anything about people are treated site, violence they're, usually not coming

clearly saying they're, usually color dog, whistling it same with racism, anti semitism, all that that is usually dog, whistles slake and they usually have fun playing with the rules playing around the rules. It is a grey area same with the june covert. Misinformation was misinformation right eye and some of these are age. Old problems are legal system. Common law has been struggling with what is incitement to violence since the first supreme court decisions in the eighteenth century right so so way, you're absolutely right, but we'll say this, there are certain things that are clearly incitement to violence. I'll give you a very clear examples now does make a personal remark my wife is an elected official here in Austin there are people who put things on twitter, calling for her to be hanged, calling for her to be attacked, but that's incitement to violence went when you specifically call for violence against someone. I agree, there's a lot of others. for its grey area, but we could start if we're applying these rules.

Yes by getting that material off of these sites. Some of that occur is as a problem of scale too, but the grey area is still up forever problem that we may never be able to solve, and maybe the tension Then the grey area is the very process of democracy. But saying like we need to take our country back. Is that incitement of violence? I don't think that I think we need jaeger country about just that. No, but if I might say that I might say we need to take our guy said it all the time I go again: a walker on drug just screaming everybody, I don't you, that was to take you back and they get very confused by messaging used in these were. But let's, let's go to the january sixth example right to say: hang my pants, that's incitement to violence near to say a go, get Nancy! That's incitement to violence. That has very clear again, I think that's the big problem,

they promised the grey area, but yet and the other brahms just how to get had a technically find the large scale of comments and post and said on that are doing this kind of a clear sighted view to solve your the item. I heard we don't ask me those quests, while I have to say some of that- is motivation- some that is vision- and some of that is execution to, for example, just to go out breathing a dark topic. Ah, So they have recently became aware of his facebook and twitter, and so on people post, violence, honour like little violent videos, violence, child porn. Some, the darkest things in this world and to find them at scale is, is a difficult problem and to actively aggressively is a difficult problem, but that

I think part of his motivation that saying this is a big problem. We need to take this army to find all the darkest aspects of human nature that rising appear on our platform and remove them so that we can create a place for like four he may to flourish through the process of conversation, but it's just hard. It's just really hard. When you look at like millions of posts, trillions of interactions, it's wild with the amount of data, but where we are now with. for media seemed wild and impossible five years ago. Right. Yes, I actually why what frustrates me is, I think, they're p who have politicized this issue and unnecessary ways? Everyone, regardless their politics. It support what you just said in, asking our money, maybe grants the federal government a high skilled people, like you figure

ways to get violent videos offered that debt that shouldn't be political with some of that also requires being transferred from a social media company perspective. And transparent away that really resist being political to be able to be transparent about your fight against these the evils, while still not succumbing to the sort of the political narratives of it, are less tricky where you have to do that kind of and and walk calmly through the fire says. That's what twitter feels like if you're being political, is it good? firing squad from every side and you as a leader. You have to kind of walk comrade and, and that is where we need a new generation of people who will have diverse politics, but will stand up against the right. I mean that's that the lesson from after the civil war is where progress is made. The war doesn't solve problems or hate. What progress is made his way. You have local leaders and others who stand up and say we can differ, but we're not gonna win.

gonna stop calling people from certain backgrounds monkeys, which was a common thing to do that, and jews is still called monkeys in certain places. Right we'll have to stand up while still maintaining their political differences. Several hundred thousand people died. What made this war such deadly? What is extraordinary, how many people died more than more than half a million and was without a single automatic rifle without a single bomb it was mostly in hand to hand combat, which is to say that these six hundred business people who died. They died where the person who killed them was standing within a few feet of them That's really hard most of the killing It happens and wars. Today's actually from a distance by drawn, is by a bomb is by Iraq or by in unknown automatic weapon make this even more focused are to this day. The deadliest day in american history was during the civil war september. Eighteen sixty two

tell him more than twenty. Two thousand americans kill one. Another hand to hand. Ah there isn't a day that deadly in american history. Since then, that's amazing considering the technological, Jesus. What was in the mind of the soldier. Any side was their conviction. Fight it was it did they hate the other side? I think actually they were fighting out of fear, What we were we know from reading their letters where we know from the accounts is that yes, there there ideas that are promoted to them to get them to the battlefield. They believe in what they're doing here- is the same as world war one and I think the civil war in world war one are very similar as wars. You are in these hot bull conditions, your attacked and you of that and to either kill the other side and live or die, and you fight to live, and you fight to save the people next year What is true about war? What is both good and day- it is about it. Is you for

and almost unparalleled bond with them. on your side. This is where the men under arms scenario a right and an that's. Why The killing goes in its a civil war, which means sometimes it's brother against brother. Quite literally and what it teaches us is how human beings can be put into fighting and will commit enormous damage, and- and that's why this happens goes on for four years and just the extensive research, you done on this war for this book to sum up some of the worst in some of the best aspects of human nature that you you you found. You said brother against brother. That's pretty powerful they're, both right so the level of violence that human beings are capable of, how long the able to sustain the sound, should not have the confederacy should not have lasted in this war as long as it did. by the end I mean they're, they're starving, and they keep fighting so

resilience in war of societies, and the power of hate to move people what are the bright sites you see in lincoln and grant talk about a lot in the book as well. Ulysses grant. You see the ability of empathetic figures to still rise above this, in spite of all her lincoln, went to visit more soldiers in war than any president ever has often it personal peril cause. He was close to the lines and he connected it wasn't propaganda. There weren't always reporters following him. He was able to build empathy in this context and I think As I said wars horrible, as it is often gives opportunities to certain groups, so african americans, former slaves, are able to prove themselves as citizens, jews to this an enormous number of world war, two henry kissinger who wrote about before

He really only gets recognises an american is a german jewish immigrant. He seen as an american, because, if a service in world war two so the bright side of this- is that often in the case of war on your own side. You will let go of me of your prejudices, Ulysses grant has a total transformation. He goes into the civil war anti semite they racist. He comes out with actually very enlightened views because he sees jewish soldiers and what african american soldiers did. What's yours? Yes, grants story. What would you learn from him? The hero Or a villain of this work, I think he's a here, oh that he's a flawed. He was as all heroes are he's a man from ohio in Illinois who, Was it really a failed businessman? Time and again, and I had an ability to command people in war. Where did this come from? He was

your communicator, an apathetic figure. He tended to drink too much, but he was too. find a person people wanted to follow. They trusted him and said in battle. That became very important and the second thing is: he did his homework He had a sense of the terrain, he had a sense of the environment was operating in and he was ruthless in pursuing what he had studied. So he turns out at battles as like vicksburg announced where to actually undertake some pretty revolutionary maneuvers and then he figures out that the advantage now he's on his side in numbers, and he just pounds lee and ended at similar what the united states does at the end of world war. Two with germany and europe He comes out of the war. Grant us he's a believer in union. He wants to protect former slaves and other groups, and he tries to use the military for that purpose. limited and then his president. He tries to do that as well

right now. We still use many of the laws that were passed during grant presidency to prosecute insurrectionists, so the nine hundred or so people who have been prosecuted for bread into the capital and attacking police. On january six, those insurrectionists they ve been prosecuted under the eighteen, seventy one anti ku, klux klan law, so that's a big accomplishment by grant and we still benefit from it The problem is grant was not a great politician. Unlike lincoln, he didn't give good speeches, he wasn't a persuasive figure in a political space, and so he had trouble building support he was doing, even though he was trying to do what in the end, I think with the right things. Where was the role of the care that answer This plan is formed at the end of the civil war by confederate veterans. First intent

in pulaski tennessee, and then it spreads elsewhere, and there are other groups that are similar, the red, shirts and various others. These are veterans of the confederate army who come home and are committed to genuine the war. They are going to use their power and home and their weapons to intimidate and if necessary, kill people who challenge their authority, not just african americans juice catholics, various others. They are going to basically prick act, the continued rule of the same families who owned the slaves before in posts, slavery, tennessee and post slave south carolina and when we get to voting there, often the groups that are preventing people from voting, the white sheets and the ritual around. There was all an effort to provide a certain ritualistic legitimacy and it identity, though everyone knew who they were also that

The whole brand, the whole practice was there from from the have you studied the kkk history little bit, I have in there a number of other historians who have to so. I have used their research as well curious. I have to admit that my now of it is very caricature, knowledge and sure, there's interesting stories and threats, because I think there's different the organizations or something like that, of course, would I knows this and I feel like they thought that leaves you can tell a story. The united states also of these different there, often business associations and there's a lot of work showing It actually people join a k, k k for me as I just laid out, but also because it was networking for your business. You, legitimacy in the area that you that you were in so this these were community groups. Were formed to help white business people they helped white sheriffs get elected but what will we have the engine and understand today is when we debate in policing this. history matters enormously right. I have nothing against the police mike

and one of my closest relatives, just retired from twenty five years in the new york police department. Thank god he survived. I have deep respect for the best part servants. I know about what we also have to recognise as we respect police officers is that for many communities in our country they know this history and a k, K, K and the eighteen seventies. In the nineteen thirties. You look at any kkk organization, as I have in my research and you find the police chiefs or the kkk members, though local police officers, local judges, because it was how you became police chief, so there these groups infiltrated some of the main institutions and are in our nation. I don't mean to infiltrated. I think they were part of those institutions. The deeper question today in the twenty first century is one how much of that is still there and how much of the history of that reverberates through the institutions, and I making the latter point that it's not there that now, but people remember, as some people would even say, is not there at all.

that there is not institutional racism policing, but if that's the cat is that you can also say that if there is not direct institutional racism there, what is it? The echoes of history still have effects. Of course then that nets the net. That's really important in that we have to take that seriously. That's not an excuse for people, then saying nasty things about the police, but it is what we have to recognise, look, I'm jewish, there are certain elements, russian behaviour. Today I see in ukraine that reverberate with a history of how my grandparents EL would pogroms in russia right, even though Putin is doing in ukraine might not technically be a programme that history matters and how I view these issues and then it's a reality. The I had the some eleven resigning. And I would add, I eat a one of their cells. Sir, I loved her lover

a lot of the cells and got like terrible food poisoning. I was suffering for four days and now I can't so now. I love goes a little late at night and swear pants and just say so. the world and listen to an audio book, and now we cannot pass. That salad for the rest of my life. I would have hate forehead, salad, so history matter even if the salad is no longer have any best of in it, as probably the letters something whatever mostly for humor sake, but I'm also giving a kind of metaphor that history can have An individual and a large scale society effect on human interactions, both the good and the bad. If you actually recommend me offline books and like a cake they'll be really happy too. There were few mentioned in in the end, the footnotes in my book here and also in part, so want to understand the white

otherwise, the promised christmas, the promises of christian nationalism, all those different sub groups in the united states and elsewhere in the world. I m a bit My mind has been focused on some of the better aspects of human nature. This nice to also understand some darker aspects: the mask user, a personal question for for me, do you think, is possible. Do things useful to do a podcast conversation with somebody like David, duke or somebody, This is something that everybody knows says not like you giving apply, fronted somebody at the hidden, Member of the kkk or the guy is- putting up a pretty face and some dark ideas. But everybody knows as a now, you just exploring eugenie the table, maybe not his case medicine-

It was an active kkk member sitting across from a person that literally hates me lex, ideas fast. Eighty two, I do I I think so is what you are doing is not boosting someone so taking an obscure figure, Chen making. That figure now famous but if someone who's already infamous death- and it helps us to stand a menace along, as your effort is das, them tough questions which you do right You don't you dont, give them all since an advance, you don't have limitations on what you can ask so long. it is a real interview, not problem than I am fort. What I meant, what I'm against is a soft ball. view that allow someone to sound reasonable when they're, not, but the way I've seen you do this when you ve had figures like that, I will name who in mine I've seen that is, I think, that's, I think, that's useful because, honestly,

the historian in me, and the citizen in me wants to understand My my jewish grandfather always was that the first to be against any effort to suppress anti semites because his view was. He wanted to know who they were. anyone to know what they thought, so he could be prepare and I also see like perhaps a historian. You may be able to appreciate this kind of thing. That is probably how you see the world, but there's several ways to see it, a human being like vladimir Putin as an example, one is a bullet go figure, that's curly, doing actions and the world geopolitics internally, the politics of russia, but there also that human being in a historical context and collecting information. About that person. The historical context is also very valuable the sea interviews with hitler and

Thirty, nine, forty, forty one as being very bad and detrimental. to all that is good in the world? But at the same time, it's important to understand that human mind how it or how power affects that mind how power corrupts it, how they see the world absolutely. Absolutely, I would be all in favour, and maybe he will, if lattimer putin would sit down with you absolutely I dont think, your boosting summer, that that, when you ask them have questions in fact, I think that what we need to do those sorts of figures tend to insulate themselves from tough questions so just to restate I I am for the lex fridman, interview of those sorts of figures, I am not for the puff piece on fox and friends, where they just come on an there asked. Oh isn t tell us what you think of this year, would you think of that, as over there the balance there, because a lot of people interview, something like lampoon. All they do is hardly any questions,

they often demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the perspective of the russian people and the present there's not an empty. eat. On a shame that this is a popularly elected, you can quit that notion- but this is still there that represents the book of a large number of people and their well their own life story. They see the world, they believe they're doing good for the world, and I don't and that idea seems to not permeate the questions and the thoughts that people say because, they're afraid of being asked by the people back home fellow journalists for not being hard enough. What maybe, I think, that's probably true, I think in my experience with interviewers- is that a lot of them are really lazy, you're, not, which is why he has acted as the guy just say. Okay, this is not you saying. Can I just rant if you're sitting across from jean ping or from Vladimir Putin, you you you, you should be fired. If you have not,

read like at least several books on the guy, the the surprising lack of research that people do leading up to it. So you need to be a historian or biographer he to be the kind of person that writes biographies or histories. Before you say in front of the person, not the not alone effort journalists and so surprising to me that I think they're probably worthy. He is probably not part of the culture of the people that do interviews do deep, deep, like investigative, you need to be the kind of person their lives, that idea, they see it as a documentary the you workin for three years kind of thing that of course, Journalists do do they do that masterfully! That's the best of journalism, but I think a lot of ties and the questions are, as you said, out, of touch with the society that person that person is leading it's because the interviewer hasn't taken the time- and I understand you can't be an expert on every subject, but you can do what you do right. You, you read my book to prepare for it.

you look things that you had a sense of the person you're talking to, and you put the time to do that. This is what I always tell my students when the secret. Sazen anything is outworking. Other people, more prepared right. Once you show is like an iceberg. It's the tip of the iceberg. Right is what but people see it's all the work It goes on below the surface and if you work hard enough, which I aspire to do at the end, the day, just like an animal farm you'll be like the horse, boxer and slaughtered. I justly by those that are much more powerful than youtube. I shall be happy when you're slaughtered. You have lived for them right? Ideal and history will remember you fondly ok Robert e Lee. So here's the confederate reality merchant was, you're here to me a villain. Many people treat robert e Lee as a hero at one of the points I make in the book is

I have to rethink that and it's very important for our society, because Robert e Lee pops up all over our society, names of schools, names of streets- and he also embeds and justify certain behaviors- that I think a really bad lie was a was a tremendous he had the weaker side and he managed to use maneuver secrecy and circumstance to give him of so many valid and when so many battles he should have lost so in terms of the two nickel. Generalship he's a great general, but lay at the end of the war. never wants to really acknowledge defeat. What are you Allergies at Appomattox. Is that his soldiers will have to leave the battlefield because they have not one on the battlefield, but he refuses to do a grant asks him it is to help sell his side on the fact that were going into a post war moment where they don't have see themselves as losers, but they have to go I'm bored with change. real leadership

is convincing people who follow you that they have to change when they don't want to change. Lee refuses to do that. He says to grant a called this in the book he says to granted APA Maddox If you want to change the south, you have to run your army over the south three or four times he's not gonna. Do anything he's not going to and he becomes a figure who people rally around in the rest of his life and even after he dies. So it is as if at the end of world war. Two hitler had been allowed to just retire and he didn't go back into politics, but yet he was there any step. Continued. Have me things with former nazis and people would rally around the idea of bringing back or going back to hitler's ideas. Think of how harmful that would be. Lee played that kind of of role after the war, and I think it's one of the problems we have now. I dont think

we should continue to revered him because it justifies too much of what the confederate stood for an that's the difference, the highlight, but you were too in the civil war that and gives a hitler those doors. There was an end to that where there is a very distinctive, clear and to that war, and you also made it case that two is not a good example not a good model of a war to help us, ass history, its given americans. wrong idea of what war is because world war two ends. As most wars don't end world war two ends with a complete defeat of the german army and the german society and the near complete defeat of Japan and where both sides in different ways, defeat. What I'm pointing out in the book is that most wars don't accept with one side, don't end with one side, accepting defeat and generally, the war continues after the battles- and this is something that's hard from eric-

understand. Our system is built with the presumption that war is over. When we signed a piece of paper, everyone can go home, it's not what happens. I mean so. A war is a special case is especially strong case of that, because the people have fought the worth still living in that land exactly right, and in this case some of them are leaders. Also many of them become the leaders of the very areas that they were leading before and I that's another lesson here too that we did undertake out world war. Two, though, in a flawed way, we had a nuremberg system, we did prohibit at least nazi, There's some coming back into power. We made an exception for the emperor and Japan, but we generally the same rule in Japan, whereas in the united states, as I point Many of the leaders of the confederacy first of all, don't surrender they flee to mexico. Come back after they lose in mexico a second time they come back to nice, eight and they get elected office,

the guy who writes the election laws in texas, alexander watkins, to route most people don't know this. Even in texas, he was a confederate general fled to mexico. City many trees and by joining the army of Maximilian. Emperor of mexico was put in power by lui napoleon after max millions defeated alexander walkin straw comes back to texas, runs for the state legislature and then writes the election. Has it's crazy can make the case for that that that's a feature of the american system, not a bug that that is an implementation of justice that you forgive the you don't persecute every be on the other side of the war, Maybe- and I think, that's a good feature in terms of lower level and yours, but I think a bad feature of our system is we do allow elite figures who have committed wrong doing. We give the many ways to get out of punishment. You are more likely to be planned. in the society if you do something wrong

and you're, not an elite figure. Then, if you're an elite finisher there should be a proportional, like forgiveness, should be equally distributed across and it's not yet and it's not, but we could change that. We could fix that. How do we fix that yeah. How do why do we fix what I think was argued at the end? This is one of the really important things about studying history. You learn about ideas that were not pursued that could be pursued today at the end of this war. There is that there was an effort to and anyone who was in a leadership position in the confederacy from ever serving in federal office. Again, that's the third. Element of the fourteenth amendments in the fourteenth amended. The fourteen amendment clause three says that if you took it of office, meaning you are elected to office. You an elite figure, You violated that oath. You can still live in the country. You can still get rich, but you can't run for elected office again and that what we ve never really implemented, that is it

is that everybody who was in a leadership position on the confederate side is a bad person for the future of the united states. Or is it just the same thing to assume for the future, The nation, I think it's the latter, the not maybe people do things for all kinds of reasons, and sometimes they regrets that also. Why we have pardon incapable you could pardon someone individually if they show you that that they ve changed yet and it would only create fairness because, right now, let's say lex- you take out a huge huge loan. And you don't pay your long back. That will go on credit- and you won't the big loan again get to say just gimme, another chance, We'll have to prove, I think, about holy public office in the same way, if you violated your credit rating that you should have a much higher road to go to prove to us that you, should be back in office

how did the war and in quotes what was the so what you said- and you make this case in the book that in some sense the elements- the tensions behind some or continue to this day, but officially, how did the warrant so officially. The war ends at Appomattox in the earth spring of eighteen, sixty five when grant is pretty much smashed. Robert e lee army, appomattox courthouse, isn't a small town in virginia and the two men me and other as their portraits of this is about a painting of it. We have in the book grant and lee sign a paper which basically allows Lee soldiers to leave the battlefield alive. with their sidearms to go back home. That's pretty much the end, I just Davis was the president of the confederacy goes into hiding he's later captured? and then not convicted. But there's no

formal settlement in the way there is at the end of world war, two where they mean Yokohama bay, the? U s and japanese leaders and sign that this is not that. So what stands out to you, brilliant ideas during this time and actions to a pair of lincoln abrahamic and so engine that his values. I think a number of things that he does that are quite extraordinary. First in emancipating slaves are slaves were freeing themselves, but lincoln recognizes that he needs more labour in the union army and recognizes that there's still a lot of resistance and what he does is? He makes the case for freeing the slaves based on the argument not just of the moral value of that, but based on how that will benefit the north he's but a convinced not abolitionists, to pursue abolitionist policies that by serving their own ends, but his basely same eighteen. Sixty three sixty four is: I can ask for more

soldiers or I can in former slaves. Would you like me to take your son? Would you like me to do the same? franklin rosa does during world war. Two he says we need to be or planes and more tanks. And I'm sending all the soldiers off to Europe. I have got all of this african american population in the south. Would you like me to move them up to chicago, so we can win this war and build things in the in the factory. So so, lincoln uses the war to move the country forward. Morally, even if at times convincing people by using other other reasons? I think that's great politics. I guess this one of the components. The great leadership is is, as do the right thing for the wrong reasons before not publicly sounding wrong reasons, find ways to move people. What we talked about before different story we moved different people, so you can tell different stories heat one set of stories to the religious leaders who abolitionists and a different set of stories to the new york bankers.

That's leadership! You tell different kinds of stories to move people to a new to a new position. The other thing is, it is really brilliant at is managing the international side of this, so one of the real dangers for the union is that British will come in on the side of the confederacy confederates expected the british workers again, the confederates was selling while their cotton to Britain and they knew that the british leadership first of all was very happy to work with slaveholding societies, even though they didn't have slaves and number two, that they believe the union was getting too strong and threatening the british in canada. So there were many routes, as the british might have gone in with a confederate link it mixes sticks and carrots, where the british he threatened them and when the british actually try to send diplomats to negotiate with southerners. He interdict that he basically an issue to quarantine of the south other handy reaches out to them and try to show that he wants better relations. makes the argument that they will actually benefit more

from having the industrial capability of the union on their side. So he's a very good diplomat. He is considered to be one of the great presidents in the history of the united states are, there are ways that he failed his there things he done better, so he, held in the ways that most great leaders fail, which is that he had terrible succession play his Vice president, who I spend a lot of time on the book Andrew Johnson, who is prior worst, president ever Andrew Johnson had no business being anywhere near the presidency, energy, and was the only southern senator who did not succeed, and so, even though he was a Democrat lincoln wanted to show that he was creating a unity take it when he ran for reelection eighteen, sixty four. This happens today right, so we put someone on his vice premier who you didn't even like, but we thought was literally useful problem is

when lincoln was assassinated, this guy took over Andrew johnson was drunk at his own inauguration the guy, was a true drunkard. He was not prepared to lead in any sense, intellectually polluted, we and he was against most of the principles lincoln was for And the irony is at when lincoln as assassinated in april of eighteen, sixty five Andrew johnson sovereign. He has all the war powers lincoln. That was not good planning by lincoln We can look back on it now and say. Even though lincoln has the floor, president who was assassinated? He should have known that there were people come in for him. It was inevitable that he be assassinated, but he should have had a backup plan for who would take over. Hopefully, someone who is capable of doing the job and Andrew Johnson was not capable of front for me for a personal to put myself in linkage, user anybody, any leadership position shoes. It is difficult to think about.

happens after my death after I'm gone to plan. Well, at the same time, if you care about your actions, They have to have a long term impact. It seems You should have succession plan that continues on the path the egg I used to carry the ideals that you've implemented, so I'm not I am unsure where people don't do them. Often. I go how much vladimir Putin spends percentage of time per day thinking what happens after he's gone. on to help flourish. The nation in the region that he deeply cares for when the same as for other prisoners from Joe Biden, they might think politically like how do I get anti this democratic, a democrat Republican. What do they think like that? mary for the country at an. I wonder I think, that's very rare, and I think what I understand from the literature among business people who talk, but this alot is what ends

happening is you become so powerful do assume you're, always be in power. You convince yourself that you convince yourself that the end is far away and, as for lincoln man could have been far away. He was healthy, whose only in his fifties he could, lived a lot longer. But it also it ended fast as it as it could and my understanding is that most americans dont prepare their wills in a state, and it doesnt matter whether the rich or poor, day day, Things are just going to go on because it's not fun to think about this yet, but I feel like it's freeing, like you know what I did, which is interesting where, before I went to ukraine or record a video, I set up a whole thing where a recorded What happens? If I die, I ve got a video to release. I gave my brother access to my passwords that so that in a year, instructions. You know where to look at this, but please publish this f. If I die- and you know

that made me it sounds silly and ridiculous, but that made me feel free to do the best thing I want to do it's like it's a it's a liberating so like. I guess that's for your whale, but also like do the best possible damned job you can. I feel it is a leader having a plan. What happens if you in that? If you fail, if you die, if you or are you lose some of the on some of the powers of the momentum that is driving you currently that there's going to be a hand off where you were and you will still be remembered as a great man or woman that this, but you identify one of the other problems right, which is one of the other reasons why some unlike lincoln or sunlight, Henry kissinger doesn't create a success. It's because you're afraid they're going to steal your password, you're afraid they're going to steal the power from him. That's true! You had to find someone in your brother, hopefully who you could trust, then, let's, let's just be clear. I love my brother

but he's a troll so so there is a feature on the pass on whatever pass or manage. I may or may not use this. Is this a bunch of services like this? It's interesting energy. You know about I've learned about all this is you can have them request access and it's gonna wait thirty days before gives them access. So it's gonna has this built in trust. I trust padding, but it's interesting I mean to me on that aspect is just to have a plan in all aspects of life. This is the leadership in your private life like what happens to naughty just your will in your wealth, your wealth or whatever. But what happens to other stuff like social media and all that, in the digital world. Anything you care about. If you want anything ever live on an that's the problem, but if you, unless you can devise a technical solution like that,

You have to give some one power now and that's the tricky thing. Democracy is a kind of technologies. You gonna figure out how to do correctly? I don't have to have their power propagate, especially do war. How you get woody gather into this warmongering mood or an how'd you. How do you like come come down from that and just relax precisely since some sense? That's why they're Johnson now's, the the promise is the over centralisation of power. It was the over centralisation of power, but was also that lincoln a designated successor who was going to do and tried to you everything that ran against what lincoln was doing and it set the country back. We went forward At the end of the civil war, and then we went backwards, more so than we would have if there had been a new election because there had been a new election. There still would be reason for that person running, even if they are on the other side to try to find some compromise positions. Andrew John

an inherited power with very few limitations on how we use that power congress wasn't even in session and so this became very directly a problem, because Andrew Johnson started pardoning southerners, allow him to come back into power. So, like a few months where he just went wild you it's it's in the car keys to someone, is not prepared to drive but decided that they're gonna do what they want with the car for awhile array. Is there any level to which power corrupted lincoln a war president? Yes, I do think there are some areas, and I think that, even though he was a great present, if not our greatest president, maybe one of the greatest figures of the of our history he was fought. One is a problem of succession but also, I think, lincoln. Over invested in the power of the presidency, he came to believe too much in the role of one man and now

in creating a more balanced approach to governance and that's a function of war. That's where wars dangerous one has an inherent centralizing power in a democracy that is, just because, even when you have the best of people running a war that gives them a lot of power to make decisions, How do you come down from that? I see that was a loan scheme putin currently europe as a war. Are you come down to Gaza. Ukraine and everybody that anybody in a war kind of, especially if you're fighting for the ideal of democracy, it seems like war, is anti democratic? It is so had he come down from that. That was the interesting mix Ism of I mean some of it is leadership yet to be like a george washington type figured bb able to walk away from power. I think you gave the answer right there, where you need to walk from power. We need to be forced to walk away from her historically, one of the things that democracies have tended to do when they have a chance is to vote out of office. The victor in the war think about winston churchill

Roosevelt is elected to his fourth term. When he's done, the war is now clear that he would have been elected again but say live. Because there is a sensibility that the person has become too powerful in this role and a day some one else should now step it, someone else who is also not a war president, but as other interests. So, let's hope Ukraine wins. This war is over ski should then stepped out or something Al should be voted in. It will be dangerous if he remains president. Let's say he wins somehow and a true victory and we're just as hypothetical. He should not be pr. He should be. Praised may be given a nice villa arm some one else should take over, because the problem is that he's gonna have too much power and honour. he's going to be two out of touch with the country needs after the war. What do you think would have happened if lincoln had lived as the sort of

the factual view of history is an interesting question that probably you think about a lot. The scarcer is a lot or what it would have happened if he didn't get it. I think it's a reasonable question because it was not inevitable he'd be assassinated by he could have had more protection. That night. It invited ulysses, grant to go to the theatre with him and grant and his wife didn't go. If they had been there, there would have been more protection for grand so you would have had at least double the the security there. So there are many ways in which he might not have died. I think it's still would have been difficult transition, but I think there are a few things that would have been better. First of all, lincoln would not have pardoned all of these confederate leaders and allow them to come back into power. Lincoln also would have been a better politician and holding his republican coalition together

And I think lincoln was more committed to empowering former slaves and others, so we still have had a lot of conflict, but I think what would have been a degree of difficulty was doubled or tripled because lincoln was was removed and the opposite came into power with Andrew johnson. So you don't think, there's a case who made that the ngos turned out to be it a bad decision. But the spirit of the decision is correct: I don't know. I think it was a terrible decision, because you should never put someone one step away from enormous power who's not prepare. Oh in that sense, they are so innocent that god, but but the the other, the spirit of the decision, meaning you put somebody who's and represents a very

opposing viewpoint than you or I am for that so long as that person is on board with some of the basic values that you are pursuing and that person is capable of doing the job would do you think that was obvious to him that Andrew Johnson was not capable of doing the job? Yes, okay, it's in the right. I mean everyone recognize that he, but it it made sense. I mean what lincoln has to be praised for is in the midst of a war when at that point he was not doing well. The war was not going well, He ran for reelection. He didn't try to postpone the election it and try to do anything at all, and so he needed all the help we can get one running, and so here wanted to have someone on there who looked like a unity kennedy who could appeal to some southerners, so it made sense from a political point of view, but it created a really big problem and there were people who said he should have remove Johnson as soon as he was elected on in retrospect, prohibition of how gangsters two during a worse still run the election, its extraordinary he.

lincoln believed in democratic values. He also believed he would win, but he knew it was not guaranteed and it's interesting for four people there's the reason we have mail and balloting in the usa, because of that, so almost what I think a little almost a million union those are away from their homes, and so how do they vote as soldiers as nurses. They vote by mail. The poster of the post office delivers their ballots, that's where we have mail and validate What about the other kind of actual question of what would have happened if confederate states, one nor the confederates had won the war you, scene. I think a separate country and the south. He would have seen two countries and that can edward country would have been a smaller country, but it probably, would have been able to defend itself, because it would have actually gotten much richer than it was poor at the time, but through its cotton, trade and other things, it would have been recognised by great britain by france by their societies. And you would have seen a southern republic

I dont think you would it seeing that southern republic dominate the continent, the union had the men and people and have the resources but you would have seen a rival republic to the united states in the south. Do you think they had interest to dominate the continent to take over the the union? They had a foreign policy, they had a plan many have written about this. They had plans many southerners did of expanding into caribbean, which was actually more feasible dated, have the personnel to occupy somewhat territory going out west. If you think about the amount of land that had to be covered, but they add the nautical capabilities and naval power and the money, to dominate islands in the caribbean and those islands were important for their trade. So where many southerners, who want to take control of cuba wanted to take control of haiti and the dominican republic, and so you probably would have seen southern warfare in those areas

From a counter factual history perspective, can you make the case that secession would have. In created by a world like you for sitting today and do back to the future thing the secession in this context, if we put aside the this, freeing and the loss of life in the war there be in a better world today, just looking that political, climate or- and he also make the case that action- this outcome of the union, winning the war, is the better than I do union union victory is by far the best outcome, because I think you would have had. Otherwise you would have had a slave republic in in the south that We have encouraged slavery and other to the world would have exported slavery and whatever, necessarily been hostile to many of the past. of changes that occur in the union. The movement towards progressive reforms, creating

cities with health codes and public education and many of those things public educational develops in the north as away training workers who are being paid to be better workers in a factory. There's a reason: you don't educate slaves cause which get slaves there were about. Yes, oh don't you think they'll be a huge pressure from the north to abolish slavery anyway, there whatever, but I think the south could have survived without another war. I mean, I think, the way that slavery would have would have. ended in the south if it dinner Civil war would have been with another war. I guess the deeper question is: is it better to work through your problems together, or is it better to get a divorce? I think in this case it was better to work through the problems. They've are working together is better to work through the problems where. One side has the resources to incentivize you to work through the problems rather than leaving you on your own, to go around to go your own direction. I think the argument against the union winning

would be the argument that will be made by those who believe they suffered from union power later on. So you could argue if you're historian of native americans. Ah, if you're restoring the philippines, you could argue of the areas where this. Newly united nation coming out of the civil war was able to use it, our to spread its influence, it would have been harder for the union to do that, the union, had to deal with a rival to the south, so the historian the union one to wish degree hide the people from the union. There is now the united states, the writers of the history of that that tat color the perspective of whose the good guys in the bad guys suit. This is such an interesting question because I, like you, take every question I ask and make it into a better question at the deep. I deeply appreciate, alas,

every time, ass, some ridiculous question. Ego! That's really interesting, is a really good wasted, their thoughtful question. You know. Actually the best questions are not the simple one's rights so. The axiom is that the winners write history and that's usually the case right most of the history. I learned about ukraine. When I was growing up was written by russians. It was russian history of ukraine. most of the history of europe has been written by germans in french and and british citizens right, I mean so usually aids that way, and for the most part, our history has been written from a sort of northeastern point of view. Is very interesting, the history of the years after the civil war that focus on in this book has largely been written by the losers, because the union and its legacies- and I grew up in new york from going up- is a legacy of that right. those individuals who wanted to write about what happened long after the civil war when the north got rich or-

beautiful buildings in new york, all that, while the new york is eighteen, eighty, ninety slight late night in centuries a gilded age and that's what there is one or write about. Why? Because this glory there the twenty years or so after the civil war. The years that really count eighteen, sixty five to eighteen, eighty or so those years are ugly messy And so who wrote about them, southerners wrote about them I wrote a story that was about northern carpet bag and corrupt african americans and, is the story that americans learned until a few years ago got around the country talking about this book and the number of people told me they never learn this basic history because they grew up in chicago, not because I grew up in taxes, could they grub in chicago and destroy them. So the civil war ended analysis of the chicago worlds, fair in eighteen. Ninety Chicago is coming of age as this great city, we don't like to write history in our country. That's not about glory.

I am all for the greatness of our country, but you'd become great by studying your failures, as well as your successes and that's a real problem. We have, and I would love to see a kind of humility from from a history perspective. Wanna things, though, surprise me just coming from the soviet union to to the united states, as you ve I think spoken about, is the perspective on world. were to and who is the critical component of winning the war. Obviously, in the soviet union is great patriotic war, its yell. The soviet union, was the suffered and often actually don't emphasize, the suffering. They emphasize the glory, of course, that they defeated this huge evil. But then you listen to the united states' perspective on this, and it's almost like the the I mean there's several ways of phrasing of a basically, the united states won the war. Without the united states, it will be impossible to win the war. There were the turning point. There were the the lat, though it would

ass. My everything like that song, my first my last my everything since just so that I I'm sure I want to it what what going up and maybe after worn in britain, I wonder if there's history books written there that basically saying they can also make a pretty strong case that britain was central. Two or the turning point show. You can really make a strong case that, like churchill, Britain were like turning point of the war. That is that the responsible for some of the first failures, major failings of hidden from a emerges tragic perspective, but that's interesting to look at that very recent history, different perspectives and it's the same problem with the civil war. We want to tell the story of the union winning the war, and then everything is good and it's not the way. It is not the way it worked, and he he when at what I'm really trying to get at is when you love your country. You have to study the failures because, by studying the failures,

that's how you improve yourself and that's where you see where, where real courage is it it's actually that lincoln fail for so long. That makes him a great president. He lost more battles, anyone, but he learned and he got it right in the same of ulysses, grant I dont want generals unjust, echoing lincoln, here, I don't want generals and want leaders who think they're gonna get it right. The first time cause there. Never gonna get right the first time you never go, right, the first time in a day I experiment right: it's those who can work through failure, learn from failure and we as a society have to start doing that better. We have two not just trumpet the successes, let's talk about where we failed, as republicans as democrats as independence and let's move from that in recent years, have been a kind of movement of highlighting some of the hypocrisy highlighting the racism. The fact that the media is finding were slaveowners that kind of thing of highlighting from the current ethics of our world, showing that

many of the people involved in the war in east side were were evil. Or what do you think about that perspective? On history, I think it's super valuable. I think we should expose the the gap between ideals and practice, but that doesn't mean we should throw away the great people who are also hypocrites cause everyone I've studied as a regret, I'm a hypocrite. I think I'm a pretty good father. Luckily, my son has an even better mother, but all the parts of me that I I often find myself telling our children to do things that I didn't do right, but dear smart and they recognise and they learn something from that. So let's not cover over the hypocrisy, but let us not throw people away for being hypocritical here, I view of thomas jefferson, which is similar my view of Abraham lincoln right he's, are incredibly insightful, thoughtful people who added so much to our country, but they also created flawed systems and one of link. One of

Actually me jefferson's flaws was even though he saw all the evils of slavery. He was a terrible farmer and he could not imagine living stanley live without slice. He never work his way out of that, but that doesn't mean the declaration of independence, less valuable. In fact it makes it more viable is more that we can learn from them and to me on the hypocrisy side me, the paper that produced fighting cancer culture in these gaza movements, The call everything is racist and so on sometimes there highlighting properly the those in our current society, but they have you see they have is not realizing if they were placed in germany in the forties. If there were place in the position of being christian during sleep, read the funding of this country. They would do the same thing Who do the evils are not criticising met, most of them that it takes a truly heroic human tooth

think outside to be aware of all the evils going on inside iran and you and take action, it's easy, on twitter to call people's racist was hard is to see the racism when you're living in it and your well being is funded by the ep, I think that's right, I think to you analyze ourselves and look honestly in the mirrors very hard. I also think I make this point and actually all of my books and the real and it's an eli, vs l point that a lot of the evil in our world is the evil of silence and just looking away? and one form of that on twitter is just hitting like it's a cheap way of pretending, you're you're, doing something. That's him right after the civil war is also too bad stuff. That happens. I talk about a lot. always are people there who could stop it. Most people are not responsible for the bacteria, but most don't do something to stop it.

And when I say do some really do some really and that's it's also to push back and pushed back silence and There is not what you I was I was talking about so sometimes south on twitter is the courageous action, because you wait and think and learn and have patience to truly understand the situation before you take actual action not participate in the outer edge crowds on twitter. The hysteria of cancellation was hard to do, is to speak up when everybody else is silent. That was hard to do right and to speak up against those who you thought were on your side. Yes, exactly good luck to those on the left who speak up against the left, and the same good luck to those on the right who speak up against the right? It's a lonely place some a painful place. That's why walking in the center stuff you get a tap. That's a wonderful wonderful journey and you know what would you interesting to me and what I

In writing this book. Every book is a journey. What I learned in this in the laboratory of this book right was a lot of those figures who do stand up. Even in their own lifetime, they don't get the accolades they deserve, but they make a difference and that That's maybe not enough comfort. Because you want to see benefits in your lifetime, but I it really matters and many the figures. I talk about we're, not even well known in their time, so you can make a difference. You do part something small in the universe that can grow into something better, and we shouldn't forget that yeah. That's why I admire boxer the horse. I will work harder, even if he gets sent to the slaughter by the evil pigs yonder on Orwell today allow much recently any animal farm is. One of my favorites, my favorite books, have very recently.

Just am rereading ninety. Eighty four now has been politicized. That book in general here, but to me is a love story. It is a love story. That is a though like love is the like. It's a story of an oppressive government and seville. State and the nature of true being manipulated by war together, thus alone, but that the beacon of hope in the human heart that pose you out that wake you up in world like that is love, another human being its transcendence. I totally agree my understanding. You know better than I. What is that its now best selling book in russia that he forget Actually, I've downloaded more. There was a piece on and pr her about this I hear hear what I hope is because they're looking for love, that's what I was hopefully not at all the wrong places that hey there's no such thing as the wrong places for that, that's my opinion. The one they shut up naked and drugs your class- I still surprise that way,

you as wearing a I'm. So quick pause. Take a bathroom and were back John wilkes booth assassinated Abraham lincoln in his diary. As you write new book, he wrote about lincoln our country owed all her both to him and god simply made me the instrument of his punishment. A country is not what it was was the idea of the country that john works booth. I believe, then he talked about this country that just costly being repeated his writing for john works booth and many other people who are close to the southern part of the country in a confederacy. They believe country should be a democracy for white people. Abounded. Democracy, and booth was hot? fight and we have to empathize with it not sympathise with recognise house how strange it seemed to him that all this and those who were slaves were now soldiers with guns, and he was,

particularly offended when he saw in Washington dc a group of african american. union soldiers holding southern prisoners of war and dumb world was turned upside down from democracy for him he believed in democracy, but democracy for white people and that justified, mistreating black people for him as a country means a great white people, young and- and I don't think it's that different from and why christians were white christians. Yes, yet he was not arguing for jewish emancipation either. I dont think that's the different from what we ve seen in the twentieth century, for people who justify ethnic cleansing or genocide, let's go to do. You know the extreme example of hitler again that we ve talked about before. his view was actually he he claimed. He wanted a democracy for germany. He want, democracy of the right germans and he wanted

as we saw infecting. and mongrel lies the society out. That's in essence, what John Wilkes booth thought. The scary thing is those kinds of ideas you can put a pretty face on them again: use and maybe heather didn't until the war started or even part of the war, make it so clear that you just want the certain kind of germans that have me germany, a great nation to be, the people there are running that nation and other people who were not truly what'd. They don't hold the interests of the country at heart that they should go elsewhere where they can flourish also was wonderful, but like the good germans, they built all these amazing things we should give them the power not to the others, and you can put your flowery language around that precisely it's. The argument is made all the time today against immigration that the war people are coming into our society. It is ironic because has often made by those who themselves or immigrants a history

Does that those who have arrived as immigrants are no more likely to like those who come? In fact they might be against the next group for just this reason costs, think they're. The right group can you described to me if its useful at all to know the difference. If there's a definitive white nationalism, white supremacist summer and christian nationalism. It is their intersection between them ass. If he heard these terms used o separatism to write that either. their instinct distinction that permeated that history, that's the last today. I think there's, a long history and the united states of a belief in white supremacy, Does that unita states we actually inherit this from Europe. White supremacy is, is the belief that for whatever he's in those with later colors skin I usually of northern european extraction,

superior, have more rights or the better people to make decisions? All sorts of things adds an aesthetic judgment as much as it is a political judgment that gets embedded in our society right. We inherit that christian nationalism is presumption. That is not just your race, but now it's also your christian belief, and that is actually relatively new. There are little pieces of that in our history, but but many of those who are white supremacist, even those in the confederacy, are not christian nationalists because they don't agree on which kind of christianity, and they dont view those who are from a different denomination of christianity as being good christians? There isn't this big ten christianity in the nineteenth century, this notion that there is one christian nation and that we are all part of it, that's actually the twentieth century creation, it proceeds we have angelica movement, but it's been made even more popular,

would not make sense to a confederate to say we're right. Could white christian nation. So ass to say where our white protestant nation, consider catholics, good christians or white presbyterian nation, and so that's that that's something new and I think what particular dangerous about this notion of christian nationalism is it creates this was history, say we ve always been together as christians, as always how we ve denied a defined ourselves and that's not accurate, was a one. Sure thing thing so everything they talk to. Ah ah left Lee being or maybe a far left political stream then destiny. I still over now. Are you familiar with it? here he does live streaming debates of people as very passionate I've heard of this, my students or not she's. My students are always up on the most hip thing. Yes, that is not the fighting, but him he's already concerned like

homer he's already the old streamer cause he's been doing it for ten years is not that the cook s him anyway. He goes to some difficult political territory and he actually had well benny conversation with nick fuentes, and he says I mean some of it is humor, but some of it is pretty dark or hard in of criticism is he says that anyone who claims to be a christian nationalist ask them if they would rather have a million people who are atheists from sweden or white come or if you would rather have a million people from africa who are christian, come and though the truth comes out that this is a very surface level. This kind of idea of christian action is

underneath it is a deeper racism towards. I hate your toes by people. I think that's, I'm sure. That's right, I'm sure! That's right! That's us, as I got into his, does not seem to have deep kind of yellow historical context to it. It just is just a different, every branding of the old kind of hate. What what I think is important, though in drawing this distinction, and why really matters beyond the history of it is someone like lincoln, quotes scripture all the time. The second inaugural is filled. Second, argo address. Gettysburg us fear. with biblical references, but he does it in a way. That's not christian nationalist, because he's using the text to bring people together, he's using it as a fable of humanity- and you could say he's

open to islamic thinking, he's ignorant of the islamic world, but as a jew, I'm a jew, reading and studying lincoln, I know, is a christian, but I don't feel excluded from his rhetoric, because I share that bible. We have different views, but feel excluded. It actually brings people together. The christian nationalist approach it we ve, seen in the twentieth century, especially in recent decades, is intended. The divide, people, it excludes juice, it excludes christians who don't interpret christianity their way. An end to say that what we ve always done is an entire distortion of our country, and it also highs why this is so dangerous in so far as christianity matters to our country. It should be in the way lincoln uses it as a set of common texts that many resonate with knowing that we have different rituals and different understandings. Now, as a way to exclude people and not as a cover for racism, which is what it is. It came,

that you could talk a lot of talk to lobby muzzle folks, jewish folks, crushing folks as a way to talk by religion, Inclusive and then that's exclusive? An age has been of these. In the same to two, these interface conversations and their awesome they like so break, the beat of each religion, they banter and argue with each other about details and saw, but like it feels like love, I give you like anybody from india. Those religions would feel welcome at that party, and I think, that's possible- can tell me about the disputed election of eighteen so six. So this is fascinating. The eighteen seventy six election is one of many elections without some recently that are intensely controversial, and controversial, because they're so close their controversy, it is not always clear whose one Seventy six samuel till then the governor of new york who's running as a day

credit candidate, winds, more votes across the country, so everyone knows he becomes president right wrong. He does become president because in restates south carolina louisiana and florida, it's very very close, even though tilden has more total votes if he loses those states the electors in those states. all of which go to the winner of the state would actually make rutherford b Hayes the republican candidate president All three of those states, you also have republican governors who have just lost, but are still the people who have to certify the election. All three stay say that haze one, even though its very close and disputed hey, has one more electoral vote, of course the Democrats and accept that, and so go into February that at the inauguration was that in march, not january go from november two february without clear agreement on the president is in the end there is an agreement that they come to a deal which is where the democratic,

Cept haze, as president, in return for haze, doing all the things that Democrats want in the south and so in essence, you have, deal made there One side will get all it's all at once allowing the other side to have the figure him and so a certain way. This marks a moment when the confederacy wins for, Ample haze has to agree to pull out all federal force from the south, which means there's no protection for fair elections, going forward and you'll. See and states like mississippi. The number of african american voters will decline and not recover again until the late twentieth century, so that that election does and for eighteen, seventy, six until eighteen. Ninety six, we have a series of elections that are very close. It happens also in eighteen. Eighty eight that the poorest with the most popular vote, loses that's grover cleveland, who loses two Benjamin Harrison and again will have the same issue where there is a dispute

and so what that elections shows us? Eighteen, seventy six, eighteen. Eighty eight is that our elections wisdom and the problem of having an electoral college really complicates things. It makes it harder for us to come to any kind of consensus. Any kind of agreement on who's won an election super important for today, because most of the twentieth century would not close election. So it doesn't matter when we come to a world today where elections are very close. Our system is not well designed to deal with those issues. drawing parallels with time and what is some key differences there's been contested. Elections are florida the florida Al Gore and there's been just cause. Your contests election after contested election and, of course, most famously recently with the contested election that lead to J so I think, a couple parallels and a couple of different, as one parallel is that when you have close elections, the losing side, never happy. It's a myth that when you vote

selection, the other side just accepted in and it's that doesn't happen, and we need to be attentive to that and ready for that january. Six actresses should surprise us not because it happened, but because hadn't happened before, people who lose a close election and never happy, and they always think that something has been done. That's one parallel. Second, parallel, is elections or violent. We have this myth our elections are peaceful, not theirs, we violence involved in one way or another violence in either trying to prevent people from body or violence and preventing people from preventing people from voting. right. If elections are not peaceful walks in the park and that's why most kind greece have a say, July system to manage elections and provide protection for people. We need to think about that but people don't vote because they are afraid that take the time, but there also afraid that they can anger, someone or that they're gonna be in his politicizing, an issue differences. In eighteen. Seventy six there was fraud in the election.

Where people who voted to three times, one of the things the KU planted is prevented, Why people from voting and then it help why we'll go to multiple voting booths quite common in the eighteen eighties. If you want to vote, here's how it would happen in a place like chicago new york. They use in boss from your factory, would come, Get you at the factory. Give you lunch, get you're drunk and then drive you from one voting both to another and give you a ballot that you would bring in interest and he would watch you deposit that ballot salisbury nicely I thought I'd take their ride, so that's a difference. that that is not how our elections work now. One of our great accomplishments has to eliminate virtually all the free in our elections. How have we done that? By creating safety, it's. It is very difficult, all the evidence we have is that the minimal fraud that occurred in elections or one season tuesday's, and it's never in the last twenty years, had any big difference in the outcome of elections. Are that's a that's a big difference,

And then another big difference, I think, is that in that time the Democrats and republicans are on the opposite sides of where they are now and that that that changes. Everything rest of the Democrats then, are the party of the confetti. see the Democrats or the party of exclusion. The republicans are more the party of economic expansion. Ah, and if the republicans are the big ten party were reversed today, do you think, because there is much less election fraud now described one of the lessons we wanna, maybe learn from that is that doesn't actually have to be election fraud for either side to claim as election fraud. It seems like it's more more common as used to me, then twenty four election in the united states, if our public and wins there would also be- just maybe just as likely as as an. If

if a Democrat wins that there'll be nuanced claims of election fraud, because become no more more normal. I think what the what this history shows is that our election system makes it easy for people to claim fraud, because it so unnecessarily complex. First of all, we don't have a system where the person gets. The most votes is necessarily the winner so that our he creates one problem. Sex problem is everything I talk about. This in the book is controlled. the county level. So what happened days until then in eighteen. Seventy six is you have one The official who says, I think one person, one another county vigil, think says the other person one there's no centralized system. It would be as if we allowed every airport to control safety and aeroplanes are airplanes, would not be safe. Urban, safe, safeguard the fda, the national transportation safety board have strict universal guidelines for what makes for a safe plan and therefore our planes gently don't fall out of this our system is very complex. It has complex rule

That is too many people who have authority into many different places. Complexity makes it easier. some one to make an argument that the wrong thing has been done. We should see provide a system in Brazil they had a very close election and it's very hard for ball scenario who lost their close election to claim. There was fraud because there's a central, already run by the judiciary, the counted the vote and it's a simple it's not about which states decide about. the county officials. What did he claims? He has I acknowledge that he lost so to push back in your statement. I'm undefeated monopoly and risk because anytime I lose. I you walk away. Claim claiming those fraud and cheating involved, and I refuse to believe Otherwise. I just think that accusations of fraud is a narrative. Does it's joined from the reality of whether there was enough for for yeah. I agree, but I think we make it we we make it a little easier for that narrative by having a complex, convoluted system, and I

if there's other improvements that take us into the twenty first century, that allow for electronic voting. There's all kinds of improvements that are seen as our system is dragging their feet on ranchers choice. Voting all that, let's make this clear. We claim to be the great twenty first century democracy- and we still vote like the nineteenth century- we're not even in the twentieth century most people when I went to vote they actually like check the box and put a piece of paper in a box right. I mean that not twenty first century we can move millions of dollars, maybe billions for you lex in a bank accounts from from our keyboard. Thank you, from our keyboards billions of roubles billions of any symphonies pennies. Why can we move? any safely and not vote in the same way and at the same time, so that their sea,

purity there in the movement of money and then there's the actual engagement most of us debating in your age, demographic click like on facebook or twitter or tik tok, tens of thousands of times a year I think I think this kind of mechanism of costly and new alike as a vote, costly voting, we've already, we love voting. We love In your opinion, that stuff is just seems obvious that a game of find the system which is essentially what the election is making it fun to be engaged in different issues and there's also be a case now. I don't understand these things deeply, but always seemed to me that issue based voting should be future? It seems like too complicated vote for singular people verses on the ideas which we twitter without necessarily vote for people. We vote for ideas. If you like, a tweet or not you like it, and so on. That too seems to be like a possibly

what there certainly away to improve poland, we could measure public opinion better. We still pole as if we're in the early twentieth century, they still actually call people, maize into me, was talking to one bolster. They will call a hundred people get one person, but they still do that. There is no call landline right yeah. Well, you try to get cell phones to them, but they do call analyze, but one could create a system that would be far better than the way you're describing it's him. Jimmy, looks to actually assess what people like and dont like so your book, your work in all your perspective on history is, I would say, from my perspective, nonpartisan thank you. Yeah. You do exceptionally good job with that. Despite the attacks and the criticisms that said you personally just the way, you speak my judgment and you can push back on this. I think you leave lean left in your politics and the political spectrum. Maybe you can push back on that. Can you may make the case

for either perspective on your own personality. As a fan of yours there will do left or you dawning left. I d get depend, the kinds of issues were talking about. I do tend to lean left on the social and cultural issues. Yes, So I'm a believer a firm believer. I didn't believe this. When I was younger, I have come to believe that bullshit choose their own lifestyle and that we should get out of the way. I'm a believer deep believers of father of a twenty year old woman that my twenty old daughters of the right to make any choice she wants with her body and if she were to get paid. at a fraternity party at college. She should have the right to decide whether to have a child and so on those issues that would code me left left of centre I am actually reasonably conservative on fiscal issues. I dont think we should spend money, we don't have

Skeptical I've, I've, longmans, skeptical, crypto currency, and things like that in some of your listeners will disagreement is part, is brought up. My ignorance of crypto her, but I'm conservative, lower k c in the way, I think about fiscal issues. I worry about it. I am believer that there are certain areas where the federal government should play a more of a role, and there are other areas where things should be left to the localities, and sometimes I can call me one way or another. think I sound sometimes a while after centre, because on the social issues. I definitely with that, because I mean there's other explanations not to be growing. You too hard nosed because also an exceptionally respected unsuccessful professor in the university system, where sometimes there is a lean towards the left and the other aspect is, I think, your viewpoint and trump where you're the strong critic. Yes donald trump, yes- and I The question I would ask is yours:

story in- does that color your perspective of history? Can you do you ever catch yourself. Where. maybe you're system of donald trump might affect how you see the civil war. I guess you come lily diving in and looking at the civil war. Are you able to put aside you're serve the current day political viewpoints? No, I'm not! I did. We have to be honest that none of us. our objective? We strive to be non partisan. I really like, when you said that, because I think it is aspiration No one is objective. We all have our biases. You know some people like chocolate, sunlight, vanilla. Just that? Just the reality right and, as far as I know, there's really hard, it's very hard even to biologically explain that and so my I view is that what a good history what a good scollard as I don't care what they feel. This is your self conscious of your biases and

you try to recognise them, you're doing your research and you make doubly certain that your research seems to reinforce your biases that you actually have the evidence to make that argument, but I still believe even doing that- that someone with a slightly different perspective, might I read the same evidence in different ways: that's what makes history vibrant so I I wrote this book in part, as I say in the introduction, because I was self critical watching trump and the things I quite frankly I find deeply dangerous about donald trump and about what happened on january. Sixth- and I found I had not thought deeply enough- at the roots of that in our society, because I dont believe tromp or any one figure creates these kinds of movements. They come out of a deeper history, just a small side danger and I do believe you work is non partisan it, but it's also funny

That, if there are lots of people on the right, there would read your work and say that your partisan and I think I think the reason that can happen sometimes not strongly, though I think you do read the new job, is a certainty, use certain words. Also the I try to be cognizant of that china to use words that trigger people's tribalism, its kind, interesting. So you ought to be also aware of that. Maybe, when you're writing history, when you're writing in general is if If you're interested in remaining, you can put on different hats, you can become free in just stay in your opinion of, this has trump or or or or or Joe Biden or you can be non partisan deliberately, and that takes skill. Probably and avoiding certain triggering weren't to me, it's about choosing your battles. So I tried to write because I want everyone to read, and I actually think people on left and right of a lot to learn from this history. So many people have said to me around the country. This is his

I wish I had known before, but there moments. When I use words that I know a controversial because I'm trying to show this fact based behind them, so white supremacy does exist. I've heard people say I don't think that's I think that's a politically correct term or its awoke term. It can be who's in the wrong ways. One should not go around pulling everything. One doesn't like that, but the confederates were white supremacist. and I use that word because I think it's an accurate descriptor and we need to recognise that that is a part of our history, but that does trigger something, because that that languages used to meet other things currently, so that the press will take on certain terms Supremacist enable everybody white supremacist like a lot of people, I basically are on the right or something like that. They use this outraged language and they actually rosy billy to use the language precisely exactly for historical caught, exactly what they like that

but you do have to unfortunate. We do have to now. Actually people as agreed. I disagree with this, but I tend to try to avoid like tat well responsibility, avoiding a language they give. The presses using a certain kind language. I try to avoid it. Yet what might what I try to do is sometimes Voided. Beware think the language is necessary. I seem to be precise, but also to conceptualize, so I dont call the confirm or confederates white supremacist, But I point out where white supremacist ideas have influence them right and I point out where certain individuals are doing things that resonate with that, but I am against these kind of black labels and categories, and he also to speak about why suppressed, supremacy them in that context, in a nuanced way, so people use waiting promises about thinking what that means in they just use it as a slower than current evil person, but why the premises

I suggest that an ideology that a lot of people have believed throughout supremacy were white black supremacy, whatever supremacy believing as some people write another some group is better than another, and I've been nations built around these kinds of ideas and If human histories butter on those ideas, it's not just evil people believe in this weekend, the united states of america believe this kind of ideology is not productive is unethical, but those ideas have been held by a lot of people and not like fringe groups right, but mitten, majorities and nations. I'd say this and about anti semitism and their many people who are not anti semites but recognize that there carrying around promoting anti semitic ideas or anti semitic. Myths is the thought has been held by a lot of people and you need to be convinced of it. That that requires conversation and being a pathetic. It's not just cause,

but he had a summer you evil, because if you ve ever said something it's kind of a dog whistle against jewish people, you have to be open hearted to that is that these ideas have to contend with that have to. Ultimately, I think heal the division behind those ideas by having empathetic conversations of people as opposed to again through a book I dislike same poop, aright work. I gotta go watch for you, given that you are have been an outspoken, critical diatribe. Can you say one thing you like, and one thing you dont like about diatribe and perhaps keys, do the safe for our current president.

Sarah Biden, one thing you like when you think he disliked so it's harder for me to do the one thing I dislike, because there's so many things I dislike, but the one thing I like about donald donald trump and he believes that america should be a better country. He disagree on what he thinks it should be, but he's not some he's, not a decline. As someone who believes the world could be made better. I disagree with what fine do. I disagree with how is trying to do it, but I like the fact that he thinks it can be better he's. All argument for himself is that he can make things better. I don't think he can but I think things can be made better. So I liked the second half of that sentence when he says I can make things better: take the eye out. I like the can be better because there too many people on the left and the right who think that the you know that we can't make them better. We have to accept them as they are or they're getting worse,

I think the world without hope is horrible and I think what he has offered his followers is a kind of hope. So, underneath his message is an a kind of optimism for the future that gets a narcissistic optimism on a stone optimism. Yes, that that did he promising that if you elect him again, he will make things better and, I think, People need to be told, and we need to believe that we can make things better. So that part I accept- and I reject, those who say we can, These are my whole historical grid are showing the history gives us tools to make things better. So I like the idea of trying to make things better and giving people hope and reason to believe that things can be better. What's the main thing you dislike about, don't drop, I think here is no concern our care for the wealthy anyone other than himself, so mean and then the basic human psychology perspective.

I think he doesn't care about his children. I think he's just. I think it's it's him. I think he's got it. To a rapid wholly, might not always have been this white. I did. I did watch him a long time in new york city when I was growing up in new york and I think he's been in This path and I think it's an extreme for its a clinical kind of narcissism, say to you, when you analyze presidency, you written about president's you, don't just look at policies and so on you, he'll be I'll call. You have to leave, ship is about him- and me policy matters is one part of the equation- was not the only poor. What about your wine? would you like him? Would you dislike about so what I like about Joe Biden is in contrast to trump, I think Joe Biden released right now in his career, see his role as the shepherd of democracy. He

He believes that its his role as president to make our democracy more stable and more vibrant. I think you really believe that in this way is doing what he's doing right now and he calls from this system that the political system that basically the that the process of democracies is worked there for me, decades. It always does yet that's all. He knows that he be, and he once that to propagate for better or for worse and he's not an extreme democratic partisan at all, he's actually he's actually pretty middle of the road guy on most issues. Some people don't like him for that, but I think he is about. He is about democracy. What do I dislike about Biden I think he does not have the capacity right now. Provide the language and the public discussion of where our country should go he doesn't have a. He doesn't have a language to inspire and build enthusiasm for the future

they'll, probably what am I make us? I'm a sucker for me speeches and so for me. That's definitely the thing that stands out for several reasons, one in a time because the wooden facing so many challenges like the pandemic. It just seems, like I like to me, easy, like layer there's so me? Troubles were going through that just require great unifying president or the great like the just. If I were to speak candidly about have the speaking billy of obama, for example about, would just destroy this right now, both on the war in ukraine on the pandemic, all they did the unified there's a hunger for unification, ably. Maybe people disagree with that cause the they live. I think people have become cynical in that the divisions that were experience a kind of already really baked in their relieved that really planted their feet, but I don't think so

I think, there's a huge hunger. Maybe a little bit of a quiet hunger for a unifier for great unifier. I agree I agree and I think what's what a great speech does is it's like a great piece of music? poetry it helps you see something in yourself and feel something you didn't feel before. it doesnt overcome all different. I dont think that speeches are unify, but I think what they is their mobilizing and you can mobile as people to the same mission with different points of view. Do you think trump derangement syndrome is a medical condition. Also there such things by dangerous centre What I mean by that? I think it is a funny kind of question, but why are people so deeply outrage? the seemingly beyond reason at their hatred or support and our trump, but hatred in particular, I've seen a lot of friends and people. I respect

lose their mind completely. So I'm not sure medical condition or not, because I'm not a medical doctor, so I mean I might make it sam the wrong gonna die I'm on the doctors. Let me take you from here now The fact that you get the doktor sign after getting apiece phd is ridiculous. Hilarity to me, however, is ridiculous. So as far as it as the wrong kind of dark, I'm not going to comment on whether to medical condition, but I do think you're onto something I think is a way in which these men become touch stones of anger and there's all kinds of anger and anxiety to pay have and I've seen this and other historical periods. You use center it on one person in a way that John Wilkes, booth and lincoln he accident A personal beef would like it was. all the things he feared

Where were manifest in that, and I think that's an old story, and then is made worse by social media and the way were bombarded and it's like it becomes. The drug I mean the people. I know who hate trump or Biden so much and just watch them. It's not that I don't watch them that they do watch them right and it's just sort of, and it triggers you and- and you get hateful and then you feel like you, ve done something by shouting out your hate or typing in and so I dunno. If it's a derangement syndrome, I think it's a it's a way in which our energy gets channeled and expressed in totally useless ways. Yet this interesting psychology, which reminds me I need to explore that because I've noticed that believe or not it's easy for me to believe, but there's people watching this right now

well who really hate me and they're watching because they hate me they hate the way. I look the way the way I speak, the mumbling that all of that and they're still watching and I'd like to say that as a nervous child experiment, I like to say that that's not a productive way. I get it. I understand there's a kind of because it cause I? What is it is this? Is it the same psychological effect when you, a car crashing. You staring at me everything that pose you normally, but I feel like it that feeling what this is probably slightly differently, you kind of wanted. You wanted me feel something in there and anger in your already frustrations from day to day life life is hard and you just one channel that anger towards something by just the internet They makes it easy for some reason sense of your life. That's the problem! It it it for people's lives. Are chaos? hating you and blaming you

in order to their lives near? If it makes you happy? Please continue does it, but it seems to bother you, though, doesn't it yeah hate of any kind not towards me just the people cause it. I I think about them, and I I tend to think that most people well are amazing human beings in that have a capacity to do great things in this world, as I just think, that's not a productive way of being like psychologically for anything whatsoever. Everybody has quirks that you can hate, but you just focus on the really positive stuff and you celebrate that stuff, and that feels good as a moment, to it. I guess the hate has a momentum to two: that's what I'm trying to highlight. If you follow them, That's him of hey. That's going to make me feel good in the short term, but it's not he's gonna fuck you over more and more in your life and as yet to be cognizant of that, as you enter, I agree with everything you said, but I think

people who do things that are influential and serious. There always are some people who ate them. I suppose it, but I wanted to show the difference between philosophical this agreement, the borders on hate, unlike with call they hate, watching were you just, which is what I would say, to the asses, she's your almost enjoying how much you hate this person just sitting there hate you forgot. You lose all reason, use everything. You're capacity, think as an individual to empathize others use all of that you're in the smoke of hate and it somehow it helps you make sense, of this particularly difficult moment in your life. But otherwise I just it seems like a shitty way live, but disagreement. Definitely, l, L, a disagreement but I guess what I'm saying is, and I and I- and I think this is your message to write- is that I don't let the fact that people

don't like you or even that some people hate you stop you from doing the right thing, think about how you can perhaps trigger them less, but don't stop what you're doing I see too many, mrs. Why bring this up to many of my students, too. Many young, very talented people who are afraid to take risks because afraid that someone will hate them, then that can't get in your way. the reality is most people or their laws? it is one that will get in. There will have you back and there will support you just folks on them You're doing the right thing focus on them for the strength but in general I am exaggerating here, but because, most of the time, ninety nine percent of people are supportive of the internet is just as something about he was human psychology really stands out when somebody criticizes. easy on the internet. This is historically from where we were before and as a society, very easy now to say hurtful things to people and not have to even deal with them. Looking at you in the face or things

One of the things that encourages politeness is the fact that we're looking at one another and I don't I I we are naturally programmed not to want the other person to be det to react to us in certain ways, but when we don't see their face, it's very easy I just say all kinds of things and actually comment on that point. There's a lot of people on the internet that say that I don't ah to push back on points or criticize people asked the hard questions enough for, though oftentimes I disagree with that assessment but also, I don't think you guys realize how hard that is to do when you're sitting with a person. I don't care about access, I don't care about them being famous just the a basic human level, it's really hard to ask one

the question from a place of, except when I'm sitting here. You seem really ask me. Argue, though this is a super for me when this brilliant people, like you, are there's nothing to push back on this. Is that that that's easy, but there's a basic human thing that doesn't, I think, it's almost easier to be a journalist, a journalist do this well, where they they will have an empathy for the person they're. Just asking the hard question: since I saw woe where were you at this time last night, because that's very suspicious is in contradiction to what you said and they're just do a factual stuff. If you actually true. We have a conversation than the heavy empathize is very difficult because they have a story, they vision of themselves that that there is a good person, and to call somebody a liar while having empathy, basics

imply that they're liar, that's damn damn hard so anyway from it was that I was trying to figure this thing. I can make the case that the january six storming of the us capitol is the big deal and can make the case that it is. not a big deal. I think the case is overwhelming that it was a big deal on. I opened the book with this before going back to the end of the civil war, because I think it echoes that moment and you had a group of p bull, who literally tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. and were intending and of overwhelming evidence of this if they had caught the vice president or The speaker of the house to do bodily harm to them or to kidnap them. this was a coup data that is a definition of acquitted cool when you try to capture and prevent elected officials from doing their job. That's a huge deal. That happened before in our country in states. They talk,

thus in louisiana in tennessee and places like that after this of war, but it never happened in the capital that a huge deal that If I might say that's like third, what we would think of his third world behaviour, our society and no offense to those from other parts of the world. I'm just trying to make a point is how we see that is happening somewhere else. Not here. That's a big fucking deal. The case, that is not a big deal. I guess the case to make there is that they didn't succeed. The case that A big deal is not that their intentions were not bad. I don't see how you can define that defend their intentions, the cases the cases. There's not a big deals, bunch of clowns, and yeah. They broke in berlin. And must have gotten it didn't know what to do, which is true and so you know, I think, a professional coup. Plotter would say these were the amateurs and that they had no real chance of succeeding, because once they got

the capital. They had no plan what to do next. What are they gonna? Do you steal stabler from nancy policies office? There? It didn't seem to have a plan on what ended up happening. They they left the building. With that that will be the case. That's not a big deal because Their intention was not to overthrow The intention was to protest, because if the intention was to overthrow you much more organised. I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that they intend to do to stop that they were there to stop the certification of election. They were there to prevent donald trump from having to leave office. They just didn't have a good plan. This was the case, cops see you're saying there is some past like statistically some possibility that this would have succeeded it at halting the basic process of democracy. You couldn't in a scenario where might have if they got lucky sure if they had if they had caught the vice president. But what could have, if they cut the vice president, they couldn't go on and certify that he has to be done here. But they don't. You think I would resolve itself through police action

so on. My question is how much? How much is this individual hooligans and how much of this is a gigantic movement that's challenging, the very fabric of greece was not a gigantic movement, but a small coup data that could have actually made the transition much more difficult. Was there a scenario where Donald trump stayed in office legitimately? No, but is there a scenario where they created a great deal of chaos that a further undermine our democracy? Actually s, here's how it had happened right. They capture pence right. They either kidnap him and try to ransom him or they would rather trying to do with a michigan governor governor witness or they kill him. Then Donald trump says: okay with there's. No vice presidents or you can certify the Senate would choose someone else to be vice president donald trump says: no, that's not legitimate. His puzzles are down. Trump would say something like that. Absolutely I disagree with you. He said that morning that pence should not certify. He said that wanting, but there's a difference between sort of twitter rhetoric. Nobody

set it at a rally, assure rally rhetoric, and there is a threshold. It feels like a big leap. He asked people around him in the oval office, how he could make that happen. He tried to get a new person appointed attorney general. Who would do that? He tried to find legal justification, for I think the evidence is overwhelming? The trump was supportive of efforts after the election didn't go the way he wanted to keep him in office at an end. whether that legally actionable and whether one thinks that means you, bad president or not is a matter of opinion, but facts are facts. I just wonder if it's possible for him to have state president in this. In this kind of context, now seems like a heated just like you said, elections can even be violent other. Their heated people are very upset donald trump. When the presidency into a sixteen thousand cambridge Massachusetts,

the amount of anger, ah house, the gist. Get the energy I was getting from people. I mean that if, if there was any way to channel that anger. I think people who hate trump, but let's but anger yeah. I agree with that, and that is right and elections are violent, as I said, but this is different this this is the person in the office, of the presidency using the power of the presidency to try stay in office to imperil people's lives to distort our government on a scale we had not seen before and these are not opinions of mine. We have the documentary evidence. We have the testimony from people about this. We can differ over what think of his presidency as a whole. We can differ over whether you think he should be held legally responsible? Those are matters of opinion, but the fact our he sat on January sixth watched it on tv, did not send ever.

ever did he ever send any patent protection for congress. That is his job and threw out asked continued to ask how this could. Desertification could be prevented to you. That's not incompetence as malevolence absolute. If I watch my children getting harmed, and I dont do something about I'm watching it and in fact I take action that tries to help Those who are doing harm you would not just salmon But at present you with apparent you tat, I was a negligent and you called parental support to take away my children. I was troubled by the The press covered it did they politicized the crap out of that and then not not just the press, but also congress that if, as you seem like impeachment- and all this, the just seemed to be a kind of circus. There wasn't interested in and democracy or, non partisanship. I dont, so it's very

Difficult for me to see the situation in with clear eyes because has been collar by the press that got. It is very difficult for me to know what is even true members of congress uncle nor members of congress from our district and others right. Their lives were threatened, they were traumatized. I have a lot of students at least a dozen who are staff members. More than half the republicans. Part of what traumatized them was at the president did not do his job did not act. Yes, as a child, be traumatize, not only if harmed by someone but if mom and dad don't do everything they can when they that makes people feel safe is no their parents, they know their personal authority can't always them safer there, one another person's, always try. I agree with you that Listen, I'm mama, I'm somebody, I'm somebody that believes in this kind.

Oh dear family, especially people, I work with that. That, to me is a high ideal to protect, but that's a little bit different. It's his job. He was a a little bit different, then protecting democracy. Those are two different things. Protecting the your employees and protecting democracy is an ideal. Now you could say he didn't protect either, but I think the critic the hidden protecting employees is one thing, but the employees in this case are the ones carrying out democracy. So it's like say the general doesn't protect. His soldiers is maybe not protecting them, It is also not protecting the war effort right. It is his that the people target of the people who are actually doing the work of democracy, that more with most basic function of democracy, which is sir fine votes? and their lives with her. I through I'm telling you I had. I had students, one works. Where's, senator romney, for example, who spent hours. in a closet hearing people outside looking on her phone When is the present sending people to protect us, so we can do our

and she was not happy with the way the election turned out, but she was there to do her job because she leaves and democracy to. Sir where's, the senate and the Senate role. What should have donald trump done without turning into a different view of it he should have immediately it that adjusted, We were watching things get breach the moment they had that the members of the house in the senate had to evacuate their respective chambers, he should have immediately. gone on tv and twitter and every smith spacey, could and tell his supporters to leave. And say what he never said. This is an american. What you're doing this is unacceptable, never use those words. This is un american. This is unacceptable. I am completely against any one storming the capitol like this go home now, please or you can use his own language baton to leave yeah and immediately shouldn't. We know he was watching for hours and we have testimony, his own daughter from Ivanka saying she tried time. again to get him to say something earlier on, and he didn't he watched it. He can still criticize

Well, the politicians you can criticize everyone he wants be sure to to leave. All you to do in that moment is basic, a protecting democracy, protecting the capital, Leave, tell them to leave and do everything he can to find any kind of force he can give to go, protect the capital. I wonder how difficult it is to lose a presidential election It's happened so many times. We know I understand. I bet it, sir especially when, like what is it, you know, eighty million people vote for you, like some. millions and millions and millions of people vote. It's crazy. It's crazy! This democracy, things crazy! which aids w bush one a war in the Middle EAST right he had. Ninety it's approval. Riding on a year later lost the election to someone bill Clinton. He thought we had. None of the ex currency had summoned enough. He believed in Heaven, moral character and bush, did everything he could to help the next president get started while they became good friends, george w bush.

If, in love, obama,. that's considered one of the smoothest tragedy. George w bush ordered everything. The person and his administration to do everything they could to help the new admin. That's that's what a leader yeah he will. It is one of the things I admire in leaders or that He heated that speaking of which can can you just linger on how? How how do you think we can heal the divide in this country using is possible that there feels to be a strong division. I think we can heal the divide, I think as you said there, so many opportunities with new technology to bring people together. This is reusing to tear them apart. I the best job in the world because I get to teach someone students of three hundred in my class in the spring. In u S, history, glass, What I found my students is, they are mostly not democratic republicans. They mostly care about the same

and every one of my students seems to care about climate change, vagrancy ticked off, for the outer space Besides that, I can't do that. I'm not sure you know, and I think they are. I think they offer an a new future for us and here's. What I'll say. The historian we go through cycles of division and cycles of less division and less partisanship, one moment when it seems people agree too much on the mainstream, encourages people to extremes. When people see the extremes, they want to come back. middle- and that is where my students are most of my students- want lower inflation. They agree with, publicans on that, but they want more more to be done about climate change there, there in the middle on these issues and I think it giving them more more opportunity. So, what's the best way to heal our divisions, honestly get the old men out and the young women and men in because they ought to me, don't have that same division in their like deeply baked in net, not only a date there a date they find it disgusting in the way you

I do yeah, that's what's the right way to have come conversations. I mean just stand that would, from the left and the right. I dunno how a half- and you practice this you care about politics. How often do you talk to people who do who voted for trump or whoever republicans? I try, but it's hard, the seventy five percent of people I talked to are not those people, gf people who are transported in your extended family. Thanksgiving no, I dont mind than they are. They no longer had alone in my family, the effects of certain with that. I have taken them out of the forty two dogs users rights. I do, but I know be. I have friends, yo fall into that It's it's still a minority of my friend group. So I want to be clear that I am not as good at this as I should, but I think we do to reach out, but- but I also, I am less interested honestly in.

re, fighting old battles with old dogs. I'm more interested in finding ways to get a new crop of people, education did and involved and engaged without imparting the same, the same partisanship on them So I will support this. I have to, I will say and encourage especially any student, my but any young person who is smart has good ideas. I dont care with it. I dont ask whether a democratic republican and I have given money to some young candidates who are not democrats so that that where I think it's it. Generational change, then I think reaching out. Trying to get people to see beyond partisan divisions who are their twenties and teens, rather than that's. Why we do our part casta, that this is the crises angry, and I do that my son and I because ridge, eggs you will never hear an episode where we take one side or another. Our goal is to explain the issue.

There. It's the challenges workers in china or its climate change whatever it is ours, memory of war as society and to explain the issue and then offer people an optimistic pathway. That's neither one side nor the other so actually to to push back a little bit on young people. I I do see that the exhaustion with the sort of partisanship, but I've, also This, I think, is the case throughout history, and I see now, especially in it in a teenage years, especially from being acid boys. There is a desire for extremism and in various directions in all kinds of extremism, but just extreme awesomeness, this extreme anything just extreme and f the man that tries to make me before with this kind of energy and that's why you can take any ideology, basically any radiologist as me exciting, whether your marxists, their communist you're, not just gonna, be like for socialism.

of course, you can be like no, no, let's go full hammer and sick oh yeah, I'm gonna, were read the same with the white supremacy or just red. Tell me what is it the way you you see the way society we see the world the extremism. Is there and part of that. It's kind of steel map that respect the way. It's can be productive. That energy is controlled aspect. We have institutions that keep it a little under alike control. One of the criticisms I have with with a lot of people have died, I am actually much more moderate and that criticism of universities, They give a little too much power to the eighteen year old, who just showed up with their marxist, like books and so on, and they d burn the whole thing down. That's beautiful, but the whole process

universities, get different viewpoints, educate more make that person's viewpoint more sophisticated, complex knew was not a good idea. I think you're right, but I think that's more talk than action in my experience, there is especially among young men, you're. Absolutely right there say, valor realisation of the tough guy, because most men eight, in nineteen are still not fully comfortable on them. Ask your lenity, however, they're going to define it and so a way of of performing that is being extreme in one way or another. and I have definitely Siena, but I think it's it's. More often than not, rhetoric and actually A very strong power of peer pressure and conformity that works on young people and the positive side of that now is the your pressure among them is not too, one party or the other is to say this is this is terrible look at how our parents screwing things up and they are right,

and I think we can look into that and get a lot of people. If creative action out of, on universities? You, you brought this up a few times and- and I think we have to be careful You and I agree on this side. The universe is a freer bias. universities, especially large university, whether its unity, tv ale. Whatever we're talking about right, there are large complex empires and most universities, people in the eye. tend to be a little after centre itself selection. Those in engineering tend to be pretty much in the middle, and those at business. Schools tend to be right of centre. And so I think we need to be careful not to to generalise. You know at the university of Texas as much influence from the business school and the athletic department as there is from the humanities, so it's not a left, leaning campus and that's also true at at yale. You of this. full of management and you have a huge medical school where people are very professional

and less political on a lot of these issues, so so they would, be. I think there certain pockets of things, but some of them We're never going to avoid right. Engineers are always going to be the people who, now, what about you? I'm sure you have a who who who want to generally find some object. Measure and avoid political interpretation right. They want to find every objective measure of the press of a most people like robotics, don't seem to they're afraid of humans. They run away from precisely resides and and they arts people are always going to be more touchy. Feely in the business people are always going to like markets. I mean at my own pace, In my opinion, this is just me talking any is of its grounded in data, but we just my own experiences. It seems a lot of things that people who says by universities, costume administrations from the progress the faculty and students are even with biases are really

trusting people and all of their different. I will combine the different perspectives. Add to the conversation. It's the administrator too much. Of course, he needs to stick with institutions. He needs some, but too much it becomes too heavy handed somehow there has been good little bit out of hand at but universes too much too much administration nor what the mechanism as to what to make it more efficient, but the spinoza struggle, maybe the public criticism is the very mechanism that makes universities yet the administration. Small. Absolutely we have, we have those issues and off you can also say: athletics has gotten out of control. Her, like you said you go home, the pike s with your son, Zachary cod. This is democracy. What's been as a million question, can ask well urges the pops the memory what's been, challenging or may be an eye opener conversation you had had our oh, we A lot of reopening conversations are most reach, I is

pursued on the german right eyes. Sure many of your your listeners know there is a group called berger. I think they still exist in germany, there actually led by a former german prince, and they had been planning to assassinated and is counselor and we're organizing all sorts of other efforts, they do not believe that the during the german government is legitimate. They think the last legitimate government was the nazi government. They see the whole post war period is illegitimate since the german, far right to correct and We had on a member of the german bundestag of their parliament, has been involved. than the investigations or in the oversight of the investigations and talk with her about the depth of these issues and the challenges they face, in germany is certainly not a huge part of german society, but it a significant number of people by more than twenty thousand people who are part of this to me, brought home

how much of what we thought was the past is still in the present, and I think that recurring theme in our in our show and I'll show is optimistic words not about what was to the world its acts, about taking issues? We take a topic each week? That's in the news. We go back to understand the history and we then use that history to make better policy to talk about how to make better policy. Today, and in this case, it was clear that even in germany, does a lot of unfinished work in explaining to people and helping those for instance in the former east, where a lot of this group has its support. Why, this government is legitimate, wide operates, the weighted does and addressing their concerns. It was strikingly similar some of the problems we have in our own now decided, It's a far right movement in germany, so you look at all the different parts of the world as well as the united states. We do we we. We did an episode recently on china, on the effects of zero covert and the protests in China we've done. A number Results on the war in ukraine are our role.

each week is to have on either a policymaker, a scholar and activist who can help us. Understand an issue and get beyond partisanship. So what's up opening of some of the details, but which also been eye. Opening honestly, is how easy it is to have a non partisan conversation. It's not hard we open every episode with a poem that Zachary rights, he writes an original polymer brag on my son, he's the youth, poet, laureate and austin right now, and he writes a poem on each topic. Was the cell poetry, asia? You know argosy, no is usually bees are often ironic, ironic, but with a bitter humor, yes, and he likes workplace so he's not like a rebellious dark teenager this just now he's a creative, no one strong words you're, probably disagree but what's interesting, is like you're, the know it all and I try to. We do have a lot of followers and most of them come in on him. They don't come in at me, so I'm the I'm the junior partner,

you're the yoke of the partners around, but what I will say and this is a really optimistic thing that I deeply believe. If you frame things properly, we open with a poem you open with questions, not with part and positions. Even when we have someone on whose unknown republican or democrat weakened a very nonpartisan conversation will mean. Of course we get criticisms, but we're almost never criticized for being a partisan one way or the other. It's not hard to do this. You just have to make an effort to avoid the the partisan claptrap that we can all fall into folks and humanity. What is your brilliant popular son, Zachary about life always taught me so much in his eighteen years, as has daughters. Twenty two things stand up, he's taught dad new generation has so much to offer and I don't know I mean because he's smart and engaged as our daughter is too. I also mean that he, you realize, when you have a child, that even

you're doing the same things with them. They see the world differently and legitimately, and it reminds us that the world can seen legitimately in different ways, and it's not He and I disagree on major political issues. It's actually the small stuff that he sees differently like in the detail. you see that you can have very different perspectives. Luckily, you are very well different way to draw to create a painting of, Ain't seen. And then the other day he taught me is, as I said, about that, the poetry, the importance of the arts. I've always been of a lover of the arts, but it did. he's been in summer, parallel to my historical scholarship. Will you do a better job of integrating, as as does the greeks to write The artistry all the things we do. We separate them is disciplines, but they're all deeply connected, as we like about your podcast honestly, is that you integrated These things will have people on where they I you'll have a guy doing arm wrestling. You have all these things to get it right, and it's it's that these old come together.

And there's a lot to gain by bringing the arts and sciences and others to get it. you seem to say, but we forget yeah and somehow because bit bigger than the individual parts and what gives you hope about the future? He looked at it special with this book at just such a divisive part of our history and the claim. The idea that you carry through the book that that vision still permeates our society. So what gives you hope? I try to end the book on a very hopeful, not because I am hopeful. I am hopeful that these divisions were made by people and can be unmade by people. I do not Leave that what I describe in this book, the division The the hate that we see today is well, I dont think its inevitable. I think can be actually corrected quite easily and did easily by addressing that challenges and our institutions. The ways in which this history has been embodied in our institutions. Even there were different.

And through our own, recognising of the gift of the ass for years. I don't care whether a democratic republic in the gift of the last four years is that we ve been able to see the horror around us and once you see the horror you can do something about it. What's dangerous, is when the horror is there and you don't see it is hidden. It's been unmasked, I don't care where you stand I spoke about twenty five thirty cities about this book. Every audience I've asked how many You have been shaken by the last forty five years and everyone everywhere as raised their here. That's a gift. That's consciousness, raising I grew up in a time in the nineteen eighties, were concerned, everyone's apathetic. That was what was being said. We are lower vote voter turnout than we have now. People didn't seem to care My students, when I was a young, prefer I'm still young farmers very professor, in the early two thousands, my students or wanted to work for banks. They want to make money. best students wanted to go for government were not,

will anymore, there's been a consciousness raising knowing as a problem naming the problem gives us a chance to fix the problem. and I think that we are as a society now a young people are excited the chair to decide about. Do you think the individual like if a young person's, I think to this, do you think the individual has power in this? Absolutely I it need a huge amount of power. Now There's a demographic reason. We ve got all these old Hello held onto long look at president look Sullivan can anyone any institution and they're all were reaching a demographic cliff. Unlike China, we have a large population, that's coming up, so that it does who were watching our in their twenties. There get to move into leadership positions much faster than their parents did let's go just so that's one and in the second thing is just what we're doing here.

I mean social media when used properly gives a platform to young people. You know they don't have to go through the new york times like. I did right at this. Why do the pie castle by some? find other ways you reach millions of people and and that this can be done. You don't need to wait for the old guys to give you the check mark that it's ok just put on a sou, get a haircut speaking as a microphone and do also, I may have a very neat place. That's why I love you all right, Jamie you're, an incredible human being. Thank you for talking once more time. Thank you for writing this important book. I hope you keep writing and I hope to keep talking to you. here the shining beacon of political hope. I

you're not than they would get they will get to enjoy. I want to thank you for having me on and thank you for your show. I think what you're doing it is so important, and so I really am deeply respect what you do they for listening to this conversational german. Sorry to support this bar guest. Please check on our sponsors in the discussion and now let me leave you It was some words from Abraham lincoln. Nearly all men can stand adversity if you want to test a man's character. Give him power thanks for listening and hope to see you next time