tv Book TV After Words CSPAN November 21, 2011 12:00am-1:00am EST
i see is that america is dissenting, and the forces are becoming dominant in american society, and i think if you look at our country, you will see that ethnically in terms of class and in terms of philosophy and ideology and in terms of race even, the united states seems to be breaking down into enclaves of people who separate from each other and do not much like each other and even detest each other, and so in that sense, america would be a legal entity, i think, and a political entity, but i don't think we'll be able to call ourselves one nation under god indy -- indivisble again. >> host: this occupy wall street that's in hundreds of
communities, it's marked by a great diversity of background, cultures, religions, race, so united against the power of wall street and washington. >> guest: right. >> host: and in a desperate search for a more democratic side, not just political, but economic. how do you explain that? that seems to be against what you put forth. >> guest: well, i do think this. i think the measure of unity that they have, i think, one of the reasons they have it is because they're not defining their demands. i've seen some of their 13 demands, and i'm sure those who are tea party types would not be in favor of those demands so i think there's no question about it, ralph. i agree that a fundamental premise of the occupy wall street folks, which is, look, these fellows up here played the highest stakes poker game in the world, had a great time, made billion lings of dollar, and all of the sudden, they were wiped
out, ran to uncle, and asked back for the chips, and uncle gave them back. now they are playing again, have the bow newses, -- bonuses, and everybody in middle america is suffering for it. half of america is searching for work. i share the exas per ration, anger, and the rage at that inequity and that injustice, but, again, when you come to an ajeaned da, i think -- agenda, i think you find they break down ideologically, and i think they will. also, as winter comes, a lot of them will peal off. they are not going to get what they had, ralph, and they'll going to do things like what's happening in atlanta, oakland, and i think the american people will turn them off barbara because the american people don't like what happened in grant park when i was there in 1968. >> host: or move south to the warmer weather. >> guest: you and i were at
the battle of seattle. we had a good group there, jim was there, all of us, and what happened? remember, it was the sea turtles, and then the guy throwing the can through starbucks, and the anarchists who turned the american people off to a movement, i think the american people then would have supported, stop exporting our jobs, stop sending fract ris overseas, and look after our own people now. >> host: it's interesting that they are disciplined now in non-violence civil disobedience. not like the iraq war veteran getting hit by a canister. that didn't provoke them. they are disciplined. you know, early in the reagan administration, i was on a program with you, local dc tv,
and my last words were the coming months, pat, will show whether you're a corporatist or a conservative. let me ask you the question so people know where you come from. are you a corporatist or conservative? >> guest: traditionalist conservative, a russell kirk conservative. when i was younger, i didn't, you know, i followed the flashier conservatives than russell kirk, but eventually you came to see he had something really good to say about the good society an how 20 preserve it. i'm much more there. as a catholic, i got a little secly calls back in -- cyclicals back in there, ralph. >> host: liberation psychology? >> guest: no, but let me tell you a story. i went to journalism school, and one of my classmates was a priest, and the priest, and he and i became friends.
his name was miguel who became the foreign minister, and he won the lennon peace prize. i did not agree with him back then or obviously now. >> host: how do you define a corporatist? >> guest: i would say a corporatist, these fellows who -- the lobbyists here in washington, d.c., some of them coming out of both administrations, both white houses. they are down here in dc, and they will do what the corporate boss tells them. let me tell you a story again. i came out of the nixon white house, and there was an issue, and you probably were involved in it, toshiba, the japanese company, had taken this super quiet technology we had for our submarines where they could move into ports and move out undetected, and they had access to it and turned it over to the soviet union, and i thought the congress ought to come down on them with both feet, and i found out that guys i worked with in
the nixon white house were representing toshiba up there, and that's where -- that's the parting line for me. >> host: well, in the book, which i have read, the one thing that there's very little of was how in the mix of di dissen gracious is the power of corporations? we know that corporations know few limits. every major religion in the world wanted not to give too much power to the merchant class, the money lenders, and what we've seen in america, because you see a decline, i see it decline in this way. parental authorities sidestepped by corporations selling to kids junk food, violent programs, sadistic stuff. >> guest: right. i agree with you 100%. >> host: so let me -- i'm trying to get the variables in here. the modes are industrial complex doesn't mind the empire abroad.
that's business. eisenhower warned us about that. >> guest: sure. >> host: the corporations push nafta and wto through, we were both opposed to it. >> guest: right. >> host: that's dealt with a huge abandonment of jobs in industry to communist and fascist regimes overseas who keep the workers in place at 80 cents an hour. nafta dumped corn into mexico, dispossessed millions of family, some in desperation went north over the border to increase the immigration there. you have the corruption of our democratic politics, the big money in politics, and they want to own everything,our jeans. they have thousands of patents, and they don't have patriotism. these u.s. companies grew to profit on the backs of american workers, got in trouble, bailed out by american taxpayers, got
in trouble overseas, american marines, so what's the message to america? we're out of here with jobs and industry to china. why, and they've devastated the family. they have separated children from their parents. >> guest: right. >> host: we have a lot of documentation. how does this mix in the book? there's one nice quote from the president of ibm how the industrial america is abandoning. >> guest: i agree with almost everything you said. look, they had no -- look, when you put pornography on the internet for children and the rest of it, whether it's hollywood or the businesses, you're right, they're corrupt human beings that do that, and i'm against that. you and i were opposed nafta and the other things, but i will say, you know, in only partial defense of business guys, when i travel to the country in 1992 and 1996, i talked to guys who said, pat, i don't want to go
overseas. the guy down the rote moved his factory to mexico or chie china. they are undercutting me. if i don't go, i'm finished. i blame the ideological free traders. i blame them, and i used to be one of them, friedman and i were friends until he wrote me a letter saying i'm doing the devil's work. i was opposed to free trade. i agree with you on that. my only defense for the business guys is they say, look, in the global economy, they dumped in me, i worked for this company, and i have to save my company, but someone said the problem, ralph, is this, that the bundle interests of the united states and the vital interests of the fortune 500 or the 200 or whatever it is, they used to be the same in this country. they have diverged. their interests -- look, if what's good for general motors is moving its factories oversea, then what's good for general moe
motors is not good for the united states of america. >> host: same with the solar industry. taxpayers funded solar research and development, ahead of the rest of the world, and now the factories are moving to china because china gaves them the store. >> guest: again, republicans in the period from lincoln from coolidge, for example, you had rough customers, but republicans said, look, the taxes, this is the greatest market in the world, and they pay an entrance fee called a tariff, and they were 30% and 40%. on all manufacturers coming into the united states, not just from china, don't single them out, i would put a 30% tariff, you got let's say $2.5 trillion in imports, just talking about $600 billion. take that $600 billion and from the tariffs, and eliminate taxation on manufacturers who
start up or who produce in the united states. tell the guys who lilled the lexus, it's a beautiful car, assemble it here, make the batteries, drive train, tires, make it here, bring your technology, bring your money, and you can take your profits home, but you have american workers build everything here. otherwise, you will pay a tariff on the stuff you bring in. it'll work like a charm. that's hamilton. >> host: some liberals favor a social tariff which is when the products come from anti-competitive countries because they repress the labor. >> guest: my feeling is -- >> host: across the board? >> guest: the problem with that is even the problem with the congress up there saying, yeah, the chinese, they do this with their -- you know, forget what the chinese are doing. they do what is in their interest, and we know what you're doing, and we can't
control what you are doing, but we can control the products coming into the country. >> host: on that point, to show you how you've changed, you've basically said in the book, we should have no conflict with china or russia. we're actually disrespecting russia because they've done everything since the collapse of the soviet union that we wanted, and yet we have 12 # aircraft carriers which the beltway guys are saying is needed to project american power. you know what the next country that has aircraft carriers? italy has two. >> guest: the chinese have one. got that from the russians, didn't they? >> host: ukraine, actually. explain -- >> guest: right. >> host: it was interesting the way you dealt concisely with the way we're responding to russia after the fall of the soviet union. >> guest: look, ronald reagan had a lot of luck, but he was a
good man, and i think in many ways a great president, and he began, look, this is an evil empire who lies, cheat, and steals, and when he said that in the first press conference, there were strokes all over the department of state. at the end of the administration in early 1989, walking through red square arm and arm with russians patting him on the back, okay, and the cold war ended without a war, and it was a victory. i said at the time, do not move nato into russia. they did everything we asked. they let germans go, took the army back, and what did we do? we took a military alliance -- >> host: and they broke up. >> guest: let it come apart. >> host: right. >> guest: and then the empire came down, and we take and move the nato alliance designed to fight russia and europe and moved it on to their front porch and almost in the house with the baltic republics. i opposed that saying it was a
terrible mistake. we had people go there and help lute that place and helped, whatever it was, lute the place, and that's why there's putin now as a tough customer and a nationalist. my view is russia does not threaten the united states -- the united states doesn't threaten the military or they don't threaten us. it's time for the europeans to defend themselves. they are as rich as we are, got as many people, and so that's what i would do. >> host: bring the soldiers back. >> guest: what are we doing with guys on the arab river as the germans go across waving to each other. > host: 65 years since world war ii. >> guest: same to the south koreans. when we were kids, we knew older guys, guys we grew up with were over this in korea, but what are we doing with 16,000 or 28,000 folks in korea. tell the koreans you have an economy 40 times the size of north creigh, population twice as great. we're not going to leave our guy
guys hostages. you are the first responders in the war. the americans will not be the first to die in a second korean war period. the japanese, get over it, you guys, 1% you spend on defense? you have to spend more. we have a lot 6 stuff here to sell you, but you have to be the first responders yourselves. >> host: you can see now drums are being beaten to raise china as a growing menace by the military and what's your take on china? in the book, you say we're in no conflict with china. >> guest: i was against, and it was for economic and geostrategic reasons, opposed to bringing them -- well, i was opposed to the trip to china when mr. nixon was there, what we did, and i didn't like what carter did dumping taiwan, and i went into the white house, there was a communique, a different
communique, and i said, you know, i'm suspicious of china in terms of -- i do believe the chinese see themselves as replacing the united states. they will play the role in the 21st century that america played in the 20th century. i think they see that, and so i think we have been building them up. where did they get the $3 trillion, ralph? they have cash reserves. >> host: wal-mart. >> guest: wal-mart. i'm more apprehensive with them. we don't want a war or conflict with them, and the way reagan managed the cold war, but i think they have ambitions. they said get out the taiwan straight, and the south china sea and the loc. these are our tear tore your waters. >> host: what if they had aircraft carriers off long island sound. >> guest: in the gulf of mexico, yeah. we'd be miffed. >> host: let me go through
some things in the book. iran, you debunc iron as a threat. it's being built as an existential menace. >> guest: i said off the record to someone that this plot to blow up the ambassador for saudi arabia, with the character there who is womanizer, drinker, smoker, loud mouth guy, who is a used cars salesman, and they got him as the key guy in the conspiracy and goes to the mexican cartel, runs into a dea agent, and he gets the money from iran. that's a little disturbing, but they send it to the fbi account apparently. i said this things looks like it was worked up by a couple interns at langley, but it looks like a sting operation. you can, i mean, you see the neocons, it's an act of war, let's go after them.
there's a move in the country to have this country go to war against iran, and that would be a terrible mistake. this one i agree on, and i heard him on msnbc yesterday. richard nixon engaged the chinese, engaged real monsters. the greatest mass murder in history, and we were over there, and i'm writing speeches, you know, toasting the health of tong, and nixon did that because you have to do those things, and we didn't attack china when they developed nuclear weapons, russia thought about doing that. we didn't attack russia, pakistan, or india. they got the nukes partly from the united states. i think the united states should engage the iranians to prevent them from going nuclear. i don't think they want to go nuclear. i don't think the american intelligence agencies have no firm data they're going nuclear, but i would engage them and taken a look at the turk
irk-brazil proposal, you know? also, look, they are not a threat to the united states of america. for heaven's sakes. >> host: they have not invaded anybody for 250 years, but they were invaded by saddam and our backing. >> guest: with our support. >> host: put the shoe on the other foot. they're scared of us. >> guest: i think they are. they were very app prehencive when the story broke. i bet they taut it was a pretext for the americans to come after them. take the israelis saying this is 5 threat. they have hundreds of atomic bombs. who's the threat to whom? they run the planes out on test runs and run them into greece. if i were the iranians, i would be looking closely at that quite frankly, and what -- i don't know that the iranians will do
that. suppose they build a bomb, the turks would get one, and india would, and the israelis have the hair on the trigger. what's the advantage from this? i don't know what it is. we have a year or two, bomb longer than the turks, but that's it. >> host: as you say, they would be annihilated. >> guest: the israelis would put their nuclear force on hair trigger. >> host: yeah, uh-huh. you came up in a palestinian state long ago. >> guest: i -- well -- >> host: when you first said the israeli lobby is powerful in congress, like who is going to deny that? 400 and some automatic behind the resolution. >> guest: right. >> host: what's interesting in 60-some years since israel was created by the united nations, there's never been a hearing where the israeli peace advocates who are generals,
members of the national -- have never been invited to give the other side, and they had a large number of israeli support with the resolution of a two-state solution. >> guest: sometimes i read the israeli press, and there is far more dissent and argument and discussion in israel over which course they should take than you find in the united states of america candidly, you know? let me tell you why -- but the palestinians -- i was really extremely strong -- i went to israel with nixon right after the six-day role, was proisrael in 73, i was there urging the president to go all out now when the russians were moving troops to airborne bases, moving ships, and guys said, look, we detected nuclear weapons on the ships. i felt we should have gone all out. what changed my mind is i'm a great believer in nationalism as you know from the book. when the palestinians rose up in
the first and they stood up, i said the possibility, which i had thought of a single state is dead, and i mean, these people want their own state. they may not have been a people in 73 when they were the people, but there comes a point where the people exist, a new people, and they became not just arabs, but palestinians. once you do that, and in this day in age, it has to be expressed in a nation state, and the best of the israelis like general in my judgment recognized that saying we have to deal with that, work with this reality because the greatest threat to israel, as i wrote in the book, the existential threat is demography. >> host: uh-huh. more arabs than -- yeah. >> guest: the numbers are growing enormously. >> host: turning to mexico. on page 391, you had an amazing statement i want you to explain, quote "after all u.s. troops in iraq, afghanistan, and korea are home, a u.s. army will be on the
mexican border for this is where the fate of the republic will be decided." can you explain that? >> guest: sure. by 2050, the number of hispanics in the united states, if we do nothing about immigration or illegal immigration, will be 135 million, and they'll be largely concentrated in southern california, arizona, new mexico, and texas, and if that happens, culturally and socially, the american southwest is part of mexico as it is a part of the united states. i think we then are a binational state and a bilingual nation and a binational nation. i don't think this, the united states, survives. you see what happens in places like kosovo when they do that, they pull away, and so the question -- this is what might be called a national question. i mean, mexican folks are hard working good folks, and even the illegals work hard, but we have to decide are we going to remain one nation and one people? i think if we do not get control of immigration, certainly
illegally, and even legally, if we continue to have a million and million and a half when the melting pot is rejected and broken, ralph, and we're talking multiculturism which is failing all over europe, that's one of the fundamental problems i see which is the internal break up of the united states into its component parts. >> host: you go further than that quoting high mexz can officials that seem to think that the southwest of the united states is going to be theirs. >> guest: let me say -- >> host: you think there's a reverse movement underway there? >> guest: i think -- >> host: you were not for the mexican-american war, were you? lincoln dispiased it. >> guest: he was out of congress after one term, yeah, but, you know, didn't he say succession was justified in 1847? he was very much against it. he 4 the spot revolution. show me where the mexicans came
in here and shot the american troops at patrol, and he was very much against it, you're right, but he found out he could use -- he didn't get back, did he, when he got in power? >> host: no, no. what's your view on the mexican-american war as a segue to the discussion? >> guest: i think -- i think in a way, i think it suggests war in this sense. i think the texas war of rebellion revolution was a just war. the people rose up and outnumbered the mexicans 10-and-1, and they took that -- they took texas out, and for ten years, the mexicans didn't try to retrieve it, and they were an independent country, and then they said we want to join the united states. they had the right to do it. it was a dispute between the riogrande and the river, and polk sent the troops down to the riogrande, saying we claim it all. >> host: they wanted to expand the territory for slavery. >> guest: you're right. i point that out in there. anybody who thinks this is a
democratic revolution, texas was a slave state. it was a slave nation, but i do think that the americans were right in the sense they had a legitimate claim there, and the mexican army came right up to the border, and you had to fight, but there's no doubt once the war started, polk said, okay, who's that tryst? he sent him to mexico, the greatest state department agent ever who took the entire southwestern california. >> host: before we break, do you think the mexican nationalism really has designs on -- >> guest: i believe that the mexicans -- like 56% of the mexicans, i'm not sure the figure's in this book, but in earlier ones, believe the southwest by all rights belongs to them. i think they believe that as they move in gradually, the numbers, they will gradually become, as i said, socially and culturally a part of the southwest, and some of them candidly believe that, you know, the merger of the three nations in this present, that it will be
as much a part of the mexico as the united states, but i think they wanted to associated with us economically, too, because they get the benefits and the rest of it. yeah, look, i don't think they're all benign in their purposes down there in mexico city. >> host: okay. we'll be back after the break. >> host: pat, you make inside quotes in the book. you're half irish and german? >> guest: and one-fourth -- one-half german, one forth scotch irish, and one-fourth regular irish.
>> host: the reaction was unbelievably vicious calling them hooligans, lazy, drunks, you know, polluting the race, ect.. >> guest: hooligans might not have been all together wrong. >> host: how they were treated in the civil war rights and in new york city. >> guest: exactly. >> host: called criminals and so forth. now, when you talk about new york city that the vast majority of street crimes are black and hispanic -- >> guest: right. >> host: don't you think the vast majority of corporate crimes are behight? >> guest: yeah. >> host: you left that out. see, that -- i mean, if you are strengthening your argument because there's a lot of preventable violence and occupational disease and hospital infections and -- >> guest: look, i think corporate criminals ought to go to prison, but the point i was making is -- one of the points i was making is there's real objection.
i know a lot of african-american guys, cabs go by them. >> host: you make that point. >> guest: yeah, so 98%, according to the guy who runs the cabs, a his hispanic african-american, says 98% of the assaults and murders of cab drivers are done by black and brown folks, all right? that's 49-to-1, and if you get mugged or killed, it's by a person of color, and that explains why a cab driver might pass by a person of color and pick up the corporate crook because they will not beat me to death in the car. >> host: a lot of the crime is based on drugs, and the war on drugs which has been attacked by both right and left. >> guest: right. >> host: including milton friedman. >> guest: he's in there. >> host: there's military enforcement and studies saying black teenager, white teenager, same record, caught with drugs, five times more likely the black
teenager goes to jail. aside from the way the statistics reflect these kinds of distortions, do you think the high percentage of crime by blacks and hispanics street crime, not corporate crime, reflect something inherent in their character or do you think it reflects a class deprivation? back to the irish example. >> guest: well, i think this. i grew up in washington, d.c., 400,000 black folks, 400,000 white folks. you didn't have crime in those days in either community like the crime you've got today. one of the main problems is the total collapse and decomposition of the african-american family. you've got kids born now, 71% of african-american kids are born to single moms, some high school dropout gals. they've got no father at home, and frankly, going back to an
earlier point, the welfare state has taken the place of the father in the home, and all those welfare benefits and programs and the rest of it have not prevented the decomposition of the family. i think they may have contributed to it, and so i think it is a matter -- it's certainly a matter of the social situation 234 which these kids live. it's a matter of the decline of religion. there's two chapters in there. you know, people -- they've got no internal resistance or opposition to things like that. >> host: let me just point out, so if all these people had jobs and the public works was decent, and not rats and landlord abuses, and drug wars, ect., you would say that that crime level would go down? >> guest: oh, listen, the crime level -- >> host: you would -- >> guest: people were poor in the 1930s in this town, and poorer than they are today with the highest -- dc's got the
highest per capita, income, i think, in the nation, and they were poorer in 1950, and you didn't have the crime today. i mean, let me ask you, what explains the explosion of crime that's a quintupling of the prison population? one reason you're right, drugs, it ain't alcohol like it was with the irish. it's drugs, which in some cases are far, far worse. i'm in favor of prohibition of drugs where i wouldn't be in favor of prohibition of alcohol. >> host: well, in other words, you would attribute it more to class than anything inherent; right? >> guest: attribute it to the collapse of the family and the collapse of religion and things like that, yeah. >> host: they all go together, you know. >> guest: right. >> host: the thing you have to worry about is the book is they want to paint you as racist. there's two sections in there that are semitragic and some are humorous. i want to bring them to your attention.
>> guest: right. >> host: in your zeal to cover all ethnic group, you light on the soccer team in northern new york, and you are trying to show how the ethnic priority is over the american priority. >> guest: exactly. >> host: they wanted to go to england to compete in the soccer game, and they wanted a passport, and europe said no, and hillary said yes, and then they decided not to go. native americans have certain levels of sovereignty based on treaty, and they are not like any other immigrant group. you complete your paragraph here by saying "for the indians, being indian is first and american is next." >> guest: yeah. >> host: give them a break. >> guest: if you're asking yourself, if you're looking for an indian passport, i would say you consider yourself that first. is that outrageous?
i mean, what is wrong with saying that? >> host: you were criticizing them for that. >> guest: no, i'm not criticizing them. here's the thing. you know, in a way i'm saying this shows you, ralph, in a very small way, the force that pat and arthur said are the dominant forces right now in the world and ethnic nationalism, tribalism, religious fundamentalism, are far more powerful than ideology, and we're not immune in this country from these forces, and when the melting pot has been thrown out and you're preaching multiculturism, what holds us together? >> host: let me tell you what. >> guest: what? >> host: commercial corporate industries. if you want to melt people together, even though you don't like the values, corporate comucial culture is sweeping the world. the same people in sri lanka
listen to the same music as hay are in alaska. >> guest: okay. >> host: you don't take that into consideration. >> guest: you're talking economics. >> host: it's a culture too. >> guest: it's a culture too. let me tell you, it's not as powerful as the forces i'm describing. look at what's tearing countries apart. >> host: let's talk about america. it's overwhelmingly a unifying force. >> guest: there are unifies forces not covered in the book, and one is spores the, espn, it's a religion, all day sunday. >> host: commercial corporate sponsored. glg the nfl. economics is one thing that units folks in sports, but what i say is the forces pulling worlds and continue innocents and -- continents and countries apart. president obama said it himself in his nobel prize saying the wars today are not between
nations, but within nations. >> host: in the united states, the corporate commercial cultures, making icons out of minorities, sports, music, actors, actresses, that is a dynamic -- >> guest: that's free enterprise. what russell are you going to do? >> host: it's -- >> guest: no doubt people have in common -- people have in common -- let's go out there, we're all shoppers. >> host: that's right. >> guest: we shop together. >> host: that's what bush after 9/11 said shut up and shop. it's the american culture. here's another one. this one, i know a little bit about this. black farmers. >> guest: right. >> host: black farmers, very hard working. after the civil war, they had a few million acres, and it started declining after world war i, and because of the most odious discrimination on support structures favoring white
farmers and not black farmers by the department of agriculture. it was crude and down by the county agents who were white and they were racist. >> guest: all appointed. >> host: right. you were upset because after years and years of litigation delay and the farmers in their 80s and 90s if they had not passed on, about $50,000, and the point is they were dispossessed from their land, forced -- >> guest: was it proved they were all dispossessed? >> host: or they had to sell out. now you're down to a few tens of thousands of acres of black farmers, and, of course, the records disappeared. they didn't exist. they knew from the land records. in your next edition, you really have to -- >> guest: all right. then we got the hispanic farmers, didn't they? a billion dollars or something, and -- >> host: 50 years of
discrimination. >> guest: they went to florida. any hispanic farmers who got robbed or anything like that? give out a billion dollars? >> host: from the county agents' discrimination. >> guest: we had all that many hispanic farmers? >> host: in the southwest there were. >> guest: they went to florida and couldn't find anybody. >> host: when you consider what is at stake over 50-60 years, do the math. anyway, i don't want to belabor it, but i wanted to point it out. >> guest: i gather that set you off in the book. >> host: oh, did it ever. the decline of the catholic church and christianity makes up a lot of this. >> guest: two chapters. >> host: here's what i don't understand. it's not all consistent. like let's take, for example, the situation of beth la ham and
the west bank. there's two other colonies who block access. there are very few christians left. >> guest: i know it. >> host: the christian stories for the tourists and hotels are shut down, so the pilgrims from all over the world can't stay overnight anymore in bethleham. the churches have taken the stand, the evangelicals support israel no matter what happens against the birthplace of jesus christ. you think they'd have an exception, but the vatican, and you know this probably better than i because robert novak wrote two columns about it. they are upset and negotiating with israelis all the time, access to the holy place and so on, but they have not really spoken out. now, you know, the israelis blasted their way to protect the wailing wall in 1967, and where
is christiandom here? where is it on the holy places, and what about the u.s. congress? what about the catholics and protestants in the u.s. congress? this has nothing to do with, you know, whether israel gets $3 billion of aid every year. >> guest: i take the point. robert was a good dprend of mine. i have to get back over there. haven't been to the west banks since 1984. the mayor then was a wonderful fellow, christian there for a number of years. look, i don't agree -- >> host: where's the religious nationalism? what i'm saying -- >> guest: where's the moral authority? i don't disagree with you, ralph. we have to stand up for the palestinian -- but, ralph, look, look at all the christians. there's 17 million christians in that part of the world. i'll say this, if it's in israel, they are not persecuted there like cops are in egypt or the serian catholics are in iraq or, i mean, they are victims of
persecution, martyrdom, liberated afghanistan, one guy converted to christianity, and they sentenced him to death. >> host: demons have been released because for centuries, the whole arab-islamic world was a paragon of tolerance for religious sections. under the ottoman empire and everybody. they prided themselves on it, but when the west moved in, divide and rule, you support one muslim sect against another, they engage in a furry, and then they turn on others. >> guest: got a problem with the british empire, ralph? >> host: yeah, a little bit. this is what happens. >> guest: i don't disagree. >> host: invaders destroy societies. >> guest: let's say, okay, all right, no doubt that's one of the great causes, but say this, there's a rising islamic movement there, and a lot, i don't disagree with the fact
that people's religion should not only shape their culture, but they want it represented. christians wanted that in the united states in the 19th century, a more christian society reflecting our views and values, but also, ralph, this thing that's taken place against the christians over there, and some governments are trying to stop it, but that is real. it is an effort really to drive christianity out of that part of the world all the way from egypt to pakistan and india, and all of those in there are facts and it is dialed down into ethiopia, the 16th parallel, south of there, it's heavily catholic, and north of that in the sudan and places like that, it's arab and muslim. look at their -- i mean, the persecutions are unbelieverble. >> host: all over. in china they are persecuting too. a peaceful christian community, and they are terrified because
if this falls apart, they'll be exiled. >> guest: the christians are very successful in syria, and they are protected by assad and his son, and the state -- i heard the model over there is when assad goes, it's the christians to beirut and the others to the wall. i mean, so i'm not sure this is all that liberal a society to emerge out of any of these places, but clearly, one of the factors, ralph, is this rising militancy of islam. let me say this, i think they look at europe as a dying continent, and they are exactly right, and the europeans can't provide enough service workers to care for the aging, dying populations, and i think the folks are going to be moving across the mediterranean into europe, and -- >> host: it's a huge backlash against colonialism, invaders, and look at iraq, ask, you don't think the u.s. military's going
to defeat the taliban? >> guest: no, i think it's going to end very badly and they'll come back to power. >> host: in fact general mcchrystal said if they fight us to a draw, 30,000 people in sandals and rocket propelled grenades. >> guest: the colonists took care of the brits, and the brits were the biggest. >> host: it's hard to see the foreign invaders. >> guest: they live there, and they're going to stay there; right. >> host: sometimes when i read this book, there's almost a weeping wistful quality to it like if i can use this analogy, you're in a neighborhood, and you have a white anglo group, some irish spring -- sprinkled in, and other groups come in, the food smells different, the kids are running
over the grass, and it's like the whole break down of this kind of quiet community. let me finish -- >> guest: sure. >> host: what gets me about what you're trying to convey here is that you're not taking account, except in the last part of the book where you become optimistic, you're not taking into account the common desires for fair play and standard of living, and even tolerance that crossed all ethnicities other than your extremists; right? we're talking about that large majority. here's what you say on page 364 because i saw you zigging and zagging here partly because you didn't want to be misunderstood. you say, quote, "on the national question, americans are united. there still exists in their hearts the will to remain one nation under god and one people
united by history, heritage, and language committed to proposition that in america, men and women are to be judged not by their color of their skin, but by the content of their character. americans still believe that we are all equal in rights, not because of where we came from, but because of who we are, americans." okay, so why do you go overboard with this who is white and who is not white? do you think hispanics are not white? do you think justice society -- sotomayor is not white? >> guest: i don't know how she defines herself, but there's no doubt as i said many times before, anybody can be a good american. i think any group can be assimilated, but there's three problems, ralph. one is the enormous numbers of people coming into the country never before assimilated into any western country, never
been -- >> host: that was true years ago. >> guest: now the second point. >> host: okay. >> guest: the process of assimilation, the parochial schools, the melting pot, the same radio, same tv, rooted for the same teams, the melting pot is rejected from multiculturism. people are told keep your own faith and traditions, don't assimilate, be different, ect.. >> host: they do that for protective reasons. >> guest: okay, for protective reasons, and the third thing is now look around the world, and you see these -- just take iraq as one. the sunni versus the shia, kurds against arabs, they are all coming apart. 40% of the describes are trying to -- tribes a trying to break away. even in europe, scottland wants to break away, northern italy wants to break away, we've thrown out the melting pot,
bring in all of these folks from all the places, never assimilated, destroy the process of assimilation, and i'm looking around the world seeing it's coming apart. why are we taking this risk with the greatest country on earth? why are we doing it? >> host: you say, how can multiculturism and multiethnicity and all of that, how can that produce a better country than the one we grew up in, mainly say our generation? >> guest: right. >> host: for example, first of all, it was not all that great, you know? segregation was horrible. the repression of human potential among blacks was terrible. there was a lot of discrimination against women. now, in my harvard law school class of 1955 -- >> guest: right. >> host: we had 560 students. we had 13 women. women were never alawed into that law school until 1950. 13 autoof 560 women, maybe two blacks, and i don't think one
hispanic. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: the hispanics at harvard were children of south american dictators. >> guest: in georgetown, we had that, rich kids; right? >> host: is that a good thing to wistfully go back to the country we grew up in? >> guest: what i say here is, look, all these kids raised up in the tradition to be american, and when they were in law school with you, harvard law, you're in the top law school. all right. were kids kept out of there because if they were kept out who were qualified and unqualified guys got in, that's wrong. what's happening now is i write in there, you read in there, white working class kids are conservative, and christian kids are the most discriminated kids in these ivy league schools according to the study quoted in there. i don't like that. it doesn't bother me that in the nfl african-americans are overrepresented by 500%.
why? they got every job they got because of the ability, drive, energy, and the rest of it. that's the kind -- that's the 1950s i remember, and those are the -- >> host: you wouldn't think this is a nice thing? >> well, if they are discriminated against. >> host: of course. >> guest: if they got better scores, than they shouldn't have been in there. >> host: you got to look into the sat nonsense. it's a terrible way to screen out or in people. it's heavily correlated with family income. overwhelmingly correlated with family income. better are the assessment tests. not a, b, c, d, but do you know this about economics? do you know this about history? the assessment tests. harvard, and all the schools use these multiple choice that correlated with family income. >> guest: well, family income, well, you know, my -- you know, when i was growing up, a lot of the guys very wealth family
income, maybe they got rich by a scheme or something, but most of the lawyers and doctors and people like that were very smart people, and that's why they made more money. >> host: yeah, well, anyway, i want to go on to one other thing here because i think you're overestimating the clashes. i think corporate commercial culture is pervasive. i think a lot of people -- >> guest: you think it can hold us together? >> host: people came here who have assimilated. look at the subindian continue innocent in california. >> host: you have bright kids in school winning spelling bees like that. >> host: where you have 60% of the population from south america, they will create their own culture, you're right, like south florida, but you remember pohl town, that battle of gm in detroit, it was the early 1980s, a 5,000-people community on one side of the detroit. >> guest: right. >> host: and gm said we want to build a cadillac plant.
>> guest: right. >> host: and we'd like it here, 450 acres. >> guest: right. >> host: the black mayor went along with it. a white corporation, black mayor went with it, so did the uaw. the problem was there was a thousand homes, 400 small businesses, 12 churches, including a beautiful polish built catholic church, a hospital, and two schools; right? they took it by domain for a plant. >> guest: i don't believe in that. >> host: completely leveled it. >> guest: i don't believe in that. >> host: they produced half the jobs they promised, and the church because there was people trying to save it, john richard and others, and the church was bulldozed immediately at five o'clock, the police came, cleared it out of the priests, and they bulldozed this beautiful church that early polish immigrants built; right? you know where the church was?
where the shrubbery of the parking lot of the general motors plant was. >> guest: look, i don't believe in that. >> host: here's the point. that community was half black and half polish and eastern european living in small, but clean prepared houses, little flowers and gardens. you know the old scene. >> guest: sure. >> host: peacefully. >> guest: sure. look, i grew up -- >> host: i'm trying to point out -- >> guest: the politicians did if they granted -- how can you grant general motors the right to tear down private homes? imminent domain is the public highway system, taking lands for the public system, but this is a process the mayor went along with. i agree with you 100%. >> host: upheld by the supreme court and the new london case. >> guest: i agree with you on that decision. >> host: corporate power
dissented communities. >> guest: i know it does. >> host: not much more time, but i did want to ask you when you said religion, race, culture, and tribe are the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse, would you add corporatism to that? >> guest: there's only four, ralph. >> host: okay, would you say there's five? >> guest: no, i'll tell you -- >> host: would you say corporatism is part of that? >> guest: look, i think corporatism is, you know, what it has become -- you take religion and ethics -- religion 1 the basis of ethics and morality, and when that goes and you have powerful corporations, there's -- they are more danger in my ways than individuals. no doubt about it, and do i believe in rampant corporatism? no. i don't -- i do agree -- i don't agree with the pope on this world -- a world bank? world economic, like the fed, i
don't i agree with him on that, but when he did say the relationship of capitalism is idolatry, i do agree to that. i do agree. i believe in free enterprise and the free enterprise system. it's the greatest in the world, but when corporations get that powerful, they have to be regulated, and i don't agree what happened to poll town. >> host: we're out of time unfortunately. >> guest: okay. >> host: thanks to c-span. we had a discussion not made up of sound bites; right? >> guest: i think so. >> host: thank you. >> guest: thank you very much, ralph. we have to get back and have a second battle of seattle. >> host: right. >> that was "after words" booktv's signature program in which authors of the latest non-fiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policymakers, legislatures, and others familiar with their material. it airs every weekend on bock tv
10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.j. on monday, and 12 a.m. on monday. go to c-span.org and click on series and topics list on the upper right side of the page for more. >> and welcome today two of booktv's coverage of the 2011 miami book fair international. the annual week long affair concludes today with a street fair on the campus of miami daid college in downtown miesmsz, and there's several events we'll cover, and you'll have the opportunity to talk with several authors. here's the lineup on c-span2, and our live web cast schedule as well. in just a minute, you'll have the opportunity to talk with harvard law professor, randall kennedy, about "the persistence of the color line," and in an hour, author brooke will be here
writing a book about immigrant high school kids called "the new kids," and you'll have the chance to talk with her as well. in two hours, an event from earlier this month, and bill clinton on his new book "back to work" in conversation with his daughter, chelsey clinton, at the new york historical society, and then jim lehrer will be here to talk about "tension city," and then our webcast schedule. in conversation with the audience up there, again, that's at 1 p.m. eastern time. at 3:35 p.m. eastern time, is bell wilkerson, the warm of other sons. you would remember her from earlier this fall. she will be in chapman hall speaking with the audience as well. 4:30 p.m., a chance to --
another chance to hear jim talk about presidential debates, and timely, the miami book fair international ckding be michael moore at 6 p.m. eastern time webcasted on booktv.org. you can watch it online. two ways to watch booktv this day. you can watch it on c-span2, talking with authors. you'll have the chance to call in, but on our website, booktv.org, you can watch several author events as well. go to booktv.org for the full schedule. well, earlier this year, author and harvard law professor, randall kennedy, sat down for the "after wards" program interviewed by april ryan to talk about "persistence of the color line," a