on of the most beautiful spots in america and anyone who wants to see the real america should stop by and visit this great shrine to american liberty. a friend of mine asked me the other day who decides the names of the founding fathers, and i decided i should. [laughter] but because many historians limit the names of the founding fathers to the signers of the declaration of independence and the constitution but by limiting those names to those signatories, they eliminate patrick henry, and that's why i
feel i should decide the names of the founding fathers because unlike some historians, at patrick henry at the top of the list of the founding fathers. i believe he is the most important of the founding fathers after george washington along side of or ahead of thomas jefferson, james madison and even ben franklin. without patrick henry, i don't believe there would have been a revolutionary war or united states of america. i believe we would have devolved into a country like canada. thomas jefferson himself, and he was no friend of henry, thomas jefferson himself insisted if patrick henry gave the first in polls to the ball of the american revolution and those are jefferson's words, if we wish to be free we must fight.
patrick henry was the first american leader who dared to utter those words. they were treasonous, enough to be drawn and quartered by the british. is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of change and slavery for almighty god i know not what course others may take, but as for me, everybody, give me liberty or give me death. most americans know the seven last words of that speech. but few know of patrick henry meant by those words and even fewer know anything else about the man himself. he was the greatest of our founding fathers after george washington. patrick henry sounded the first call to the revolution and independence from britain. he was first to protest british
government taxation without representation and first to demand religious freedom. he was the first governor of virginia which declared independence from britain before the united states, and what americans today don't realize is if at the time of the american revolution virginia was america's most important state. its largest, its richest and most heavily populated state. it was huge. its borders chest from chesapeake bay to the mississippi river valley beyond the agreed cliques, and it's governor was north america's most powerful most important civilian leader in the years before the constitution and the creation of a federal government. the equivalent today of the governors of california, texas, pennsylvania, new york and massachusetts put together he was the most powerful civilian leader. as virginia's governor henry
sought his state provided washington and his continental army with more financial military aid than any other state. he helped washington win the war it was henry who discovered the scandal behind the food charter of felly ford and some supply to end the crisis. was henry who uncovered and helped thwart an attempt a group of ambitious officers to overthrow the commander in chief and effect a reconciliation with britain, and it was henry who sent troops into the west to seize the illinois territory from the british along with kentucky, ohio and indiana. that was not the continental army, that was henry's force and henry hu said the virginia volition and into north carolina and help to drive the british out of the carolina. although he never fired a within himself to henry was one of the great heroes of the american
revolution along with washington, lafayette, nathaniel greene and henry box, and yet as i said some historians all but ignored the greatest of american heroes, the greatest patriots which is why i wrote a line of liberty to restore patrick henry to his rightful place as one of the greatest of our founding fathers. in some ways henry was actually a more notable from the father the and even washington. washington faltered no children, henry foster to 18 who gave him 77 grade children to college and his friends said he, not washington, was the real father of our country. [laughter] there are probably more than 100,000 henry descendants of the country today. the enough to populate the entire city of gary, indiana.
henry was much more than a founding father. he was america's greatest oratory and courtroom lawyer. lord byron, in polish poet who could only read his speeches, call him of his age, and john adams who did hear henry speak agreed. in the courtroom he sliced opponent arguments to shred using every rhetorical device he could find or invent, huber, fear, on clear days he would embrace the sunshine and lift parts. he would point to the clouds and provoke tears and on the stormy days esol destruction shy and every thundercloud and a bolt of lightning and caulkett the wrath of god.
one opposing lawyer said whenever he rose to speak, although it might be so trifling this object as a some and i was obliged to leave them like him i could not write another word until the speech was finished. in addition to oratory, henry was a master of the law and legal tactics and he come by that mastery with a great sense of humor. in one case a young couple came to henry before yielding. he was only 18 which was under the age of consent at that time. henry told her to take her father's horse to the marriage and have her groomed to be behind her on the horse shoe. the county prosecutor wouldn't let this go by the end henry put the girl on the stand and asked
to your young man kidnapped you? she replied truthfully no, sir, i kidnapped him. [laughter] when the laughter in did the judge threw the case out of court. like many of our founding fathers henry was a farmer. in his case, he grew up in piedmont hills of virginia. his father was a successful well-educated planter and justice of the peace but young patrick had but one of his relatives called an aversion to study that seemed invincible. he harbored a mortal sin to be to books supplemented by passionate regard for fishing rods and shotguns. he was disorderly and gave no hint of possessing a gift that could raise it above mediocrity or even up to it.
another more sympathetic round called henry nothing more in a normal country boy remarkably fond of innocent fun without a hint of the ill nature or malevolence like most mountain boys he left to hunt, fish and play the fiddle to read some time between childhood and manhood, henry lost to books and his aversion to study all the other word of city schools in the country his father and mother taught patrick and his brother to read, write and calculate and his father as i said, a well educated scotsman taught the boy is latin, greek, french, mathematics, history and science. his mother taught fine literature and turned him into an avid lifelong reader. obviously brilliant and probably a genius henry was the odyssey in greek by the time he was 15
and mastered latin so well he could converse with educated europeans many of them couldn't speak english but they all knew they were let him. but he held on to his mountain ways as a terrorist birthright. he took his muskett, went hunting all through his life played his fiddle for fun and relaxation with friends and family throughout his life. a deeply religious man he never drank accept an occasional small br which is what they called alcohol beer. although someone told me low alcohol beer was 5% alcohol any way. henry study the call on his own and in case after case he fooled opponents into underestimating his genius by wearing a humble home made farmers close and speaking in his own natural
mountain twang. some judges and opposing lawyers especially city lawyers, dismissed him as a local, but the jurors invariably embraced him as one of their own. inevitably found for his clients. and they call the person's cause but he defended local tobacco farmers who couldn't pay taxes to a bowl cam church after a serious drought wiped out their crops everybody had to pay taxes to the anglican church was the established state religion and it didn't matter whether you were anglican or not. he accused the church and its clergy of at cutting its responsibilities to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. do they manifested their benevolence and holies deal in the cause of religion and humanity? no, gentlemen, these would
snatch the last slice of bread from the heart of their parishioners, the last drop of milk from the widow and her often the last bed with the last blanket. he left the jurors in tears and injury. although the judge instructed them to find the father's guilty of tax evasion, the award of the church only 1 penny. the exploded and lifted henry on to the soldiers, carry them out into the square for a march to his father-in-law tavern against the way where he did what he loved most, he picked up his fiddle and led the crowd in country music and dance. his triumph over the church of england won him national and international fame and elections to the state legislature, and that is where and when she began
his lifelong fight against taxation without representation and against big government. although he was a lawyer, henry was also a farmer and like most farmers he believed what to the earth congealed it was a gift from god, a reward for his own sweat and toil and he owned not agree that seed or believe crass to the government for its tax collectors. virginia farmers believe the same thing and rallied around him when virginia became independent they elected him the state's first governor. he went on to serve five terms. during his first three terms he provided george washington and the continental army with the aid, military aid needed to win the war. after the war he surprised his enemies and friends alike by
proposing to resume trade with britain and allow the tory exiles to return to their own virginia homes. his opponents were furious, saying that if they came back they would overturn the american government, and we laughed at them. the quarrel is over. peace has returned and found as a free people, let us have the magnanimity to lay aside our antipathies and prejudice. the british are an enterprising money to people. they will buy the surplus produce of our land and supplies as necessary to feed our infant and actors. afraid of them? we who lay the british lion at our feet not be afraid of his wealth? by the legislature voted in favor of both henri's proposals
and the resumption of trade with britain which other states refuse to do, the resumption of trade with britain here in virginia and virginia's economy to the rebels never before seen in the americas. shrek independence from britain left america's colonies and a loose knit confederation of 13 sovereign states, independent nations, each of them free to govern itself as its own fate but ready to unite with its neighbors against a common enemy. the confederation congress was a debating society where representatives of the various states came to discuss mutual problems but it had no power, it was impotent, no power to raise an army, no tax if it raised one. even worse, congress was bankrupt with no way of paying its outstanding wartime debts.
some of those loans or loans from foreign countries like france and a lot of it was back pay owed to the continental army soldiers and officers, and george washington demanded that the states get congress taxing powers to raise the money to pay the troops what it owed them. the states refused. after rebelling for more than 20 years against taxation by london's parliament, the states were not about to grant the power to an american congress and patrick henry led the opposition. as jefferson explained it, patrick henry opposed everything which may give influence to congress and infringe on individual liberties and that put him in opposition to any permanent national government tax. shy but what henry called liberty, washington called anarchy.
across the nation revolutionary war i veterans writing for back pay in some states were ready to go to war with conflicting territorial claims fish. washington believed only a strong government with a strong federal head off fish float would restore financial, political and social ties, and that put him and his good friend, patrick henry push in direct conference. in 1786, three years after britain had recognized our independence and economic depression come by and with a devastating drought to send revenues plunging and tax delinquencies sorry nitze farmers took up arms to stop the sheriffs from seizing their properties for nonpayment of state property taxes. they burned down courthouses, march on state capitals to demand an end to property-tax is, some familiar? into all property-tax is a
seizures of their properties. shall the confederation was disintegrated and many leaders joined washington in calling for a strong draft national government to control the disorder. the confederation congress agreed and called a national convention to strengthen the congressional authority. that is all they were supposed to do. although washington and other leaders pleaded of patrick henry to attend, he refused. he was not going to do anything to build a federal government. and in his absence, the constitutional convention under washington's leadership staged what amounted to accommodate all goods to the strengthening the confederation, they resolved it, and the new constitution that united the states under the new government that had most of the powers of the british government americans have fought for seven years to overthrow patrick henry
was outraged. what right had the to say we the people, who authorized them? who gave them no power to use their name, but they exceeded their power perfectly clear the federal convention of to have amended the old system for this purpose they would solely delegate the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. as this government stands on a fifth for speed as one of poor individual that speaks the language of thousands. 23 years ago i was opposed a traitor to my country because i supported the rights of the country and i say now ever privileges and rights are in
danger. the new constitution needed approval of mine of the 13 former colonies to take effect but even if 12 of them approved it the government and the nation's probably would have been impotent without virginia, the richest and most powerful of the colonies. when virginias ratification convention assembled, patrick henry led the opposition. the galleries were packed with farmers and hunters and trappers a lot of them from kentucky and the west. they were henry's people. they adored him and he adored them. here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from great britain. the sovereignty of the states shall be relinquished cash. the detentions to human rights and privileges are rendered in secure if not lost for stock. it is in this ruling quotient of rights worthy of freedom?
know they shouted from the galleries and the bang their muskets on the floor. henry demanded that any new constitution contain a bill of rights to guarantee individual liberties and amendments to limit government powers, federal government power. he demanded that congress obtained the approval of two-thirds of the state legislature before enacting any tax, any federal tax. he was as angry as he had never been during the revolutionary war left. the constitution is said to have beautiful features, but when on reexamining these features, they appear to be fruitful. where are your checks in this government? there are no checks, no real balances. they are based on the supposition that your american
governors shall be honest. show me that age in the country fourth rights and liberties of the people were based on the edges of their rulers being honest man and i will show you a country that lost its liberty. if your american sheaf be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy it is for him to render himself absolute. the army is in his hands. a great objection to this government is it does not leave us the means of defending our rights were waging a war against homegrown tyrants. henry lost his battle against ratification when james madison made a deal with moderate antifederalists in exchange for their voting for ratification he promised to push for the passage of a bill of rights in the first congress and he did.
in to try to bridge the great divide between the federalists and antifederalists president george washington offered patrick henry histories as a member of posts in the new government, secretary of state, the appointment as u.s. senator, ambassadorships, even chief justice of the supreme court. henry refused them all. not because he was disloyal to either washington or the nation, and he revered washington and left his country but few men in those days could afford to go in to federal public service so far from home. congressman heard less than $10 a day and had to pay their expenses and he was a farmer and part-time lawyer who need every penny he learned to support his gigantic family. as i said before, he fathered 18 children before he died, and these were not accidental births. henry loved his first wife who
died after bearing six of his children and he adored his second wife who bore the rest of his children, and he absolutely and totally with all his heart and soul aboard every one of his children. he couldn't get enough of them. he loved playing with them, telling them stories, they say and danced and jumped about in circles. he taught his boys to ride, fish and hunt. he took them riding on his horse with one boy sitting behind him and another in front of him. if friends walked into his house many times and found them in the words of one lawyer on the floor with a group of little ones climbing over him in every direction or dancing around him to the tune of his violin. the only contest seemed to be who could make the most noise, the children or the father into.
henry was wonderful with children, he was a wonderful man, a kind of man who didn't drink, curse, went to church regularly, believed deeply in god and righteousness, in the goodness of man and in justice, and justice is what patrick henry sought to achieve true of his life, justice for himself, his family, his neighbors, his state, his nation, justice for all. which brings me to the question of slavery, the question that many americans and most europeans completely misunderstand. even if many historians insist on calling slavery an american institution. slavery was not an american institution. it was spanish, french and english and we inherited from them. in the early 1700's before the founding fathers were born, 50
years before george washington was born in the early 1700's virginians voted to ban slavery. but the british government overruled them because the treasury was dependent on revenue from the british slave traders. at the time there were only 25,000 sleeves of virginia. all of them had been shipped to the sugar islands of the caribbean to grow sugarcane. then add that i might have prevented most of all of this leaves here to sail home to africa and avoid the growth of slavery in america. in the next half century, he va mehdi appeals to end sleeve importations brought nothing but rejections by the three successive king george's by 1770, more africans crossed the
of cleantech than europeans calf cash flow for albeit voluntarily and they grew almost eightfold to nearly 200,000. the slavery issue that our founding fathers inherited had grown in soluble. as henry himself lamented to re-export them now was impracticable. ironically, the increase in the slave population proved more of a burden to tobacco's planters. sleeves' couldn't speak english when they arrived. they were delivered. most of them were not skilled. slaves have fewer incentives to work than peace workers of north. and as the father and children or aged, they added the enormous numbers of pfft nonproductive
infants and elderly to the population. the planners still had to support. almost one-third of george washington's nearly 300 slaves in mt. vernon or nonproductive but washington still had to howls, quote and feed them. there is not a man living, washington said. these are his words. there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely banaa to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery in this country. it is an evil that requires a remedy. like washington and henry most virginia tobacco planters favored ending slavery but had no practical way to do so. straightforward abolition would have been as cruel, purchase perpetuation to set loose nearly 200,000 mostly unskilled, aliterate, semiliterate people. one third of them children than
the equal number of crippled and elderly men and women. where would they go? what would they do? helene d. each? house themselves? we get urbanized had relatively few slaves and offered him a ray of apprentice ships and craft shops and manufacturers and villages, towns and cities to a range of skills to the freed slaves. the south was a land of plantations. one after another they've rolled out of one plantation and led to the beginning of the next. there were no towns and villages. the only available work was for the field hands. although he owned as many as 75 slaves at one time patrick henry was one of virginia's most outspoken opponents of slavery. he never bought or sold a slave and the ones he owned or the
slaves of the other funding fathers they were attached to the farms they brought. fez governor patrick henry sought today and slavery, legislation to ban it. the legislation refused. the conflict of his moral opposition to slavery and ownership of slate store of his heart and soul throughout his life. he was a very close friend of the quakers. he fought for their religious freedom as he did for the baptists, and he became a very good friend of the leader, and he wrote to this very sad letter would anyone believe i am the master of slaves? i will not and cannot justify, is it not amazing in a country above all others fond of liberty
and such and age and such a country we find then the professing a religion the most donald meek and generous adopting in principle as repugnant to to devotee as it is inconsistent with the bible and constructive to liberty. i believe the time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this evil. if we cannot produce this wish for a reformation little street the unhappy victims with pity for there on the happiness. it is the furthest advance that we can meet port justice. as i said earlier, had three believe it deeply into the justice and that is why he opposed big national government so vehemently. what he called for liberty or death he was calling for liberty from all government oppression american as well as british.
he believed the big government by its very nature was on just because of its distance from the people whose lives it touched. he believed only those who lived, worked and own the property should determine the needs of the people in their community and the taxes they should pay which is why he opposed the ratification of the constitution. he predicted the failure to protect individual rights and states' rights and its failure to limit federal government powers to tax and which war would restore the very to ready the had provoked the revolution against britain. unfortunately his struggle for states' rights sowed the seeds of secession individually the civil war which in turn on erotically provoked the growth of the large federal government
that he so despised. although the first congress shielded to some of his conveyed this for the protection of some individual liberties it rejected his demand to impose strict limits of federal power and to safeguard state sovereignty. within months of taking office that congress enacted a national tax without the consent of the state legislatures as the parliament had done the in the 65 stamp act than the 7094 presidents washington fulfilled the prophecy of the presidential tier ready by sending troops into pennsylvania to suppress protest against federal taxation just as king george and his prime minister had done in boston in 74. mitty called henry a profit at the time.
since then, a succession of presidents have led the united states into a declared war back without the consent of congress as henry predicted and congress has attracted hundreds of laws and imposed dozens of taxes that have extended government intrusion into every area of american lives and homes again has had ray predicted even george washington and alexander hamilton would be appalled at the extent to which government has intruded in the lives of americans today. for better or worse, the government today is in bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, garages, toolsheds, workplaces, cars, but the trains, planes, foods we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, in our liepzig streams, the mountains and the
sky if the ground beef us. the head of government, too often the head of corrupt officials reach into our pockets shy for more tax dollars during the war lifetimes and even after our death. for more of an two centuries ago patrick henry warned americans against every one of the government intrusions. if i am asked what is to be when people feel themselves attest, not the answer is overturn the government. in a constitutional way. as we saw in the ressa election, a lot of americans still agree with patrick henry. patrick henry died here at his home that red hill at the age of
63 gindin 1799. but the roar of the lobby of liberty still echoes across our land if we wish to be free we must haunt and vote triet thank you very much. [applause] thank you. [applause] >> i think he will take questions now. is it necessary for the microphone to come before the audience? >> i will answer as many questions as i know. >> in virginia against slaves, but then especially and syria
people began tracking and breeding slaves to sell to the market's and the south. >> that began to happen after the transition of the economy from the tobacco economy. the economy opened with all sorts of abuses to slaves because it couldn't take any skills to plant and harvest cotton. >> my question has to do with the home where the owner was a friend of henry e. and yet very much involved in this trade and an equal slaveholder. how can he be so marveled and
they hit the road of the navigation and the slaves in the stand river [inaudible] to be this kind of a conflict speak at all his life he would say what would he do about them. would they do? or would they go? how would the e to? here they had jobs, they were fed well, quote, host, i don't know if you've visited out here, all of their needs were fulfilled, they had these off each week, and at most plantations they became family retainers. at the washington home in mount
vernon, washington trained almost all this male slaves in various crafts such as roofing, farming and by the time he died and free all his slaves and his will, by the time he died, four of the five forms had slaves as overseers. he trained a lot of girls, seamstresses to do all things women did as households in war. any other questions? uncertain? >> about the ratification, house trend was the relationship between washington and henry? the enclosed france before. how did that strain?
>> in did their closeness. they never lost respect for each other. this was to in which itt intelligent people on both sides of the debate realized there was a lot of right and wrong on both arguments. even patrick henry agreed that the articles of confederation and the old confederation congress needed strengthening. there had to be a way to pay back the debt, but what he wanted to see done is with the confederation congress had asked the constitutional convention to do to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the union committee and the proposal henry supported was to give congress limited power by
time and renewable to impose 5% duty on imports which would affect anybody who bought in parts and that tended to be the rich rather than the poor, and give that for five years so they would have some source of money to pay their debt number one and number two if they needed to accumulate cash if they needed to do so to raise an army in the event of an attack by fred evgeniy said he was for that and for giving the congress the right to regulate international trade and trade between the colonies and the states and members of the independent states and the reason for that country was deteriorating cost under the confederation because foreign powers, france, nations that were friends of ours had been negotiating with each of these independent states and they got tired and it didn't
work out because even if they had a trade agreement with new jersey, the goods had to go through new york or philadelphia in the new york state of pennsylvania were on it and affect the economy of new jersey. so he was in favor of those with the was eight. he saw no reason for the government to intrude on the state sovereignty shrek. >> they had the state conventions to decide to have the constitutional convention and i think in virginia the past narrow margin 83 votes or something and some of the other states it was very close. i wonder once they got to the constitutional convention how close was the vote? >> the constitution votes came first and that was to approve
the language of the constitution and that was pretty overwhelming in favor but it was not by unanimous consent as it says in the document, that was a more this clever language. george mason and, george mason of virginia and of massachusetts and edmund randolph who was then governor of virginia refused to sign it and mason said he would rather have his hand cut off than to sign the document, so there was a good deal of confiscation of the constitution. then the problem was the election of the members of the state ratification conventions and first of all, only white male clinton voters could serve in office or vote once with that
limited the vote and in that case pennsylvania, none of the small farmers had any representation at the constitutional convention, these were all the wealthy bankers from philadelphia and patrick henry pointed that out the people in pennsylvania were robbed. they had no say at the constitutional convention and in the final ratification process. they had no say in that process. down here in virginia fortunately the farmers did have some representation, they had already fought for that in the early days of the legislature. but patrick madison made a deal with the moderate and the federalists to switch sides of the last minute. he promised he would push for a bill of rights if he won in the first congress and he did and
there were something like 70 or 80 proposals for guarantees of individual rights and he brought it down to 12th, ten of which were approved by the states but the tenth amendment, which supposedly was a shock to the states to the protection of states' rights did not protect state sovereignty, and within a few years john marshall and the supreme court stripped the states of what sovereignty they had left and eventually the civil war did the rest of it. >> how far along was the process before this all the pool of jefferson? was and he kind of in the opposition early on and then eventually yeah, he tried to straddle the fence, and he wrote a famous letter, he was then
ambassador to france, and he wrote a letter i think it was to washington but i forgot that he wrote a famous letter saying if he were in america he would approve -- he would encourage nine of the states to improve the constitution and four of them to refuse until passage of the bill of rights. so he was neither for or against >> for more on the author harlow unger and his work, visit harlowgilesungr.com. here is a portion of one of our programs. >> the reason i felt it was important to do a book and say because that is what it is, of
the obama administration is because i think it's extremely important for progressive people not to create too many illusions about what's around because they don't help, and to see in quite a hard-headed way what the new administration is, what it represents in terms of foreign policy and its continue to the and what it represents at home and it's important to do that to understand to what extent it is different and what extent it is continuing the policy of the previous three administrations, not just bush and cheney that clinton and bush, senior. and from that point of view, the balance sheet i have prepared,
the obama syndrome more abroad and surrendered at home is not a very optimistic account or pleasing account of this administration. now it's not a pleasant talk to write books like this because, you know, when you see what is going on and read a lot of material which has been published on domestic policies, and even on foreign policies it is striking how conservative the administration has been. i know the restraints and constraints. i know that we live in a liberal period that despite the crash of 2008, the system and its political leaders have not attempted any serious structural reform which was, you know, necessary after that crash, and so the crash hasn't gone away,
simply been blasted over, and it is the link to worry people and is certainly were young and progressive economist. many of them are not that radical who say that it's not going to work. so here was an opportunity for a new lease elected president who was not responsible and couldn't be held responsible for this particular economic crash, who had, unlike previous presidents, mobilized hundreds of thousands of young people in this country, brought them out into the streets to help him get elected and had created the illusion that they would do something. i mean, yes we can is not a very concrete slogan, but it offers some hope or at least creates the impression of offering who
so young people were happy, mobilized and they thought some change would take place abroad and at home. the balance sheet is what? that's first discuss briefly the continue tea in foreign policy. now, the continuity in foreign policy was symbolized by keeping the bill gates on what the pentagon and accepting the view that petraeus's surgeon harakat salt problem. bye sticking to bush's plan on the so-called withdraw from iraq without bringing about any change at all, buy pushing the plans through which are essentially very simple, with drilling combat units from the main cities of iraq, building
huge military bases in that country and keeping it and 50 to 70,000 troops there permanently. that is with the withdrawal is and it is not new. the british tried in the twenties and thirties exactly the same plan and it in uploaded when there was a revolution in iraq and 58, and they had to -- the through the british out, and it is very likely in some shape and form, not in the shape and form of the 50's but a similar thing will happen if these troops stayed there. on iran, once again, this administration has carried on the policies essentially in the case of iran the appeasing the israelis. could the big pressure for not doing anything with iran both on the nuclear question and a generally on other issues comes from the israelis who are
prepared to do anything to prevent their own nuclear monopoly. that is what that particular issue is about, and that failure of this administration to break with those policies of the previous administration is not all that surprising because i remember as i point out in the book i was in the midwest teaching for four weeks and i saw this young fresh face running for the senate called barack obama, and i was at the house of friends and they said he's the great hope of the democrats and i said let's watch him because i'm always interested in great hopes. [laughter] and the great hope -- president bush said it might be necessary to bomb iran and take out their nuclear installations or whatever they are doing and what
would be your position on that? i support the president totally. so that was my first sighting of him and i felt instinctively that this was a guy who was the and to try to please and he is weak and many ways and is not going to push through some tiny shift in domestic or global policies. >> to watch this program in its entirety, though to booktv.org. simply type the name of the author or the title of the left corner of the screen and click search. >> here is a portion of one of our programs. >> in addition to a
questionnaire that covered a wide variety of background items, the yaf members were asked to imagine the nation's history from 1966 to the end of the century, in other words the year 2000. so they were looking ahead for 34 years beyond imagining what it received or what they were viewing as what would happen to our country for the remainder of the century. the graduate student who was doing this study, richard primghar, was surprised by what he believed the yaf members of the continued drift to the welfare state and socialism and moral decay would be reversed in the near future by in a weakening of the american people resulting in moving the chain of events back to common sense.
he also surveyed members of students for a space society which was the leading left or leftist organization on campuses of the 60's, and the young democrats and the college republicans. and he reported on his results in an article that he wrote and was published in an academic journal. it's interesting to view some of the projections of these yaf members in 1966. one member predicted a redirection of american society towards freedom and conservative principles. remember again he's writing in 1966 and here is what he said. the united states, led by had a critical and unprincipled leaders becomes very bureaucratic and increasingly socialistic. the united states generally
loses the battles in foreign affairs because it does not present its philosophy of free enterprise, libertarian beliefs, etc., as well as it should. sounds almost familiar to the current day, doesn't it? finally, as he predicted, in the 1960's -- 60 succumbing in the 1980's or there about flood the american people realize economic security is not necessarily freedom. they realize their freedoms are being abridged. they realize the economy is becoming regimented and the government too bureaucratic. the people will change the trend of events back to common sense conservative principles of government. remember his prediction was 19 eda and if you recall from history, 1980 as it turned out, was indeed the year in which the
american people voted for a conservative president, ronald reagan, who did indeed -- [applause] who did indeed change the trend of defense back to common sense conservative principles of government. he cited another yaf member is predicting the following event in the near future from 1966 to the year 2000. his predictions were as follows. 1968 republican victory. 1972, ronald reagan elected president, 1976, reed and recollected. 1978, the fall of soviet russia. 1980, fall of red china. 1985, end of welfare, social security and medicare. 2000, and of union. now as he and his co-author noted compared with their counterparts on the left, yaf
members seemed to have a mountain of a naive faith. let's look back nearly 45 years later and we can see that this might eat faith seems to have been rather accurate in its prediction of the future events. a change a few of the dates, modifying a few of the conclusions and these yaf members who were then on the high school and college students have laid out the political history of the last third of the 20th century. consider nixon's victory in 1968 brought both a realignment of american politics as well as admittedly the disgrace of watergate, impeachment and resignation. ronald reagan's victory came eight years after the yaf member predicted what was indeed followed by a landslide
reelection. it took nine more years for the berlin wall to fall, a closely followed by the demise of the soviet union. then in his 1993 state of the union message, a new democratic president promised to, quote, end welfare as we know it, and the reform of all our welfare system or an active leader when the republicans gained a majority in congress and 1994. ..