tv Book Discussion on American Panic CSPAN August 2, 2014 2:48pm-3:31pm EDT
was the reaction of the decision to fight with the united states and? was there a sense of the realm? if they felt that kind of the trail than i would assume that their reaction should have been -- they should have been some sort of opposition. and wouldn't that create attention against the state of pakistan? >> very good questions. the second question, actually, i mentioned that has one of my arguments in chapter three or four. and you're right. this is obvious from the book. and he was the ambassador. very close.
you will see the distaste he had . he thinks the pakistan is went after him. that is why but still, we know for a fact from various studies that a majority qaeda has moved to pakistan with the family. recently there were killed. killed most likely by taliban. the military or intelligence, pushing them. they wanted to come to the table. test the commitment they have given to the united states. however, in the initial years, may have no other option but to come from a point of view. in afghanistan would have been killed. pakistan give them space and leased to, i think, my guess or
estimate been, i think maybe around 100 afghan taliban leaders are close. around that number that probably came. maybe their families were already living. and at that time they should have stood by them. but despite this in their personal capacity. and the intelligence organizations, there was a lot of manipulation. so the forces before 9/11. the operations. so the control, the manipulation some were sympathetic, but that, whenever the old yard held. they responded been by not
coming out against pakistan intel a ban. your question is vivid. the other questions, the very profound idea you had, absolutely not making the suggestion. as a tool. i was interested. after all, the one thing, these are the points. whether these are the -- [inaudible] as start my book. there were some common ideas. always honoring the very bluff was was also not enforcement.
[inaudible] and would be amazed. more hindus and moslems. why? never force anyone to convert. that is why, said the idea and the number of people, i don't want more investment. but i think it provides a bridge to come together. but the foundations booths. the success of society. respect for the other. and also, this human being. that is why in terms of the deals i support that. you're right.
unprecedented in history in. never ever before. because two reasons. one because of the people in, unfortunate, but those people knew, that challenged to their conservatism and narrow mindedness. that is one. because they are fearful that they could support. so we have to be very, very careful. >> get a chance i would like to
quite what i expected to find. to we get them in times of political art ship, or is it more often an influential force, politicians or people in the media of one type or another planting shearson or conversely is a grassroots conflicts, and economic conflicts the become widespread. also, at the outset i was looking to see if there was a clear distinction between alarm in panic. because not all political arm things like after 9/11 we had good reason to be concerned about terrorism and the united states. in 1949 the soviet union detonate in atomic bomb. my parents' generation had good reason to be concerned if not alarmed there were no longer the only nation on earth with this
extremely powerful weapon. on the other hand, and 1834 when they burned down and sort of massachusetts, that -- so how did we get, for instance, to that point in 1834? and it as an example, i want to spend a few minutes looking at that him. one of the first things i did not expect to bump into, rather than national hardship entry into, national success contributed to it. three national success is, if you will, contributed to would. the first of them was we won the revolution. once we won the revolution i believe there was concern that the first country to do some. created a fear of catholics. if enough catholics start coming
in the pope may end up running the country by controlling the los of these catholics. five of the first 13 states had in the state constitution a stipulation that only a process to be elected. and, indeed, catholics to start coming in. and i'm talking before the failure in ireland right off the bat catholics started coming in because of turmoil in france. catholics from arliss are coming in. conflicts with england and three-bedroom to more national successes can. verses in 1803 the louisiana purchase. in 1825 and can now which
connects the original body of land to all this new land. in this is what we found. a lot of these newcomers are moving along with others. and there is this fear that we may lose all of this. all this the we have gained we may lose. we come to 1834. indeed an influential voice in planning these fears. not the only influential voice to be doing it. but a very prominent minister, highly respected, father of varied beecher stowe and he gave a sermon. the first one was that the catholic system is averse to liberty. cases of greek influence of the priesthood there is one of the
elements, the use of absolutes. the absolute tyranny. he then goes on the sermon and uses what i call a blank to be filled in. you will hear me talk about a lot in the next 20 minutes or so he says, how many presses might they influenced by there promised patronage? and many mechanics merchants, lawyers, physicians in any political crisis might their reach and render ted. i don't know. how many. he never tells us how many thatur personal fears and needs participating. he then goes on to international success and says it is the life of a republican prosperity that is sending earthquakes under the foundation of the thrones. ..
his canadian name is barack of which --brockovich. he argues that the massachusetts bay colony on route thomas aiken with a mission and it was articulated on route by john winthrop, their leader, in a sermon in which he said in this new land we were going to create a new jerusalem, a city on a hill. it will be a beacon to the world of a pure christianity and through this beacon wheat will bring that light to the world's. he argues by the time the revolution took place the people in america had secularized winthrop's mission and replaced christianity with liberty and freedom so that we would be a beacon to the world of liberty and freedom, democracy, and
fruits that we would bring the light of the one true way to the world. when i read that years ago, not many years ago but some years ago my first thought was that is a really good point. my second thought and in many ways the more important was the voice inside the middle of my brain said we are the one true way. i couldn't shake that even with burke of its pointing and out. to this day i can't shake that. i mention that because the lease for me, i don't think i am alone, that is how potent that perception of myself of an american is. when he made this statement in the sermon, went on to say if in the province of god we are destined to lead the way in the political and moral emancipation of the world it is high time she understood her calling and were harnessed to the work. the work is a blank to be filled in.
what constitutes the work? within two days if my memory is correct of this sermon, a mob burned down this first line academy in somersville, mass.. this influential voice, not an old one. let's compare him to someone from the present. the catholic system is averse to liberty, in 200011 newt gingrich said i believe sharia law is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the united states. we have the same parallel statement, one is concerned about can and law and the other about sharia law becoming the rule in this country and in fact both of them are doing yet another element that recur as a lot which i call the filtered fact. newt gingrich is a highly educated man and i don't think
he is a stupid man and he probably was aware that he was killed during his facts which is another piece here, sometimes people are panicked and sometimes people are availing themselves of panic and there is no way to know for sure which is which because of the have to climb inside their head and we can't do that but i suspect newt gingrich knew he was filtering the following facts. article vi section ii of the constitution called the supremacy clause says very clearly the laws of the united states are supreme over any foreign law. no judge, it says no judge can rule and give privilege to a foreign law over the laws of the united states so in fact sharia law can't happen. which may be why in the same statement newt gingrich went on to an interesting blank to be filled in when he said still jihadis use political, cultural,
societal, religious and intellectual tools and went on to complete the sentence but what is a stealth jihadis? we don't know because they are self. the other day, true story by wife sent me and my two sons, just like we were talking about yesterday involving obama's restraint in not wanting to use military force, boot on the ground in various middle eastern conflicts. it was a great article but maybe he is the stealth jihadis. we don't know. secrecy is very potent. think of all the concerns probably shared to varying degrees about the nsa which is a secret place so what are they up to? we are filling in the blank and our fears and needs are participating and the way we
fill in that blank, we don't know. but not all panics emanate from influential voices or political leaders fanning the fears of people. sometimes they emanate from the bottom up and our grass roots. the one i want to talk about is the panic for a very long time in this country about chinese. you could almost take it precisely from the discovery of gold in california to december 7th, 1941. amplifying panics but to begin with the discovery of gold in the gold rush and wasn't just americans rushing out to get that gold, people were coming from all over the world so the first chinese were men who were gold miners. they set up mining camps, american mining camps in mostly california and oftentimes there
would be conflict if the group of americans thought the chinese guys might be onto something and on many occasions they would go wipe them out or push them out or do whatever they could to put the mouth and oftentimes they would perceive this by passing a resolution as if it made the violence legal. i want to read part of these, in the san francisco book in 1857. i want to read part of their resolution and raise this hand every time there is an absolute in this section of the resolution. whereas the requirement of patriotism to preserve the inalienable rights of american freemen and hand them down untarnished to our successors imperiously demand of us decisive and energetic actions on the momentous question of asiatic aggression, excuse me for a moment, filtered fact.
here is the record that exists today, asiatic aggression in the minds. chinese in the minds. down the resolution it says they're for we have, back into the quoting part, the responsibility of expelling from our myths these intolerable nuisances. what started to grow in addition was another element that will happen in political panics which is sometimes separate panics will merge. then things really get vocal. in this case, much like the weight industry will outsource work to china, cheap labor, back in the 1850s, corporations, railroads, in source labor to build the railroads and other tasks and wages that native
american whites wouldn't take. then the panic starts to really grow and you start seeing in san francisco, mass meetings where fear of chinese is getting wetted the fear of capitalists which has been a long time panic also in this country and from that grass roots, the number of leaders but the preeminent one in this particular panic at that time was a man named dennis tyranny who came out of the teamsters union and he would give speeches and san francisco filled with the same kind of panic inducing rhetoric i have been siding and repeatedly at the end of his speeches, groups, mob's would break out, not the whole group but sufficient mobs head to chinatown, beat the dickens out of chinese that get caught on the street, smashed and burned their stores, set fire to their homes, and only at
that point to the politicians come on board in this panic. happened earlier in california but eventually happened here in the nation's capital win in 1882 congress passed the chinese exclusion act. for the first time, federal government ever closed the doors of emigration to a group based on their ethnicity. the federal government is now participating in panic. not the first time they participated in panic the first time in that panic they participated in it. there is one other piece in that resolution that may be slipped by use of want to go bayou of w repeat the phrase. the most frequently occurring absolute in american politics. they made reference to preserve the inalienable rights of american free men. they are referencing the declaration of independence.
to me the most frequently used absolute in american political panic is the founding fathers and it cuts across time and it cuts across the political spectrum. far left, far right, everything in between. what is the absolute? the absolute is the implication that the founding fathers shared a vision. yes, they did. they all agreed we should be part of england. after that, it is a little hard to know if they agreed on anything. they would have had trouble defining a lunch catch these guys. it is use so often as i am sure you are all know. two quick examples from the 1910 early 20th centuries, the end of the political spectrum, from the right wing end, in 1906 there was a book called the danger:socialism or empire, this was a book that was stirring up
fears of radical movements, socialism, communism, anarchism and all the things that were growing back then and one sentence in the book says, one of the founding father references, our constitution was framed with the creditable objective of allowing absolute freedom in business conduct. in addition to the founding father reference we have an absolute. it uses the word absolute, absolute freedom and a filtered fact. the fact that it is filtering, only once does the constitution of the united states referred to business conduct. article i section viii not, congress will regulate interstate commerce. from the end of the political spectrum of book from 1895 written by m w. howard was a member of congress thought the american -- today we have a title that referenced wall
street for billionaires. the millionaires a product of modern civilization. he was, here is an absolute, wholly unknown to our revolutionary forefathers. another absolute, he could not have flourished in the same atmosphere which gave birth to our declaration of independence. maybe it is not filtered fact because in the at the time of the revolution there were no millionaires. there was no one in this country who had a million dollars or more because our currency wasn't in dollars. it was in lbs. and shillings but there was a very rich people in this country. some of them were founding fathers lose some of them were. one for example was not a founding father was a very rich man from philadelphia named solomon who lend huge sums of money to the continental congress so that they could prosecute this war. he did indeed flourish in the same atmosphere which gave birth to the declaration of
independence. at what point from what we have got here does concern or alarm become panic? i talked about 1949, the soviet union detonated an atomic bomb. by 1950 a book appeared calls red channels. somewhere -- 1949, 1950, we crossed a threshold from that is worthy of concern to that is clearly panic. red channels was a book some of you may know of. it contains 151 names of people in mass media, in television and entertainment, radio, film, creative arts that would be fair, who were claimed to be either communist or communist sympathizers. included such names, i should
say, these people have their careers destroyed because they couldn't then appear in those media or very severely damaged. they could do what they did but couldn't do in those meetings, stay on the stage of places like that where it wasn't so effected by this book. among the names were leonard bernstein, aaron copland who composed the appalachian spring, orson welles-oil hammond who wrote the maltese falcon, lillian hellman, a playwright, here is my favorite. howard case smith. don't know how many of you remember howard k. smith. cheese to do the news when i was in college or high school, that is how i came to know of howard k. smith. not old enough to know him from the old days but the thought that he was a communist sympathizer really makes me smile. this is panic. why is this panic?
it is panic because logic is trampled by psychologic. here is the ill lot of this book, guilt by association and the illogic of guilt by association goes back to something that in classical greece philosophers would do for fun which is come of with syllogisms like this. all cats have years, socrates' has years, therefore socrates is a cat. it is not something that was new to this country in the red scare. in the 1870s, actuallthis is sort of a red scare, americans first started learning there was such a thing as communism from stuff going on in europe particularly in france, and the chicago tribune published a lengthy article, the headline was what are the reds? educate the public, they did a pretty fair job of summarizing
marxist doctrine. i will read one part of a sentence that said it involved redistributing property and taking all labor under the protection of the state. pretty fair. two sentences later it said it is the grand collective ignorance of the cincinnati working man's congress. what is the cincinnati working man's congress? i looked that up. i glanced before this publication, september, august, september, 1870, a group that met in cincinnati, cincinnati working man's congress, it was a gathering of union leaders. today we might call it a pact, political action committee, they were pulling their resources. and support labor's interest and labor's number one interest is the eight hour working day so
here is the syllogism in the chicago tribune speech. the working man congress activates working man's congress is communist. it still goes on today. michele bachman made a statement, the mother, brother and deceased father i connected to the muslim brotherhood. e too by extension may be working in the organization's behalf. what this brings me to is there is no bright, shining line between logic and psychologic, no bright shiny line that says this is panic, this isn't panic. most of the time i talk about portals to panic, i talk about panic inducing thoughts and we are all subject to those thoughts.
it doesn't mean we are all panicked. the one thing we can clearly say that is panic is when someone says or does or advocates that which they fear. two examples of that. when when fiers the new york legislature not too long ago back earlier part of 20th centuries at puerto ricans endangers the nation and to combat that danger they require voters to pass an english literacy tests, they have weekend, the legislature has weakened the nation by damaging one of its foundational pillars all men are created equal because they rendered all english-speaking men are created equal. it goes back very far, this kind of doing that which one fiers, all the way back to the first political panic in this country among white people anyway and that is the seven which hunts in
1693. when it became believed, initially three and girls initially having inexplicable fits and redeemed to be possessed by the devil one of the women in the town had prepared by another person with his call which's cake. a cake made with urine from the possessed girl, one of the possessed girls who then feed it to a dog. the dog is supposed to have a line to the devil. the belief was he spit out the name of the which that possessed% to combat witchcraft, this woman engaged in witchcraft. sorcery i believe. when we do that which we fear and over and over, and things that lead to the -- people advocate reducing is that in fact they are doing that which they fear. there is one last element of
want to talk about, statistics. the reason i save it from last is is the element that demonstrate how all these other elements connect. it does it through its misuse. in 1896 there was an article published by a statistician entitled the american negro. he correlated various social ills and life expectancy and crime rates and diseases, things like that with race and found that african-americans correlated much more highly as one might expect and concluded, reading from his article is not in the condition of life but in race and heredity that we find the explanation of the fact to be observed, here comes an absolute, in all parts of the
globe, in all times, another absolute, among all people, namely the superiority of one race over another and of the aryan race over all. the mistake this man-made which boggles me but he is a statistician, in statistics 101 i was taught correlation does not imply causation. let me give you a true statistic and it is really startling. 99% of all motorists drank milk as children but milk didn't cause them to become murderers. nevertheless, this kind of correlation will cause a oil fallacy goes on. in 1969, research done by arthur jensen, a university of california professor at berkeley, not an uneducated man.
the research company happened in 67-68, the height of riots in the city, racial riots, he published the piece and in fact published in a harvard education review in which he correlated iq tests with ethnicity and concluded -- i won't read you the whole quote unless you want to hear it in q&a that blacks have genetically lower iqs than whites. as soon as he published it there was a truckload of scholars saying that is really bad science. it works on two dubious assumptions and a fallacy. assumption 1, that intelligence is something that in fact can be measured, assumption 2, that the iq test measures intelligence and number 3, the fallacy, the correlation implies causation. nevertheless, it goes on. in 1985, in some ways this is my favorite. report from the heritage
foundation, that used correlation and causation, didn't even use data, they just use correlation causation and the moment after you will see why they would do something like that, particularly interesting in this heritage foundation report is the correlation causation argument, without data, was wedged between 2 blanks to be filled in. that give you the blanks to be filled in and the data and the data in between. right before it, they talking federal role in education and right before it, they wrote the feminist agenda obtained a solid foothold in education, feminist agenda is an example of the kind of blank that is really current today. what is the feminist agenda? you decide what is on that list and your fears and needs will participate. what is the homosexual agenda? we will fill that in depending on our fears and needs and right after their little correlation,
they talked about how all this was used to promote the destructive sex ideology. what is a destructive sex ideology? that is up to you to determine when you're sick ideology, whatever that is, is destroyed. here is the correlation piece that went in between those two. they wrote students have been subjected to the feminist world view through the illustrations of mining engineers and men happily tending the baby, wearing an apron and stirring the pot. in other words they are saying there is a correlation between students, young people seeing illustrations such as those and then having their sex ideology, however you choose to fill in that blank, be destroyed, sex ideology. why is this so potent? correlation does not imply causation, but it does cause
assumption. assumption is a vital element of human behavior. we all use assumption in so many ways every moment of every day. if we did not use assumption we would walk down the sidewalk the same way we cross the creek on what rocks. we fill in blanks and go that is going to be this, and prejudice, if you will, is a form of consumption. so then what is the relationship between assumption, this very needed human piece of behavior, correlation, causation, guilt by association likes to be filled in, tilted facts, these elements i have been talking about and what ties them together is certitudes. we all have a need for certitude, that is just human need but we all have it to the same degree. the example i give of this is
jealousy, not political. it is a relationship that some people need more certitude in their relationships than others. some are more jealous than others. to get to why you need to climb into the wiring in their head which is like cobwebs in dark corners. i can't get there but it is clear some people need more certitudes and others. by the same analogy, what is operating in this political realm, when i started this project i asked myself why political panic happen. i didn't expect that by the time i got to the end the question i was asking was why do some people panic when others don't? the initial things i talked about about national hardship, people inflating from above, grassroots from below, social conditions, something like that needs to exist for it to become widespread. anyone of them isn't always there but what is always there
is some people are going to freak out and some people are not. and i think it is this need for certitude and these panic inducing elements that feed certitude. all of them feed certitude that brings them to that point. i don't pretend that this book is going to be a silver bullet to end political panic. if for no other reason than we are a democracy and as long as we are democracy we will whip up fear to get elected to office. that will keep happening in this country. if it doesn't we have bigger problems. my hope, is that people will become more attuned perhaps to these elements and when they encounter panic inducing elements, my hope is for one brief moment, they will think about their thoughts rather than let their thoughts pull the trigger, sometimes literally, on
panic. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have time for questions. form a line behind the microphone. >> at you thought about this in the context of arthur's schlesinger's american politics? >> to the extent there is also richard hofstadter too. is that what you mean? yes. there is a middle narrow to say paranoids and hofstadter's work is excellent but focuses on a particular more limited frame and historical, but very much i think there is a congruency between the two. >>