Skip to main content

tv   Book TV Encore Booknotes  CSPAN  December 17, 2011 6:00pm-7:00pm EST

6:00 pm
answer seemed to be power, privilege, and purrs committee questioned why so many rulers cling to power even when they're miserable, trusts no one, feel the seas to end almost face certain death. this is about an hour. .. brian: arnold m. ludwig, author of "king of the mountain" what is a professor of psychiatry doing writing about world leader is? arnold: well, actually, that is a good question. even the more pertinent thing is why politics. i think in the book i state that even though i take a general interest in politics, i've taken pride in never having been elected to any office in my life. the few times that i have moved up the ladder, they've been more appointments rather than elections. so, you're right.
6:01 pm
why interested in it? actually, this book derives from a prior study that i did some years ago having to do with a the most creative people in the 20th century. and that book eventually -- well, was published. that was called "the price of greatness." i dealt with 18 different professions in that book. politics was one of them but there were many other professions, science, art, musical composition, dance and so forth. and even though i looked at a very large number of people in that study, one of the professions that puzzled me the most was politics. because there were a number of great leaders there. and after i completed that project i got wondering more
6:02 pm
and more what is political greatness? in almost all of the other professions there is something tangible you can go on. a scientist does research, he publishes his work. an artest performs. an athlete performs. businessman makes money, products, and so forth. what is it that a politician actually does? and, you know, they -- well, what is the product? the work product? in many instances some people will say this political leader is great and in other instances they will say he is terrible. so how do you measure political achievement? what is political greatness? that is how i started the study. what i did was to look at all
6:03 pm
of the world leaders in the 20th century, of every single country in the world. brian: 1,941? arnold: yes, good for you. brian: 1, 1 -- 1,941 leaders in the 20th century? >> that's right. i collected information on them. homed in on a subgroup, 377, about whom there was much more information available, about their personal lives, about their achievements, about how they gained power, how they lost power, about their families. that type of thing. and from that information the book evolved. brian: where did you do it from? where are you located?
6:04 pm
arnold: the university of kentucky medical center in lexington, kentucky. brian: and how long have you been there arnold: oh, my goodness. i can't count that high. i've been there since 1970. brian: are you a doctor of psychiatry? arnold: yes. i'm a physician and a professor of psychiatry brian: why that field for you? when did you get interested in that? arnold: oh, my goodness. i don't know. i started off medical school thinking about surgery and general practice. and somewhere along the way, maybe in my third year of medical school -- brian: where did you go, by the way? arnold: university of pennsylvania. brian: ok. arnold: i sat in an on a lecture, one of my first psychiatry lectures and it is like falling in. you see somebody. something clicks. and i knew the field was for me. that is how i ended up in
6:05 pm
psychiatry. brian: what about the cover of this book? what's this saying? arnold: well, it says there is a relationship between political leaders and other primates. this is a particularly whimsical portrait done by donald roller wilson. it says, i believe, a lot of some of the conclusions i came to in the book. brian: give us a couple. arnold: well, before i give them to you i really need to explain how i came to these conclusions. when i fist started this study -- when i first started this study, i had no idea at all i would be making a comparison between political leaders and other types of primates,
6:06 pm
chimpanzee, baboons, moneys, so forth. but as i got into my work more and more, a number of questions began emerging that i could not answer. that puzzled me. for example, why was it that there were so few women rulers in the 20th century. brian: how many have there been? arnold: a total of 27 out of 1,941, the percentage was 1.4%. of those, half of them -- at least half were either wives of some famous politician, they borrowed their husband's charisma or daughters of him. and so that left, if you look at just women who have made it on their own, that was .75%.
6:07 pm
the chances of a woman becoming a ruler in the 20th century is over 100 to one odds against it. that puzzled me. the reason it puzzled me was there are have many very brilliant competent women. and surely many, many more should have been able to have maneuvered themselves into positions of power, despite a lot of social constraints and cultural constraints and that type of thing. so that was one thing. another thing that puzzled me, as i looked at many of the world leaders, and this was a surprising finding, was that one could become a leader, the most powerful position in the country, not being very bright. many of them were illiterate. many of them were, frankly,
6:08 pm
crazy. and even a number of them were demented. by that i mean brain damaged. so here is the most powerful position in the world, in a way, most powerful in a nation, how can people get there and why? another interesting finding i came across had to do with how many political leaders, prior to coming to power, had demonstrated their physical prowess as a way of gaining power. they were involved in wars, coups, rebellions along the way. they were jailed for demonstrations, things along these lines. so part of the process of becoming a ruler, for many, many countries, had to do with
6:09 pm
demonstrating some type of physical prowess, some type of courage, some type of heroic behavior. why? why would that be necessary rather than wisdom, accomplishments in certain areas, business, the arts? why did -- military accomplishment, why was that so important? another puzzling finding had to do with, as i looked at many of the rulers i was struck in many countries with how many women they consorted with. for example, how many wives they had. compared to others. how many children they produced. brian: who had the most wives? arnold: oh, my goodness. well, let me tell you this, the ashanti, because they did not
6:10 pm
want to distract their leader too much, put a limit -- imposed a limit that the king could only have 3,333 wives. now that was supposed to -- i mean, my goodness, sometimes with one wife or two wives that is enough to distract most people. but when you put a limit of 3,300 on somebody, that says something. another king, king matessa, i believe, had supposedly 7,000 wives. brian: but on the ones that most people have heard of. arnold: the ones most heard of? well, during the 20th century -- well, let me think -- well, of -- during the 20th century
6:11 pm
there's king sabuza of swaziland i believe had wives in the 60's, 70's, something of that nature. i know he had over 500 children. brian: how did you go about your research on this and how long did it take you? arnold: well, i guess, simply put, i looked at every possible source i could. i looked at every bit of biographical information. i think along the way i read over 1,200 biographies. brian: over what time? arnold: over about an 18-year span. so this study was done over about 18 years. brian: and the university of kentucky published this? arnold: the university press of kentucky. brian: that's what i mean. was that an agreement you had for years or did you have to
6:12 pm
complete the study before they did it? arnold: i had it come -- completed. i had no commitment prior to having completed the book. brian: what is your goal? what do you want people to do with this? arnold: i believe this is the most comprehensive, complete study on human rulers that's ever been done. it has more information about political leaders than any other book i've encountered. my hope with it all, aside from the thesis i developed to explain a lot of their behavior, that in my last chapter -- my last chapter in the book is titled, warmongers and peacemakers. it is my deep hope that people can look at this and study it
6:13 pm
and look at alternative ways to stop war and stop aggression. one of the things that struck me along the way was how much aggression, how much violence there's been, not only over time n the 20th century. i've asked people to make estimates of number of deaths, they don't even come close. there have been, as a result of wars started by these leaders or dissast rouse policies over 200 million deaths in the 20th century. that, to me, is shocking and frightening. and particularly as we develop even more powerful weapons of destruction. brian: you say in your book it was 1996 the first time in the 20th century or maybe the first time, obviously, in history, there are more democratic
6:14 pm
countries or more people under democratic rule than there are that aren't under democratic rule. arnold: that is correct brian: is that a good sign? arnold: yes, i say it is a good sign. however, i do make the caution -- i do, in the book, talk about different types of democracy. what certain people say about democracy is not necessarily what you might mean or what i would mean by democracy. i believe it is a good sign. it is a good sign for a number of reasons. what i found in my studies was that dictators, as compared to democratic leaders, were far more likely to be involved in war than democratic leaders. i believe 74% of all dictators had been involved in some type of war, civil rebellion, something during their term in
6:15 pm
office. that's compared to 37% of democratic leaders. twice as many. still too much. 37% is an awful lot. but it's half of what you might find among dictators. brian: so you where there at lexington, kentucky, at the university of kentucky, a medical doctor with an expertise in psychiatry? arnold: yes. brian: have you retired, by the way, from the school? arnold: yes. brian: how long? arnold: about a year and a half. part time. i go there occasionally. brian: for 18 years you read 1,200 biographies. you came up with the political greatness scale. i may be wrong about this, but i found in looking through it that the number one -- looking at all the numbers, the number one leader you found in the 20th century from your
6:16 pm
political greatness scale was ataturk. am i right about that? arnold: yes. brian: right after that, f.d.r. and mao. your points -- brian: i can go on. arnold: yes. brian: why ataturk? arnold: first, let me put those numbers in context. those numbers are not engraved in stone. i would say that probably -- that if you wanted to group people you'd take maybe a five-to seven-point swing and group them together. it just so happened ataturk came out first. why ataturk?
6:17 pm
the political greatness scale -- i need to say a word about that first. brian: your invention? arnold: yes. i didn't want to invent it. when i started the study i was looking for some type of measure to evaluate political greatness. as i mentioned before, i was puzzled about this phenomenon. i looked to others, i looked to political scientists. i could not find any actual scale that measured political greatness, cross-culturally. of course, people rated the american presidents or this kind of thing. but nothing cross-culturally. then the question came to me, how do you go about evaluating -- what is political greatness? and then i had a kind of eureka experience. well, why not look at those
6:18 pm
people who are acknowledged by almost everyone as being great political leaders. who are the famous names in history over time that come to mind when somebody says mention a great political leader. people who come to mind are feel like julius caesar, augusta caesar, alexander the great, bismark. brian: your immortals? arnold: the immortals. the political immortals. abraham lincoln, george washington. people along those lines. i came up with 26 of those people. ok. these, i think, almost everybody would say, these are the political immortals. and then i asked the question, what do these immortals have in common? are there any common
6:19 pm
denominators? lo and behold i found a number of common denominators. almost every single one of them had these characteristics. i then used these characteristics, 11 of them, in developing the political greatness scale. and tested the scale in terms of its reliability, in terms of its validity. it is interesting the scale correlated extremely highly with the amount of words allotted to these individuals in the encyclopedia brittanica or ensigh clowpeed yeah americana. -- ensigh clowpeed yeah americana. brian: what items? arnold: some of them have to do with conquests. this is how people evaluate
6:20 pm
political greatness. military greatness. more territory. social engineering, changing a society. economic prosperity. being a moral exemplar, george washington, abraham lincoln. brian: it doesn't have anything to do with whether you feel warm and fuzzy about somebody? arnold: no. it has to do with achievement. brian: is there any correlation with "time" magazine person of the year. people get outraged when they see hitler on the cover and think they are naming him a good person. arnold: yes. that is an excellent comparison. by greatness, it is not do you admire these people. some of these people are horrible, despicable, however,
6:21 pm
their political achievements are monumental. brian: we will put this on the screen and read down the american presidents. 31 was the top at ataturk. f.d.r. was the top. you then have -- brian: those are presidents in the 20th century. i want to ask you quickly about one of them. why is william mckinley so high? arnold: a lot of people don't realize william mckinley was quite an activist president. he was -- he secured the philippines for the americans.
6:22 pm
he helped liberate cuba. there were many things that he did that actually on this political greatness scale scored him -- gave him higher points than some of the other kind of presidents. i might mention, too, as you rank them, if you were to look at those rankings compared to some of the rankings that have been given for presidents of the 20th century, you would find a very high correlation. it's surprising how close that is to what others have independently come up with on i don't know what kind of measures. brian: on the other end of the scale, the one that got the least number of points, somebody named steyn, who was with the orange free state starting in power in 1899. do you know who that was? arnold: he just simply accomplished nothingment
6:23 pm
brian: he got a two. arias of panama got three, joseph cook of australia got 5, samuel doe of liberia got five, quisling five, somoza five, juan bosch, six. kim campbell only got a six. arnold: sorry. brian: did basically nothing happen on their watch? arnold: not only did nothing happen, it means there was corruption. they often ended their time in disgrace. brian: kim campbell was there a very short while. arnold: a very short while. yes. that is another criterion. how long are they in office in terms of -- as to whether or not they will achieve greatness -- how they will score on the political greatness scale. brian: go back to why ataturk
6:24 pm
on top of all these people. arnold: let's look at what ataturk did. some of the immortals i mentioned. ataturk created -- started turkey. he dismantled the ottoman empire which was in existence at the time. he was not only the founder of the country, creating a country, but he caused a profound social change in turkey. he introduced democracy into turkey. somewhat a militant type of democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. he separated -- he was one of the first time in history to separate church and state. in fact, even though it is predominantly a muslim country,
6:25 pm
it is one of the few ones where certain types of freedoms are permitted. and, in fact, the military is obliged to intervene if there's any threat to the democracy in any way. so at every single level ataturk had an incredible effect. and his achievements were remarkable. brian: you seem to enjoy writing about this man right here. king faroak of egypt. when was he king? arnold: oh, about 150 -- up until about 1950. something like that. brian: what do you see in this picture? he is 330 pounds, you say. arnold: well i introduce -- i do try to introduce a pit of human throughout the book to make the facts a lot more palatable. i say people are supposed to
6:26 pm
grow in office and certainly this king did in every way. brian: you called him little fa rookie. -- faraokie. arnold: he was a brat. and pampered. i might say here is a leader of a country and he is supposed to uphold the faith in the country. from my information, he never really read the koran. he never read a newspaper through. he never read a book. he almost had people go to school for him to digest the information beforehand. and i guess i introduced him for the reason -- i am not overall too fond of the kings that i have encountered in the 20th century.
6:27 pm
brian: who served the longest of all your leaders? and you feature him in the book. arnold: yes. the -- oh, gosh. austria. brian: franz joseph. arnold: franz joseph. 68 years. thank you. brian: how did he stay in power for 68 years? arnold: that is an excellent question. persistence. he was very imaginative person. i do mention he had a rather unique political and military strategy when he went to war. he went on to war a number of times. he would usually concede or give up before his country lost and then once he gave up he
6:28 pm
would then try to start rebellions. there are all kinds of weird things with him. brian: you break folks down into categories. the leaders of monarchs, tyrants, visionaries, authoritarians, transitionals and democratics. are those your categories? arnold: yes. brian: what would a tyrant have been? arnold: a tyrant was somebody who went into office and essentially ruled the country for power and perks, predominantly. usually military rule, oppression. brian: can you name one? arnold: oh, gosh, ki name a number of them. duvalie in haiti. papadock.
6:29 pm
i think we have one now in the middle east in iraq. brian: sadam hussein? arnold: yes. brian: what's a visionary? arnold: a visionary is someone whose ostensible reason in office or in being a leader is to transform the country according to his vision. now i say his, because they're all men here. for example, mao transformed an entire nation into this communist image and his own notion of communism stalin did that. he was a visionary. brian: what about a authoritarian? arnold: an authoritarian is someone not necessarily holding office for his own gains, but who believes in law and order,
6:30 pm
who believe in the country. juan perone, for example, would have been an authoritarian leader. uh authoritarian leaders were some of what i call the operochics, the bureaucratic leaders in the soviet union who came after stallen and so forth whose -- stalin whose purpose were to maintain stability. brian: what would krustof have been? arnold: he had some visionary notion. he was combination visionary, operochic. brian: what's a transitional? arnold: a transitional is someone who changes the entire nature of the country or who
6:31 pm
brings a new country into existence. for example, develera in ireland helped create the state of ireland. brian: in 1938. arnold: yes. i would say nelson mandela would be considered a tranks situational. he -- a transitional. he helped change the nature of apatheid. neru in india would be transitional. brian: there are all kinds of little side bars in this, as you know. one is the use of drugs on the part of leaders. you say patrice lamumba, prime
6:32 pm
minister of zaire smoked hemp. john claude duvalie likely smoked cocaine who attended parties with his wife who trafficed in cocaine. how did you find all this stuff? arnold: with difficulty, but it was there. it required some investigative work. i also happened to have worked with an excellent person, greg guenther, who was my research assistant there. he was excellent at ferreting out this information. brian: brejnev, according to gorbachev said he stayed knocked out of his mine.
6:33 pm
did gorbachev write that in his memoir? arnold: yes. brian: mr. noriega snorted cocaine when he was in power arnold: yes. brian: were you surprised how much of the drug use you found? arnold: yes, i was. brian: why? arnold: again, i had, coming into this, a bit of awe and scorn, probably a combination of both, but somehow i did not anticipate and expect this much mental, emotional type of problems among them. the amount of mania, the frank craziness of many of them. the pair you yeah was ramp pant. brian: you said 60% of the british prime ministers in the 20th century suffer from depression.
6:34 pm
asquif, baldwin, balfer, callahan, winston churchhill, bonner, david lloyd george. robert arthur salisbury all suffered from depression. arnold: that's correct. brian: severe, very often? arnold: yes, often severe. again, i was astounded to find that. that there would be that many. in fact, in the book i almost wondered whether being depressed is one of the criteria for becoming a british prime minister. certainly winston churchhill really set the tone. his depression, in many instances, was incapacitating. brian: what about winston churchhill became very depressed in 1915. charles degahl became upset. all of this you said let to
6:35 pm
depression. ghandi, kahn was depressed. how were they treated when they became depressed? did you find that arnold: most, almost all, did not take advantage of psych trick help. certainly -- psychiatric help. either they couldn't admit it or their advisors or whomever would not find it politicaled a van tayjouse for that to become known. winston churchhill, his main way of handling what he called the black dog that would come over him, was painting. he used that as a type of way of lifting his spirits. others treated their depression kind of by themselves. they drank, many.
6:36 pm
some took, think, mcmillan took amphetamines and became hooked on them. brian: pictures of feel like this. -- pictures of people like this. that is my favorite picture in the book. i am going to show this. why so many pictures of monkeys and gorillas? arnold: well, all of the behaviors were -- most of the behaviors we're talking about, most that i do develop and describe what i call the pri mate model of ruling. -- prime mate model of ruling. and what i do is not only -- i want to demonstrate -- that particular picture, for example, i wanted to demonstrate that among gorillas, too, you see the sense of presence that you find
6:37 pm
in my rulers. a sense of charisma. in a way. you wonder where does charisma develop from? well, you can see this in a number of the primates. that is a wonderful one. i do want to point that out. again, looking for parallels with chimps and so forth. that particular chimp is attacking an imaginary image. he is attacking a mirror image of himself in the mirror. so i also use that to illustrate that a number of rulers begin coming up and generating enemies from nowhere. look for enemies. as this chimp apparently is doing. brian: what about this one? arnold: ok. that is a very young chimp in the san diego zhao. he is beating his breast. beating his breast. i'm going to be big someday. i'm going to be strong.
6:38 pm
i'm going to be a leader. i'm going to dominate. he is getting in practice for the dominance struggle. brian: what did you find about the youth of some of the tyrants or authoritarians or, you know, some of the ones that have killed a lot of people in this world? arnold: yes. yes. well, let's start with the last question you asked first. mr. lamb, you asked -- i was morely interested in knowing if i could find any common pattern in some of the mass murders of the 20th century. some of the people who have committed the most horrendous act, hitler, stalin.
6:39 pm
palpot, malsatung. there is another one. and soy looked in some depth at their childhood. and although it -- they were disturbed in different ways and a lot of them had difficulties with their father, in particular. and they got into trouble in some ways. i could not come up with any convincing findings that i could say, this was the root of their later -- becoming these monsters that they later become. i could not find it. and the conclusion i came to as a result of this -- and with a number of the other leaders as well -- is that something very important takes place, some transformation takes place as
6:40 pm
one gains ultimate power. that the very process of gaining ultimate power changes the nature of the person. changes the way they look at the world. changes the way they look at themselves. so forth. that the old saying that almost everybody knows is, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." i believe there is a lot of truth to that. brian: you found no real connection in their youth, if they were tyrants, for what they became as leaders? arnold: no. no. a number of them were cruel. a number were not necessarily. i mean amen. brian: former head of uguanda arnold: he was a british officer. and he was sort of thought of very highly.
6:41 pm
he was a seemingly delightful person. he got power, it changed dramatically. and there are many other instances that with increasing power changes begin taking place. the way they relate to themselves and others. brian: you say you scorn a lot of politicians. arnold: well, yes. brian: tell us about your own feelings about politicians and where did that come from. arnold: well, certainly the whole process of -- in a number of countries, where to gain ultimate power, all kinds of, let's say, less than forthright or honest behavior takes place. where promises are made that aren't kept. where people, you know, there is an expectation for a certain amount of lying or manipulation
6:42 pm
of the public takes place. where -- brian: is that any particular -- you get that in a democratic society? arnold: yes, oh, absolutely. you get it in every society. brian: no matter if you are a monarch or democrat. small d democrat. arnold: yes. brian: do you vote in our system? arnold: i sure do. brian: how would you describe your own politics? arnold: i would like to think independent. i don't want to commit myself because i want a lot of people to buy the book. brian: let me read what you wrote about richard nixon. you selected him for more copy in the book than others. why? arnold: i believe, under the section -- the chapter in which i talk about the childhoods of the various rulers, i pick one example to illustrate each type of leader.
6:43 pm
one for a monarch. one for a tyrant. i picked richard nixon to illustrate a democratic. established democratic leader. brian: i selected him as our model because he was forced to act at odds with his basic character, which should have made him one of the least suited people to rise to power in a democracy to achieve his political goals. arnold: yes. brian: explain why you feel that way. arnold: many of the people in terms of the childhood characterics of the number of democratic leaders i found were outgoing. they were charming. were often athletic, popular. they had a more efusive type of
6:44 pm
personality. from what i was able to gather about nixon as a child, he was not well liked. he was persnickety. he did not like to get too close to people. he didn't want to touch them. and yet with all of these characterics, unusual characteristics for the democrat leaders where you need a popular vote, he was remarkable in the sense that he , through persistence and thoughtfulness, cunning, whatever you want to call it, was able, growing up, to get progressively into one leadership position after another. whatever organization he was in he moved to the head of it through diligence, hard work,
6:45 pm
application and so forth. amazingly, even prior to becoming president. i think a lot of people were surprised that he ran and even more so that he won. brian: another man you write a lot about is mao. there is one section i don't think i can read it. maybe you can explain it. the way people dealt with mao in his late years and even went so far as his bowel movements. arnold: yes. brian: does that stuff come from his doctor? arnold: yes. i have a lot of information from his doctor. i have information from others who have researched this in great detail. this is not firsthand on my part, but i put together this information. i like to think i describe some delightful anecdotes, interesting anecdotes about a
6:46 pm
number of these leaders, but in his case, he was so revered and there was a period of time he was very constipated and he would have workers have his devoted following, if he could not have a bowel movement, they would dig out the constipated feces. and there were times that when he was able to do it on his own that people rejoiced. that he has had a bowel movement. they were actually so rejoiceful about it. it did get on that he -- that changed over time. i think he was helped where somebody developed or de vriesed the kind of stool he could sit on in a way that would facility things. brian: but beyond that, his
6:47 pm
relationship with women. his own body hygiene, all that, i mean -- arnold: yes. brian: it doesn't read very well. i mean, what's that all about? arnold: well -- brian: how could you revere somebody like this the way you describe the way he was like personally? arnold: ok. the way you revere him and what i describe, when you say it doesn't read well. brian: i didn't mean it was written poorly. it was written brilliantly. arnold: ah, thank you. i think this is what you are getting at. he played up the peasant image and exploited it. he has a perverse sense of humor, too. for example, there was an instance of a female reporter interviewing him.
6:48 pm
while she was doing it he was reaching in his clothes and picking off lice off of his body. and that was -- it created a kind of revulsion toward him and yet he seemed to delight in doing this. in keeping people offbalance, in a way. i think much of what you are describing is play up the p peasant image, which was very important for him. even though he played it up, a lot of people didn't realize he took full advantage of his prerogatives. he had nude parties with women swimming in the water. he had one of the finest collections of erotic literature in the world. so he had all of the
6:49 pm
prerogatives of ultimate power, but he liked to play up this peasant image, upset people. brian: did you find any successful world leaders, in your opinion, who were monogamous? who led, behind the scenes a moral life? you know what i'm getting at, honest and all of that? and who would you put on top of that list arnold: oh, i my goodness. the answer is yes, there certainly were a number of moral exemplars. people who i think were very admirable. offhand i can't list a number of them, but one would come to mind. would be -- i would think that i couldn't find very much in jimmy carter's past that would be negative. i think that he was honest.
6:50 pm
he struggled with his feelings, but he did not -- i think he tried to do a good job. brian: what about harry truman? arnold: yes. harry truman, i think, would be a good example. brian: he is high on your personal political greatness list. what about theodore roosevelt? arnold: thank you. theodore roosevelt as well. brian: how about ronald reagan? arnold: ronald reagan as well. brian: stalin, lenin, tito, mussolini? gorbachev? the highest presidents on the list of political greatness
6:51 pm
scale. arnold: all of them have been social engineers, have changed the nature of society by introducing very types of legislation that changed the way we function in society. that have changed the nature of civil rights, for example. all of them have been victorious in war. which, again, is an important consideration. it's interesting that no american president, hardly any president at all or any leader at all has achieved political greatness without being involved in some type of military game. brian: you out talking about alpha males. arnold: yes. brian: we heard a lot about
6:52 pm
alpha males during the last presidential election. how does that relate to this arnold: what i claim is that -- and making sense out of all this behavior, is that there is a tendency a biological and social drive for, particularly in men, to achieve dominance within a political structure in a society. eventually those who do get to the top, become king of the mountain, who get to the top usually are alpha males. alpha males in the sense that they show a lot of the characterics of chimps, gorillas, baboons, and so forth. what are characteristics?
6:53 pm
the more power these leaders have, the more likely they have extramarital affairs, har rems, larger broods, more children. this is the same thing alpha males among other primates have. they have special access to food and shelter. by that i mean more likely to build up fortunes and be taken care of for the rest of their life. the other important thing is alpha males expect submission. expect people to treat them with deference. and that's part of becoming an alpha male and the drive to becoming an alpha male. all of these leaders also do that. in fact, the more power one has the more likely one is to form a personality cult to ensure that people defer and even
6:54 pm
worship them. brian: 27, we go back to the beginning. 27 of 1, 41 leaders you studied in the 19th century were women. half of them got there because they were the daughter of or wife of. that leaves feel like margaret thatcher? arnold: yes. brian: how did margaret thatcher become for 11 years of prime minister of great britain and why was she so strong? arnold: i believe they are remarkable people that they were able to do that. but it's kind of interesting. i also point out most of these women are referred to in masculine terms. for example, well, i can't use -- i'm concerned about using a world on television. they've got what men have.
6:55 pm
they know how to kick butt. they're described with masculine types of traits. it's also interesting that even though they've gained power that their cabinets are most all men. that the leaders of the military are all men. that at every level below when women there, there are not women filling in these slots. all their advisors still are men. but, again, you're right. these are remarkable women. brian: where did you get the title of this book? arnold: it dawned on me that's what it's all about. "king of the mountain" is striing for dominance. the striving to -- the striving for dominance tooned be on top. brian: how many copies did the
6:56 pm
university of kentucky press print on your book? arnold: oh, my goodness. not very many, i fear. i think 4,000. brian: what does it sell for? i don't have a price. arnold: something like $30. some of the discount places are $22, $24. >> 475 pages, 18 years of research. how do you feel about it now that you look back on this job? arnold: whew. i feel very good about it. i really hope that it does catch on, not for person interests. i mean, i don't need the money. i don't need the finances, but i'm concerned about the implications. warmongers, peacemakers, i hope people will read the book and use some of these insights in terms of stopping some of the
6:57 pm
violence and being able to create a more effective peace. brian: last question, i hate to ask it. but i have to, of all you studied, which was the favorite to read about and write about? arnold: oh, my goodness. i liked teddy roosevelt. i thought he was interesting. and i did like ataturk. i thought was fascinating. yes. brian: here is the cover of the book again. "king of the mountain" is the title of the book. arnold ludwig, professor emer
6:58 pm
>> well there is a new book out called watchers, eyewitness accounts of the supreme court history. claire cushman is the author and john roberts, the chief justice of the u.s. supreme court wrote the forward. who are the "courtwatchers"? >> the "courtwatchers" are the justices themselves, their wives, children, oral advocates they argue, court staff, reporters who cover the courts and even some random bystanders who happen to be in the courtroom and witness something exciting and then went back and reported it. most of what this book is is me digging up all that stuff over the last 220 years of the court has been in existence and finding all of the insider stories written by people affiliated with the courts. >> what is one of your favorite insider stories? >> i have so many because there
6:59 pm
are some that are funny and some that are poignant and some better educational. but i guess the ones that i like the most are the ones written by the supreme court spouses, because you really got a sense of what it was like at home. some my favorite is written by elizabeth black who was the wife of hugo black and he had a hard time sleeping at night when he was cogitating on a difficult case and the like to wake up at about 3:00 a.m. and nudge her and say, i have to talk this over with you. i am really struggling with this. her remedy was always a glass of urban because that is in fact what he really wanted that he felt that he could never help himself. he needed her to suggested first. i love that story. >> whited chief justice roberts write the forward? >> well because i asked him and he was kind enough to do it. it actually took me six months to get the forward from him because he red-headed pre-word and he wanted to make sure was accurate and well done so i'm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on