tv Book TV CSPAN January 30, 2011 1:00am-2:00am EST
piece that was invaded by war so that you can't even have a war department anymore know it is a difference to part with the midst of the war budget it's a defense budget, i think that he was surprised and upset. >> and honest. >> and amazingly honest. i did he was under the illusion that presidents make these decisions. to the extent to which it's really hard to know what is going on with obama. it's hard for me to know what's going on, hard for anybody - to know what is going on with obama. and in a sense there's a parallel leedy, that is to say i have no -- i have no reason to believe that obama has ever thought about structure, about
in essence for this you asked the question, what else should he have done or who else was there, he could have given, he could have brought i suppose he could have appointed paul krugman to a higher position or something. but in fact, people who were not in that relatively small group of experts will disqualify them from being experts. in a hierarchical system like that, you have a severe marginalization of people with alternative views, alternative visions. how to structure an economy. who even asked that question? you can go to any economics department in the universe. i think including the one around the corner here and not hear that russian asked very often. with alternative ways are there to structure an economy rather
than the one we have got right now. the people who have been asking and answering those questions than i could give you a list of names of them. i know who some of them are but they are considered nuts or visionaries or impractical or too green or two left or to local or to this or to that. so you have this now strange situation and i think it is the definition of a the system in serious trouble. people would certainly define it as a symptom, a systemic crisis. when the only people you have available to fix something that has gone wrong or the same people that made it go wrong. so it suggests, a need for broadening of, for discussion that includes many more voices than the voices we have been listening to up to now. on the economy and on foreign-policy and i would say across the board, on poverty in
america. 15 million people unemployed in this country. half of them, for more than 20 weeks. lycée oh well. if we have the 60% opposition to war, and strong antiwar groups at all times, and the buildup in the trust and elsewhere to discussing whether to go to war, i mean usa conflict resolution advocates, i think your essential point is we go to war too to sin and i wonder if we don't have a structural flaw in art democratic system that as a democracy 60% opposed to war, we keep going there
the president gets committed to it and moves in and on a temporary basis and then everybody either has to be disloyal to our troops who would then send them, or has to start phoning it. it seems as if the president now has too much power. >> i think that is very well put that is the question of too much power or countervailing power, but --. >> you.get started until it is too late to back out. i think that is absolutely right i agree with everything you said. i would just add that we are seeing some change now in congress. in the last attempt, in the last bill to fund the afghan war, 53 congressman voted against. congresspeople. that is not 400, but it is double, it is double the amount
the opposition the time before that. there is some growth i think at this -- what is exciting about that is that more people are willing to take a stand. more people are willing to say okay, call me on the -- unpatriotic. what i am doing is not unpatriotic. nevertheless i think what you said is quite right. >> mechanically the president can launch the invasion and then it is up to everybody else to force them to come back. and i think what i was saying before about the economic issues, i think then it becomes more relevant. one reason that i think, one reason it holds us back, one reason that it seems too late is that people have gotten jobs from it. people of gotten contracts from it. people of gotten jobs from it. i have seen with my own students
conflict resolution -- we have the largest graduate probe ram in the country and conflict resolution, about 340 masters and doctoral students. and the question is what do they do when they get out? some of them go as you might imagine, some work for the government and some of them work for foreign governments and some of them worked for the u.n. and many of them work for ngo's. many of them work for relief organizations or do development work. but more and more, it is the government that is offering them the jobs. because this goes back to what you said about the army that fights that our people are trained to fight and that is what they do, they fight. more and more the army's mission is getting more complicated than that. and because they are an occupation force that is expected to function in many ways as a development
organization winning the hearts and minds minds and so forth means building schools and the bridges and making peace between tribal leaders and all the rest of that. the petraeus approach to conflict means soldiers have got to be trained in conflict resolution. right now does not conflict resolution when you are a party to a complex. it is something else. you are using the techniques of conflict resolution in order to promote your side in the conflict. but, they are offering jobs to my students. and contracts for my colleagues. so without dealing with the economic clout that assembled here, i am not sure that we are going to be able to mt. the kinds of protests or develop the kinds of resistance that i'm hoping we can develop or goes if this is what you call the hairtrigger.
yeah. >> so, britain is projecting they will have 250,000 jobs in the green sector by 2030 or 2050. you know they are offering an alternative and so locally we are working here you know, working with veterans apiece and then i kind of went off on my own working the 25% solution, rand paul and barney frank. but it is so hard to get the populace to connect the dots. you know, you have got to cut out this militarism in order to give you domestic a chance. >> yeah, it is true. it is true. as a look at history one of the things i have seen myself as a parallel to what you talked about in terms of the moral nature of war, which is the racial invasion of war, and as i look back at different wars that you talk about in your book
there is almost always a racial element whether weather does japan in world war ii, the seminal war, various wars and there is also the element of the wars that go back from king philip's war 200 years later to the closing of the frontier. and the example i always tell people is is present mckinley at the beginning of the philippine war saying we have to go to the philippines to christianize her little brown brothers who had been christianize for a couple hundred years. so i failed and just to ask, could you reflect on the nature of that racial ossetian of four and these dialogues around rl at the end thinking especially about the indian wars that went on and how those weren't wars against a foreign enemy per se, but they still were something and people justified in that area. >> yeah. certainly an interesting thing about the indian war is all the confusion about what to make of the indians that the europeans experience when they first got here. because you know, for a time
they thought that they were the children of god. they might be the lost tribe, or they might need the noble savage, and it was only when they didn't do what they were told and get off the land that so forth that new englanders decided they were the children of the devil. but in the chapter of the book where you talk about evil enemies, there is a section about basic attributes of the diabolical enemy. and the attributes that talk about our, he is a tyrant, the enemy is a tyrant, and upset about that. he seeks world domination. there is some discussion of that. he is inhumanly cruel. he is deceitful, clever and malicious like a father of lies, you know? so that pearl harbor fits very
well there, the notion of a sneak attack, the idea that you can trust these people and so on so you can never negotiate with people who are tricky and malicious. he is radically unlike us is the last category. he is radically unlike us. i will read this to you quickly. this attribute of the evil enemy is often symbolized or crystallize into difference of skin color and racial features. at of the indian wars to the u.s. wars against filipino insurgents japanese north koreans in arab muslims, america's enemies have been thought of as inferior and nonwhite others. even when physical differences between white americans and their adversaries were nonexistent or minimal, as in the case of the germans in two world wars, let this revels in latin america or arabs and persians and the war on terrorism, khartoum's posters
and visual representations use ethics tara tester for trade but that guys as for the villains. and i've got a couple of illustrations in this book. the fuss book i have had that have illustrations. and so, you can't see this of course aware my holding it up? but this is a poster that says, this this is a world war i poster so this is about germany. germans, german americans the largest ethnic rip in the united states at the time of world war i. german-americans. american seating frankfurters, not thinking much about the frankfurter hamburg when they did it. american university system modeled on the german system. germany, the home of culture etc. and this is before hitler. this is just kaiser bill, who was at the nerve, a blunder. so here is an enlistment poster
for world war i. it says destroy this mad bruce and the mad -- is in eighth with a drooling ape, black, with a german world war i helmet on with a club in one hand that says culture and a white topless woman in his arms. and then if you go when you look at the anti-japanese posters, it is the same poster only you know it is galop instead of black. so when it comes to -- it is a very good illustration of the way the construct race. we construct race from category. you want to dehumanize these people you make them, if you are trying to appeal to white americans to who make the nonwhite. and then, it is not just of
course the racial difference but the associations, the association with brutality the association with for our women, right out of mississippi a few years ago. do we still do it? i don't know. i know my muslim students and friends are afraid that we are still doing it. and if there is an intensification for any reason of the war, the so-called war on terrorism, the so-called war on so-called terrorism, there is great fear that community that what was done to the japanese in world war ii and etc. will be done to them, that they will be put under surveillance and if not subject to programs.
and again if you say well what is the racial difference? if you are going to divide people up according to race, they are caucasian, right? so what? so certainly one of the vicious byproducts of war is this tendency to create internal enemies, and to do what i talk in the book about, i describe in the book as campaigns of national purification. part of the war dynamic with us seems to be set that to begin with, we adopt the kind of communal patriotism. that is to say we start to define america as united communities, us against them and then the question as well who is the us? well, the time of the civil war, when the american family was absolutely torn apart, the answer was grow a family.
and you know the famous, the famous story -- well anyway i won't go into it all but there is literature around the civil war, patriotic literature around the civil war constantly is the metaphor of america has a family what a time to think of america as a family when half the country was trying to leave. her go and where they thought of as errant brother's or sisters or wanted to go have a house of their own in some other city, know they were thought of as a rapists of them mother actually. they were thought of as attacking mother america. then if you look a world war i, and you see that is where we go 100% americanism, and the idea that america's one, we are one big ethnic rupert, but again it is every action formation.
the psychologist call it a reaction formation. because what it happen right before world war i was the greatest increase in ethnic and racial diversity that any country in the world probably had ever seen in such a short period of time. the enormous immigration from eastern europe, southern europe, asia, latin america also but especially the european immigrations. that had people saying, good lord, what what is it to be an american? and that is exactly the point at which war comes than we say we are all american. we are all one ethnic group. and how how do you define that? what does it mean than to be an american? we all, i don't know, maybe believe some of the same things or it is what, you know there's this wonderful book about imagined communities that some of you may know, benedict
anderson's book and benedict anderson says in the modern state, he talks about modern states are imagined communities in the sense that they represent a kind of fantasy of unity, which tries to bring about, tries to realize itself in practice so it is not just a fantasy. it tries to realize itself in practice but especially when it was first announced as a fantasy. then you get world war ii and then you have the fantasy of faith classless society. the country had just gone through something very close to a revolution in the mid-30s, but now world war ii comes and we have the posters. look at the world war ii posters next chance you get. i have a couple of them in the book. happy workers and everyone is working together, no bosses, no workers, we are all the same. we are all americans. we are classless society. the most recent version of this i think, i shudder to say but i
think it is true is that in response to the war on terrorism and its religious orientation, the religious orientation of some of the terrorists, we have samuel huntington's clash of civilization. huntington defines civilization in terms of religious values. he then calls china confucian, which is pretty weird but that is how he is defining. he sees civilizations clashing on the basis of their quasi- religious value. and if that is true then american patriotism is religious too. and if it is religious, what we are likely to hear more and more is that it is the western religion. it is the religion of human rights. it is the religion of women's
rights. you notice the religion of democracy. it is the religion of free choice in religion. it is the religion of all of that, but dished up as a kind of spiritual unification and again it seems to me that comes along just in time to paper over or try by magic kinder to do away with deepening divisions in our own society among people confessing different values and different religious beliefs. so does this american religion which is being contrasted with the muslim religion, does that mean praying in schools are not? does that mean abortion are not? does that mean you have to believe in god to get elected to public office or not? all of those divisions that are
so deep among us now are kind of washed away in a general imagined community-based on the unity of religious values. and of course the problem is that the people who don't -- to people who aren't included in that community are excluded. so we have campaigns of national purification to find and convert or stamp out the dissenters when this happens. that is one of the reasons i think the war on terrorism is so scary. because god forbid if we get attacked again, if almost anything happens and it seems almost inevitable subsomething well, one can see the fervor, you know, fervor aroused to
basically turn the war of terror into a war on islam. and to prepare to resist that is something i think we have to do now. don't let the war on terror be be -- turn into a war on islam. i think we we are out of time. i have enjoyed it very much. i will stick around afterwards and we can talk afterwards. thank you very much. [applause] >> this event was hosted by the cambridge public library in cambridge massachusetts and find out more visit cambridge ma.gov. >> another los angeles times reporter from the beijing bureau has been nominated for the
national book award in the nonfiction category and this is barbara demick, enter book "nothing to envy" ordinary lives in north korea. barbara demick, how did she get access to north koreans? >> i spent about seven years interviewing north koreans, not in north korea, but in south korea around the chinese border. i've been to north korea quite a few times but you can't take anybody in north korea. you can't have any on contact. is the most were repression of regime in the world. when you work in north korea, you have a minder in your mind or has a minder to make sure you don't talk to anybody. but i found arth koreans actually to be quite talkative when i got out of the country, and that really painstakingly pieced together their stories, which in my mind were 1984 come
true. >> these north koreans that he spoke with, did they escape from north korea? were they visiting south korea? why were they out of the country? >> everybody has to escape. north koreans basically live in a large prison. they are not allowed out of their country unless they are very very elite. these are people who largely, when they were starting to cross the rivers of the border of china and tried to make new lives for themselves, and the funny thing is when they were in north korea although they were starving, they had this topic and of that they lived in the best country in the world. we have nothing to envy in the world and then they come out and they realize that, my god, and china people be rice and they have television and they can read whatever they want more or less. >> so you found that they were pretty unaware of the outside world?
>> fox in the well is what they call themselves. that is one of my chapters but north korea is maintained by the regime, almost hermetically sealed. is how they keep their power. and of course the greater the liar, the greater the power. >> barbara demick can you give us a snapshot of the daily life of an urban dweller in north korea and every mack dweller? >> sure. the people i wrote about were mostly from the city. they get up the first light of don and the minute the sun is up you start looking for leads and grass that is edible. you have to get out before everybody also go out to the countryside, take a knife and a basket looking for something deep. basically people spend their whole day looking for something to be dinner, then they go to bed early to conserve energy. maybe they will go out of to the
woods to collect firewood. this is the situation in the 1990s during the famine. it got better and now unfortunately it has gotten worse again. >> when you travel to north korea, what was the process like getting in? >> is really difficult as an american, and as a journalist. i speak a little bit, not very much, korean. i don't know why they finally let me in that in 2005 i finally got a proper visa into pyongyang. i think they let some of us and basically because they need money. there aren't a lot of people who want to visit north korea and it is a badly needed source of hard currency. >> what was your experience like? tell us about your trip very quickly. >> pyongyang is a lovely city. is a huge village. it is one of the cleanest, least polluted cities in all of asia.
there is no industry and there are very few cars. the people are friendly. it is completely brainwashed. they will only talk about their great leader. you don't really have any kind of honest conversation, but you know i would say that there is a warmth to the people. one of the reasons i wrote the book is i felt north koreans were so mysterious and a lot of them -- a the very negative stereotypes that americans have, all this garbage was always apply to north koreans. i wanted to show them as real people, and so i portrayed the six people who i feel are wonderful people. >> did you find yourself being stared at? >> no, that is what is very interesting. they are taught not to stare and they don't stare at you, which is a sign of how controlled
environment is. in china i am stared at and south korea i'm stared at. they don't make eye contact. >> were you relieved when he got out? >> yes. always. but is not nearly as scary as you might think, because once you get a proper visa as opposed to walking across the river, you are chaperoned every moment and i knew not to say anything that would get me in trouble or the people who were guiding me. >> how long have you been working on "nothing to envy"? >> it is embarrassing. it was about seven years. i started interviewing, i started interviewing north koreans i guess in 2001 and i couldn't get into north korea and i became upset as a journalist. we are very simplistic creatures. if you tell us we can't go
someplace suddenly you want to go, you kind of are like the cat in the string. i was really upset about why everyday life -- and i imagined it was a little bit like 1984 or brave new world and in fact it is. >> you a party when the samuel johnson prize for "nothing to envy" ordinary lives in north korea, now nominated for the national book award nonfiction category 2010. barbara demick is the author. >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here on line. type the author or book title in the search bar on the upper left side of the page and click search. you can also share anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. booktv streams live on line for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org.
>> next, james buckley former new york sanitary under secretary of state in the reagan administration and u.s. court of appeals argues against the expansion of the federal government. and he contends that its growth questions the original intent of the framers of the constitution. he presents at the heritage foundation in washington d.c.. it is in our. [applause] >> i suppose the first thing is i'm a little bit uncertain, should we address u.s. senator, as judge, as under secretary of state? which do you prefer? >> it is very confusing. >> a man of the people. this wonderful book, jim, "freedom at risk" which our marks in speeches and statements
and articles which you have written over the last several years was a little bit of a disturbing title though. "freedom at risk" so i guess the first question i'm sure we would like to have you address is how much freedom is at risk, and what do we do about it? >> it is a tall order, isn't it? i do believe freedom is at risk. we are talking about the personal economy and the exercise of personal responsibility that has been at the reviews of our country since its founding. i believe that the time is relatively short for us to reassert with bigger the principles that have safeguarded us in the years past. back in 1976 when i was running for re-election of the senate, it was my misfortune to have an opponent, the formidable daniel
patrick moynihan. he won handily but in our first encounter, he told the audience that really he is a fine fellow but unfortunately my feet were stuck in the 18th century. and the response i admitted that i was guilty as charged. i confessed and during fealty to the values and the institutions embedded in the declaration of independence and the united states constitution. i neglected to confess my equal fealty to the insights and adam smith's wealth of nations. the question then of course and the question today is whether the values and institutions and insights have any relevance to the extraordinarily different world in which we now live. i believe they do then and i
believe they do today. the fact is that our country was created by a remarkable group of men, people like james madison who had studied the history of experiments and freedom for the most ancient times, the times of greece and athens and on through the ages. and in just about every instance, freedom eventually failed. why? because of the one factor in human affairs, which is a constant, namely human nature. in this case you are talking about the concentration of power
so, in constructing the constitution, madison said, the ultimate responsibility for protecting our freedoms lives of the people, responsible people, self-reliant people. what he called auxiliary precautions are also required. and these were in the case of our constitution the principle of the balance of powers between coequal branches of government and the principle of federalism, namely the reservation for the states and localities of those entities closest to the people knowledgeable of their problems. all powers not specifically allocated to the federal government. which were largely concerned with things like foreign policy,
the military, coinage, current see and so on, which had inherently to be national if we were to end up with a coherent international government. but over the years, the checks and balances have worked pretty well. they are in constant arguments between the executive and the legislature as to which is the more equal and once in a while for better or for worse, the supreme court sneaks in and says that it is more equal than the others. but the principle of federalism is virtually ruled out of existence. over the years, encroachment by congress and or the executive that have been sanctioned by the court have so diluted the principle that today it is virtually impossible to identify
an exercise of governmental authority by the federal government that the supreme court will rule unconstitutional what has been the effect of this an extraordinary expansion, the concentration of power in washington that the founders feared and because those encroachments have been progressive fans a lot of them under the cover of public attention, i don't think that many americans today recognize the extraordinary transformation that has occurred in our country in recent years. for the first 150 years the original plan was pretty much intact. the beginning of the new deal, we saw the more aggressive exercise of the federal
presidents and i think this is best illustrated by the fact that when i went to law school, the united states code, which contains the total body of u.s. statutory law, consisted of three volumes. today, there are 30 volumes, but i think the most telling statistic has to do with attempts and describing the nature of the changes. it has to do with title xlii of the code which contains all the numbers relative to education and public welfare. when i went to law school, title xlii consisted of 128 pages. today, consists of 6200 pages, or 1700 or pages than the entire
body of federal law at the time it started. but that of course is just the tip of the iceberg. because increasingly, federal legislation has taken the form of the creation of euros in agencies that are in turn in doubt with ever broader and responsibility and discretion in defining the specific rules that will be governing our activities and our lives and that have the force of law. and unfortunately congress in recent years has first of all increase the number of violations of regulations that are criminalized and number two, of leaving the constitutional -- or rather the common-law requirement that you know you are breaking the law before you can go to jail so today it is
quite possible to be thrown in jail for violating a regulation. the existence of which you had no reason to know existed. in any event, it is these trends that i think have resulted on the presence of the federal government, the extraordinary increase in the spending by the federal government preemption of national income, and the debts be on site as a result of the entitlement programs that were put in place. so these are the threats to freedom that i think exist today and that are already happening its effect and constraining the ability of individuals and individual enterprises to exercise nonthreatening activities. what can be done about it?
well, first of all in terms of relying on a the balance of powers, there some conspiracy you might say between each branch of the federal government exercising common. and federalism is no longer a restraint on power, which leaves us with the people. and the vital question today is whether the american people retain that independent, spirit of independence, that spirit of self-reliance, that spirit of responsibility that was summed up by the founders and republican virtue, namely the willingness to subordinate individual advantage to the public good.
putting that to the test, i think the tea party movement is something that is the vehicle through which we are going to see whether this test works or not. the question is, has there have been over time a change in the american character, that individual autonomy and freedom that it would resist encroachments of our government or will it capitulate to inducements produced by the entitlement state? time will tell. >> well jim, it seems that you are talking about them putting an awful lot of -- looking to the people rather than to the states and he mentioned several times not only today, but also in your book about the importance of federalism and how we look to that for so long. is it possible that somehow the states might not rise up and
helped to bring about a greater balance in these checks and balances? >> they ought to and before the 16th amendment -- or is it the 70th amendment which made big sedatives not be appointed by state legislatures but probably elected have less influence across states but here again because of the expansion of federal grants and aid programs, the states themselves have become more and more dependent on handouts from washington which unfortunately included a whole series of federal requirements that have been transforming states more and more into the mirror administrators of federal policies instead of being the originators and not because their own policies to handle the discrete realms that happened in
any organized society. and we also have a terrible situation today in which the states themselves are facing formidable deficits of over $250 billion, to say nothing of towering contentious obligations as a result of them providence retirement problems promised public employees. so a bunch of states, all the way from connecticut to california, are facing critical challenges and undoubtedly people are going to become hat in hand to the federal government to bail them out. my personal recommendation having gone through the new york city crisis in 1974 and 75 which assured my defeat, when i
thought the idea would be -- new york. i think the kindest thing the federal government can do for the states is to deny a single penny of federal money to bail out state minister both governments. i should also note incidentally that the five states and the greatest fiscal trouble today are among the 12 wealthy wealthiest states in the nation. any dollar they get back from washington is a fraction of the amount of money that is sent to washington. they should be able to have some of their own and be forced to do so. >> as we said, you have had this unique opportunity and i was trying to do some research as to just how unique are you? are you familiar? how many other americans that have this opportunity to serve in all three branches? perhaps that is a research project. >> i started that research project wants and as far as i
know i'm the only one alive. [laughter] >> and very much so. >> i had a book of existing topographies of existing federal judges and then i got as far as by, secretary of state supreme court justice and senator. >> perhaps we have a latter-day james burns here. >> is too late. the supreme court. >> maybe not. maybe with an election coming up. we will see. of these careers, do you have a favorite? >> yes, and i i'll put it this way. if one's primary interest is in matters of public policy, there could not have been a more glorious position to have been
to have been a united states senator 100 or more years ago. why the past tense? because by virtue of congress bringing more and war matters of concern within its scope, you have transformed the ability to think in congress. when i edit the senate in 1970 i was presented with a study that had just been completed by the bar association of the city of new york, which had concluded that the workload of the average congressional office had doubled every five years since 1935, but once upon a time service in congress, citizen service.
if congress was in session five, six or seven months of the year, he the activities were leisurely. when debate was securing on the floor everyone was expected to be there to hear what was being said. you could think things through. there was comedy among all of the members. there were discussions on and off the floor. it was relaxed, but with is doubling in redoubling, the point came where there were no longer enough hours in the day for months in the year to accommodate thoughtful discussion and now analysis of the issues. it has become in my personal experience, but i'm a slow reader so it complicates things. in my personal experience it became almost impossible to do a decent job with questions of
public policy and to come out with the reason, the solutions to it. but nevertheless, in the ideal world, the legislature would suit my particular chemistry best. the others i find extremely interesting and rewarding and i had no trouble recognizing that when i was a judge i have a totally different role and that was too faithfully apply the rules and regulations that congress have put in place and not that i thought were desirable. >> is there any particular piece of legislation that you are proud of? there was something called buckley versus something or other. >> buckley versus valeo. that was not legislation.
buckley versus valeo has become the most cited case in the recent supreme court history and it involved a challenge to the campaign reform act of 1974. my cool plaintiffs and i had the temerity to conclude that a limitation on the ability of an individual to support a candidate of his choice was not merely unconstitutional. the supreme court disagreed with me and as a federal judge i defer to that but also very bad public policy. if you want me to explain why. >> v. please, yes indeed. i think that is very appropriate. we are constantly consumed with this idea fundraising and we are always talking about a. >> to get the full flavor of the case and to understand what is really involved in it, i will
first-aid that the campaign -- place limits on total spending of any federal election as well as a 1000-dollar limit on what an individual can contribute to any candidate and a 5000-dollar limit on what an individual could contribute to a political action committee. the people that join together to challenge the constitutionality of the package involved me, although i was than a sitting senator. i had won election as a third-party candidate, the candidate for the conservative party of new york and it was the first person to be elected on a third-party candidacy and 30
years. i was joined by former senator eugene mccarthy, who had challenged lyndon johnson for re-election and had sufficiently significant initial campaign to cause lyndon johnson to drop out of the race. he was also another co-plaintiff was the new york civil liberties union, the new york conservative party, stewart mott who contributed $220,000 to the eugene mccarty campaign. what was the common element in these groups? they were outside the norm. they were outside the norm of
establishment. it was are concerned that if this law was kept intact, it would squeeze out the ability of challengers to come in and confront their political establishment. we won on the one side and that is the limitations on individuat in any campaign. we lost on the individual contributions, because the supreme court said that the appearance or facts of corruption supported this restraint, but the effect has been to consolidate the power of the establishment, especially
incumbents who have extraordinary advantages over the challenges. to elevate packs into important factors in elections and likely to corrupt individuals. and to discourage individual spontaneous action because of the rules and regulations that have been created in order to enforce these laws, so it has distorted american politics in a very very real way and i think one that is a harmful way. >> you talked about a company that used to prevail in the senate, perhaps there is still some trace of that when you are in the senate some 30 or 40 years ago. of course today, i think we really have to bring up, it is pretty hard to avoid it, what is going on right now.
are you concerned about that? >> i'm concerned about it and when i entered the senate, it is with civility. i was astonished over the warm -- around you, and it was wonderful in terms of making it easier to have fundamental disagreements on matters of critical importance. but i think civility is one of the victims increasing treadmill aspects of public service now to the point where discussion is really impossible. it is one political -- against another. an issue comes up and it is responded to by political reaction rather than a thoughtful process examining with a willingness to reach out
and understand the other's point of view and to persuade that individual that they are wrong. how one of her captures that i don't know but i think one way to recapture it and my constant theme is go back to federalism, is to reduce the volume of issues, the number of issues that distract and splinter attention into 1000 little pieces. >> right. the question of fund-raising we have talked a little bit about that. i'm just curious, how much fund-raising to to do when you were running? >> my campaign did a great deal of it. one of the things that happens by limiting what can be, the amount of money in the individual can give to a candidate, i'm told that members of congress now spend most of their time and after hours on
the phones, pleading for money. i never telephone anyone asking for is sent. i did attended my election campaign in 1970 maybe a half dozen or a dozen fund-raising events and made my spiel, but i had a finance chairman and i had a finance committee, and they raised the money. most of the money i raised was through mail. but, before i was able to get into a position where letters could go out across the country, i had to establish that i was a viable candidate. i could not under the present rules have established my viability because in order to get started, one family, one individual put together upon one
of them alone, about $50,000. $50,000 enabled me to hire some people i need to hire to put up or shares. i hired a respectable headquarters, the one of bobby kennedy once occupied, and i was taken seriously by the presidential result but after that the fundraising was done as i say mostly through the mail. >> i imagine you probably run into many members of congress that and be that situation because one hears from them all the time that they are spending 30, 40, 50, 60% of their time in fund-raising. not being the kind of legislator that they want to be. in the book, "freedom at risk" which we are going to have copies available to be bought and signed by the author, you talk about the intrusive
bureaucracy and ufr did make mention of that today. you recommend that citizens be allowed to sue the federal government for damages. >> yes. isn't that reasonable? >> is that constitutional? >> is not constitutional. antonelli, most people who work in the bureaucracies and certain agencies are good people, intelligent people doing their job. they have a tendency to become so specifically focused on their particular portfolio that they often can understand the consequences of what they think they ought to do on other parts of society. but to start to think that they are decent people, good people. but there are also -- people and they are not immune to
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on