the book and then finally give a brief overview of a few of my favorite chapters from the book. it completed the first draft of this in the spring of 2011 current just as the early republican presidential primary process is getting underway. the timing was quite good. even then though it was apparent that that field of republican presidential candidates were going to be the most outspoken anti-gay candidates ever. and yet there is rarely a word of criticism publicly spoken for mainstream republicans in the party establishment, including those in congress about candidates at men or rick santorum or rick peary and a long history of bigoted remarks. he seemed to me that many of them, that is the republican establishment were simply afraid to condemn such redrick and speak in favor of social tolerance. these leaders were not just
uninformed about gay race issues, but frankly scared to death of any discussion. and i think that plays into the hands of organized bigotry. what most analysts expected was going to be another election about economic issues and replacing much of the legislation passed video, administration like the election in 2010 was suddenly hijacked by the so-called value voters crowd and social issues research money at the top of the republican last of priorities, often getting the lion share of attention during those endless number of debates in 2011. such as when a trainee service number was getting booed during a debate. so in spite of the fact that in the race as the borough gay rights by congressman ron paul, former governor of new mexico gary johnson and former governor
of utah, jon huntsman, the general perception among most voters in the public was and unfortunately is that all the republican candidates first lavishly devoted to the religious or moral agenda of the christian right's. and of course the media love this attention to social issues like gay rights and similar issues because they level the delicious sound rights candidates like michele bachmann that allows for via much liberal media to spin their own arrogance that all republicans are anti-gay. michele bachmann, for example claims the existence for one, but not to natural disasters last year, but the hurricane and earthquake. duke gingrich u.s. to mistresses and three wes talked about the sanctity of traditional marriage in rick perry said president about his conduct in war and religion simply he allowed gay
to serve in the military that forbids children from praying or celebrating christmas. for most people find such remarks amusing yet wacky, they are designed with a hatred against gay with this particular candidates to grab a bigger chunk of the christian right voters to make a large portion of the republican base. that this kind of rhetoric of course has been going on for years before this presidential race started. and it went into overdrive in the aspect of the very controversial issue, same-sex marriage. it was almost two years ago that i decided it was time to write a fact based primer on gay rights to voters, hence the subtitle of the book. to do two things. number one, challenge religious right on its own terms and show much of what is the right of
what they call the gay agenda is fundamental republican and libertarian principles. number two, to show voters who believe in tolerance that not only are they not a voice in the wilderness, they actually represent a majority of rank-and-file republican voters. so the book is a major themes. first one i took that many of the right don't understand that properly understood gay rights are perfectly compatible with fundamental republican principles of limited government, individual rights and equal protection of the laws. the essence of the classical liberal or libertarian flaws are simply one of live and let live, all people are created research and inalienable right. the government does not allow rights depending what religion are you are come economic last year and, what your gender is more theoretically at least
which are orientation is. at least that is the way it's supposed to be. certainly most libertarians already get it i think that's why they have a special obligation to teach fellow conservatives in right-center voters why gay and lesbians at the same rights as everyone else. the second main theme of my book is that because of this con and over-the-top rhetoric we often get from right, most people have little understanding of what rank-and-file republicans actually believe about gay issues. i think the conventional wisdom is that all republicans hate gays, they are opposed to gay rights and nothing could be further than the truth to it but i discovered in researching polling data on this topic as it is in fact a huge disconnect between the conventional wisdom that i just mentioned and the reality that the rank -- majority of rank-and-file republicans actually will be in
support gay rights. the reality is this, a majority of rank-and-file republicans supports nearly all of the major planks in that quote, gay agenda that i mentioned. i think that's one of the most interesting and important part of this book. that's the measure that needs to go out to all republicans and conservatives. the latter and hateful voices of religious right leaders have intimidated and silenced most of those republicans who believe in social tolerance and their silence ms. nine. the fact is that polling data go back at least a day shows consistent and growing support for expanding gay rights including relationship recognition by republicans and conservatives. there's a lot of polling data in the book and energy to take a look at it. but pull out a few numbers. polling by gallup, for example, going back at least 10 years has
consistently shown that 80% of americans, which necessarily includes a majority of republicans favor a policy of employment nondiscrimination for gays and lesbians. virtually every other poll shows the same thing, including one just last to the center for american progress that shows 66% of republicans supporting the policy. the republican support for expanding gay rights doesn't end there. for at least five years, the majority of republicans supported the right of gays and lesbians to exurban armed forces through the 2010 poll showed that 51% of conservatives share that view. today according to national journal poll to majority of republicans are satisfied with the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." so that is normal in the republican party.
relationship recognition for gay couples has been the most contentious gay issues for all voters and even on this issue, there is now majority support according to most polls among republicans for a third marriage equality or civil unions. the cbs news poll in 2010, for example, showed that 59% of republicans supported it a same marriage civil unions and the 2011 poll by public policy showed 51% support. regarding support, republicans for a marriage of the quality, a public religion research institute poll year ago showed dirty 7% of republicans support that policy. in a "washington post" news poll poll -- a "washington post" abc news poll this past march showed dirty 9% of neither. and that same journal, national journal poll that just mentioned
show that only 37% of republicans support a federal marriage and that's completely different or more conventional wisdom is. so these are all pretty astounding numbers. so the bottom line is this, while the percentages may vary from poll to poll, i'll show clear majority of of republicans rank-and-file republicans favor of some kind of the québec nation of gay couples in opposition to a marriage amendment, conservatives and armed forces and in favor of employment nondiscrimination. this is reality a message of social tolerance on the part of the majority of republicans that must be spread, which is why he wrote this book. and i think it must be pounded into the heads of the republican establishment, which by and large continues to pander the strident anti-gay groups and leaders because they are the one who made the most noise. that's the key to their success.
distemper socially tolerant republicans to come out of the closet and i think they are in ever greater numbers. finally, the third major theme of the book is support for gay rights isn't the thing for me to do. the voters send him off and decide election after all are independent and the republican party as a progressive precipitous decline from independence in presidential elections for the past 25 years. ronald reagan won them by two to one majority in may 2008, president obama by 52 to 44 barger. independents including most libertarians identify as independent came back in a big way to republicans in the 2010 election. because the focus almost exclusively on economic issues. and that focus is credited by most political analysts for the
big republican victory that year. but republicans each remember about independence is this, they are overwhelmingly pro-gay rights. like other voters cannot they don't want to your anti-gay proposals because like most voters, they know gay people as family members. on every major issue from the feeling don't don't tell, all the way up to providing equal benefits for same-sex couples, independent support gay rights as much as democrats. even on same-sex marriage have a large majority of independence for the port. if republicans want to run on support from independents, they critically need to win elections. excuse me, didn't they simply have to change their policies on gay rights issues because independents overwhelmingly object the outspoken and anti-gay policies promoted by the right-wing and anti-gay to
make up the republican base. let me turn now to just a couple of my favorite chapters of the book. chapter one -- rather chapter two is entitled, by the religious right is wrong about the separation of church and state. and it, look at the lives of most social conservatives, but this is a christian nation. i do not just a nation of christians, that a government and a constitution based explicitly on biblical principles or values. this is what you constantly hear from most serving his leaders. and yet we know the founders explicitly avoided including religious language in the constitution. in fact, the word god, bible, jesus christ, none of those words appear anywhere in the text. and that would he an odd thing indeed if our founding others had actually in fact tended to run the government according to the biblical principle. in fact, most constitutional scholars acknowledged that the
founders were intent on building what thomas jefferson called the wall of separation between church and state, even if that phrase doesn't appear in the text of the constitution. james madison, fourth president wanted an architect of the constitution wrote that religious beliefs are not the object of civil government nor under its jurisdiction, you do that is diametrically opposed to the agenda of most religious right leaders today. in the book i quoted a variety of other founding fathers and their objections to a bible baystate and indeed some of their contemporaries criticized the founders for their explicit omission of religious references in the constitution. the reverend intended then president of yale university said the united states had quoted authentic providence because we formed our constitution about any acknowledgment of god, unquote. and yet in spite of this overwhelming historical evidence
the founders visited the separation of thomas jefferson spoke of. most religious right leaders today continue to mock the very concept of a secular state. as there are inherent would've been 1850 states on the memory for most americans, the more religious right extremists have become more and more shrill about the map of cultural changes that have taken place over the past few decades and will surely continue an ever-increasing compound for social tolerance of personal liberty, which are really hallmarks of a limited government to believe in. in that case they are no longer reliable partners are allies for those republicans and conservatives who actually do believe in limited government individual rights. i think the so-called three-legged stools, symbolizing the traditional republican coalition made up of economic
conservatives, national conservatives and social conservatives is broken and i think there will and should remain broken until social conservatives give up their efforts to remake america into their own heaven on earth. another issue i read about in this chapter is actually huge under the radar controversy going on with me evangelical community called the glasshouses of social internet. it centers around the explosion of divorce and evangelical community and the obvious hypocrisy of members when they pontificate about the sanctity of traditional marriage. the issue was raised not by one of their critics, but i offer mohler junior, president of the southern people at jellicle summary. he wrote an essay on this website in 2010 the heterosexual deport quote arms many more lives touched by marriage.
the real scandal is the fact that evangelical protestants divorce have raised at least as high as the rest of the public. needless to say, this creates significant credibility crisis but evangelicals then rise to speak in defense of marriage, unquote. i mean, it couldn't be truer. moeller labored this hypocrisy, quote, and a minute if evangelicals failure and monumental as in the community. unquote. professor mark smith at the university of washington published a pathbreaking article that same year in the political science quarterly in which he detailed the widespread problem that mueller had written about, showing the 43% of protestant evangelicals support higher than almost any other religious group and higher than the national average of 39%. and yet as the professor points
out, really to evangelicals pose solutions to the problem. rather committed we should be in their view address in the church rather than public policy. a starkly different approach than they propose to address other biblical transgressions such as homosexuality, which many religious right leaders actually believe should be recriminalize, even after the supreme court ruling, even after the supreme court ruling, even after the supreme court ruling state laws in 2003. this evangelical hypocrisy was acknowledged even by the religious magazine, christianity today. they first made these remarkable marks. its editor prout, folks cannot very well argue the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution will provide cisco about divorcing and approving a free marriage at a rate that destabilizes marriage. we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue.
and yet in spite of this internal and proud self-examination going on and evangelical future, most in the religious right groups claim to represent them rarely talk about any topic other than homosexuality and gay marriage, which even abortion is the main item on their political to. in fact, it is clear that an increasing number are self identified evangelicals and christians are actually changing their views about gay rights in marriage. so a dialogue with some evangelicals as possible. the 2010 american values survey by the public religion research institute showed that 41% of christian conservatives support recognition of same-sex couples, mostly civil unions, the 16% for marriage. an august 2010 by the safe
organization found 44% of evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29, the so-called millennial's supports same-sex marriage. these are big numbers and i think it's fair to say that the religious right groups don't represent many even in their own christian right. in this chapter finally have a section, be careful what you wish for, which i remind religious orders, they are not the only ones who believe in peace in the government on biblical principles. there is in fact a long history of liberal and leftist religious sect system in the united states based on a very different interpretation of what the bible commands. the national council of church, for example, has existed for over 60 years and has advocated the modern welfare state as an
example, a perfect example, christian compassion and service to others in the catholic left has a rich history of this kind of activism. even the modern environmental group is fondly -- is fond of asking what would jesus drive, for example. i'm christian principles environmental activism in the green economy. so there is in fact no shortage of political movements across the spectrum trying to run other people's lives. and one day and they all have in common as justifying their respective agendas on the basis of quote biblical principles, unquote. this is precisely why we need to keep organizing far from the hall of congress as possible. another favorite chapter that i'll briefly reviewed chapter five, the tea party nation, anti-gay. most of the media on the left would automatically answer yes or hell yes.
and yet, the reality is a tea party is a much more complex and diverse than many realize, even though some are great. it is emphatically not a mere image of the christian right, although there is of course overlap between the two. from this very beginning after the tea party, mostly about economic issues, it was those issues as part of movement to begin with and it was nevertheless focus on economic issues and a deliberate conscious avoidance of social issues as the cause of this great success in 2010. as keith czarnecki wrote in "the new york times" in march 2010, god, life and family give little if any mention in the manifestoes that the motto of the tea party peachtree at come a large coalition of tea party groups is fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets.
unquote. now, focuses also strategic. later they could attract independent voters as they stay away from social issues. and they were right. that is clearly been the key to their success so far. and what are their general views of gay issues? stricken the different than those of organizations. again, if united said the data. "the new york times": 2010, for example, shown below the 60% of supporting members favor of marriage equality, 41% of them supported civil unions. and one was certainly not expect to find 57% in favor of legal recognition of gay couples at a council convention. the public religion research institute's 2010 american values survey, the largest of its kind, by the way, and serving tea party members reported similar
findings about tea party members. 53% in support of relationship recognition for gay couples. this large popular support for same-sex recognition should come as no surprise, given what the research center found its own polling at the tea party movement. only 42% of self identifying tea party members agree with the conservative christian movement while 46% had no opinion of it or haven't heard of it and an 11% opposed to striking confirmation that the religious right in tea party or anything but synonymous. part of the reason i think for this much better except hints and tolerance is a large number of libertarian tea parties. i actually outlined three studies in the book and showed that approximately half the tea party activists are libertarians versus the more traditional
conservatives that most people think makes the movement. and in fact, cato has enough in the analysis study by david kirby and emily entitled libertarian roots of the tea party that confirms the widespread libertarian participation in the greater social tolerance that goes with it. and while the top religious rights organizations like the family research council and american family association campaigned the defense of marriage act, many see party supporters support efforts to revise the 10th amendment and gave two states the freedom to decide marriage -- matters such as marriage law. many support the federal district court ruling in massachusetts 2010, for example, by judge joseph tour that overturned section three of the defense of marriage act that forbids the federal government from recognizing that led to
same-sex marriages in those states that have adopted it. that decision on 10th amendment grounds was just recently upheld by a federal appeals court and the supreme court. i have a section on chapter eight. i urge you all to read that. i won't go into that, but that actually recorded all the major republican candidates who ran for president. detailing in some other background statements and for many of them did not get a passing grade. finally, the good news about the republican party i think is that it's changing, certainly is not as fast as i or others with bite, but it is. a detailing number of things in the book in chapters five and i the show how it's evolving.
and i think there other examples, republican senators, for example, that voted to overturn an repeal "don't ask, don't tell" in december 2010. they were key to the big three. just before republican state senators in new york but marriage equality over the top in that state to the overwhelmingly republican legislature in new hampshire but just recently voted to keep same-sex marriage earlier this year it has been recalled that the religious right activists out there try to get it repealed or confident that they would get it repealed and most republicans in the state house rejected that. and so new hampshire continues to have same-sex marriage. republican officeholders i think are finally catching up with rank-and-file republicans in the majority of americans and all i can say is it's about time. i may just close by reading a
quote from barry goldwater who john alluded to was one of my political heroes. well, mark my words, given when these preachers could control of the republican party and they're surely trying to do so, it is going to be a terrible problem. frankly, these people afraid me. politics governing demand compromise, but these christians believe they are acting in the name of god said they can't and won't compromise. the religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. i'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me that if i want to be a moral person and must believe in a comment b., c. or d. just who do they think they are? i will find them every step of the way fishery to dictate their moral convictions to all americans in the name of conservatives. thank you.
[applause] >> thanks for mentioning the upcoming cato study. so everyone can keep their eye off the back, to realize the number will be in many ways the most study of that basic or political movement. our commentator today really does need no introduction, but i give him one anyway. you'll know michael barone friendly "washtington examiner" or perhaps also from his earlier career at u.s. news and the reader's digest, "washington post" kabir, at the highest levels of american politics commentary. but i would like to mention a few of his books because i think the books he has written our imports and then continue to be and should be read today.
his most recent i believe his entitled our first resolution, the upheaval that inspired america's founding father, but about the glorious revolution written. its history, our country, shaping of america from roosevelt to reagan, knowing more about that path is an excellent introduction to his politics or not. and of course michael is the principal co-author of the annual almanac of american politics for the national journal group, leading, fair to say, commentary. when you read that book, you wonder, how does michael know all about? it's an amazing book that i recommend to you. michael barone. [applause] >> well, john, thank you for that kind introduction.
he noted that both you and david have written books of mature ages. your first book, my almanac of american politics, which i co-author was witnessed long-ago as a first edition that appeared more than 40 years ago. i like to point out that it's entirely unusual for the first edition book of this nature to attend written by the age of someone of four. but there we are. in addition, i come to you as a recovering liberal with my transformation having come at a later stage in life, and i guess i'm being nastier in part because and wanted by "washtington examiner" column said the same-sex marriage issue, i made the point that i was in favor of same-sex marriage for many of the same reasons published about a decade
ago, gay marriage. so i got a little feedback from some of my examiner readers on that. i felt that delays disclosed that. i'm also a recovering pollster. this is from 1974 to 81. and i found myself issues says gay writes coming into politics. i found myself wrong about where public opinion is going. during the 1992 campaign when bill clinton came out of gays, openly gay people serve in the military that put terrific damage on him in that campaign. turns out i was totally wrong and not. it was a minor issue ignored by the voters. therefore i thought when he into office with the approach of implementing gays in the military that he would have no political problem. because a firestorm in part
because i think people thought that should be one of her first orders of business. so is consistently wrong about that. so i let you know, i've been wrong in both directions of this issue. it is one where i really don't seem to understand the american people and where they are going and have not written about it substantially since. but in the 20 years since i was wrong in both directions, we have had a huge change in public opinion on this issue and in fact probably on gay race related issues, possibly one of the biggest changes that i witnessed in my lifetime. and i think growing up in america in the 1950s and early 60s, i think probably known as an era of conformism, an air of cultural uniformity we have had those unifying experience is of the great depression and particularly of world war ii,
where we had 60 million men in military service in a country of 131 million. it was a time when we really -- everybody was supposed to be average and normal and so forth. and any breach of that was considered to be a big problem. it was a time when homosexuality was really taboo, was ridiculed. i am not in detail at what the scholarship of some people have written about attitudes towards gays over history. but my impression from saturating a santana mather surveys of american history is that war and postwar period was probably a time when americans were more hostile to homosexuality but they called tbn's and at other points in our history and we were really -- we went through an unusual.
i've lack of cultural diversity or sanctions against it. you people like robert kennedy really killing out of party. polite company, gay jokes come disparaging remarks were just fine and polite company at every stage and nobody objected to them in any serious way. and i think david lampo did this at a survey says there's been a big change in public opinion, that we are hugely larger percentage of americans are now accepting gay people and gay right. do not use the word gay and not use gay and lesbians just for purposes of being concise.
gay writes in a way that was simply unthinkable. i never expected to see anything like this happening. and we do have a considerable age breakup on this. this is an issue i've observed over 40 or 50 years of polling data in which there's a bigger difference between age groups and to summarize, you know, same-sex marriage, the over 65 group, their basic attitude can be summarized if you ask the under 30 group, their basic attitude as well, yeah? it's simply seen as uncontroversial. and what this means that david has provided some of the data here is that this cuts across the lines, the partisan lines so that both parties are diverse if
you will in their constituencies are different on this. we saw an illustration of this recently when president obama kind of wrongfooted himself by announcing that he had sufficiently come out in favor of same-sex marriage the day after voters in north carolina carried last time and voted 61 to 39 against it. backers of gay marriage may have thought it might've been nice if the president had come out before north carolina voted in this referendum rather than after. but the president was trying to balance to constituencies, both of who voted heavily and turned out heavily and to test any, but whose turnout is uncertain and volatile implant suit have young voters are heavily in favor of same-sex marriage by margins of two to one or better and black
voters who have been against same-sex marriage. the exit polling california referendum in 2008 we saw that white voters and asian voters came out voting for same-sex marriage against proposition he by 51 to 49 margin here at hispanics voted against same-sex marriage by 51 to 49% margin. okay, chugging ahead in winning the election at this point. black voters voted 70 to 30 against same-sex marriage. those numbers are different among voters and president obama's endorsement of the issue is probably change their mind. but you know, he did take time to do conference calls with black preachers and there's a lot of pulpits in black churches now where the preachers are area much you can same-sex marriage marriage. i think there's a resentment on the part of some amount of black
voters and leaders and supporters are advocates for same-sex marriage analogize their cost of civil rights revolution. the black sambo, the treatment of slaves in the united states. there is a different experience and that's a pretty strong argument with some black voters. so the president was in the old-time politicians some of my friends are for the bill and some of my friends are against the bill. the north carolina referendum got enough slack to be signed, including for many of his money givers, you know, who are strong backers of same-sex marriage that he should change his position. the "washington post" noted at about a quarter of these voters for gay. for some gay people, this is not
a front reach issue and for some gay people it is. i don't think we should assume that people's orientation on this issue are the strength of their conviction is a priority, but i think that's for people to determine themselves. but it is a problem. so on the republican side, polling has shown and perhaps david will contradict me if i'm wrong that two thirds of republican voters are against same-sex marriage but a quarter for it and perhaps higher. so republicans have some -- republicans have a split constituency on this as well. you know, obviously the plurality there are against same-sex marriage, but she's also got pluralities or majorities for some form of civil union that are in favor of
nondiscrimination on the basis of orientation and so for us. those are issues that are back now. particularly for young people in this room, this is hugely different from the americas, not only in the 1950s and 60s, but then he teamed 70 and 1980s. i mean, this is a big change. you find, you know, this is -- these issues were simply not issues before her. i mean, david actively pointed out to mean the california referendum verse 13 holding down property taxes in 1978. there was another referendum on the ballot that your in the republican assemblyman from orange county. in fact it showed the people
from the teachers, fire teachers who were identified as. they seem to be getting towards majority support in california. interestingly, a former governor was persuaded to come out against this and to cut a spot against it. i think ronald reagan in 1978, bush made the difference in defeating the goals. but that was kind of the daring position. it was the opponents of the amendment went to governor break and had a meeting. of course reagan had known many gay people, have friends who were and he just thought it was unjust to hound people out of their jobs because of their sexual orientation. he was planning to be a
candidate for the republican orientation. that says something good about governor reagan as he was then, but also the fact he came out for the position was considered a surprise, was noteworthy, was so changing because in the environment we were in, does worthy of comment is something. he is simply weren't issues. if you could go back to politicians in the 70s and 80s. the response would've been hauled? what are you talking about? nobody was out there advocating in any way. i would take issue here is david's statement that the republican candidates was the most anti-gay in history.
i would argue the field of republican and democratic candidates by the standards of today's issues in all these years were anti-gay than republicans because none of them were same-sex marriage. most of them were, the product the issue, saying the homosexual behavior and that was true of democrats. it is true republicans. you know, like the abortion issue, but for even longer, you know, same-sex, homosexual behavior was an issue of criminal law more than it was anything else in the key question is how much he wanted to criminalize it in to what degree in what the penalty should be. so i think it's an issue today that is very different from what it was in the past. my own view is that we are going to move towards more information
tours were except instead of same-sex marriage. when you've got young people taking a libertarian stand of a cultural issue and old people taking a strong stand against it, the question becomes, will the young people have the same attitude when they grow up you get older? california had an issue about marijuana smoking and 1972. as i recall, he was defeated 66, 34 and young voters for a birthday. those voters can it changed their minds as years went on. he did not have any increase in the sport for legalization for california for several decades until really the marijuana came up with the idea of medical marijuana that we are now wasting legalizing marijuana in some cases. but those people change their minds as they grew up, had children and decided it wasn't a great idea. undeceived shoe, spyware people
continue to take the stand they are taking, support for same-sex marriage will persist in this millennial generation and they will never be a larger part of the election of electoral politics in years past in the current over 65 generation will be a smaller part of electoral politics. so i think support will continue. you may want to take into account my bad record at introducing trends in public opinion on gay rights issues that are not paid so forward as an expert. let me just conclude here with a couple of statements about this issue, generally. i think he pointed greatly to the fact that the prevalence of divorce among many opponents of same-sex marriage or the constituencies in his behalf
they tend to speak, there is some truth to the. and the article last week on this issue, i made the point that i think that i am concerned about threats to the family. i shared the views of people in the family research council and so forth. i think the lack of two parents is a great handicapped children. it's statistically a valid factor. but i'm also aware that the number of gays and america is relatively small. the best evidence we have is the presidential election poll every four years because you feel about yourself. you don't have to type to anyone or press a button on your phone and you deposit the paper in your box and it's a very anonymous questionnaire. so if you're fearful of stigma or whatever else, you have no motive to hide yor actual
believe. 3% has been the number and they said the last three elections. interestingly is the only demographic group in which john mccain got a higher percentage of the vote than george w. bush in 2004. he went from something like 23% to 25%. but that's the actual trend. it's also evidence that gay voters are not as monolithically voters as black americans tend to be. but my argument that i've made this work, you know, i am concerned about damage to the family, but it seems to me there's less damage from a few people who want to get carried the virus from a much larger number of people who get divorced or who have children without getting married in the first place. i think that is a pretty strong argument. tb can argue what is similar if not identical to that in his
book. let me just conclude by distinguishing my attitude, if i may, towards religious right leaders and outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage from david's attitude. i cannot see them use the term hateful to characterize some people at least at this point. i think certainly you can go out there and find people who heat gay people, the arabian capital punishment for its homosexual people or who engage in homosexual sex. the large majority people in those sides of the same-sex issue and marriage issue are taking the position they do because they think you will be good for people generally. i think that people who think it should be legal and she changed the status of marriage from what it has been for many years. it would be good for people generally there's a strong argument on that behalf.
people who are against also believe their position is good for people generally and they can say to us, look, the burden of proof is kind of on those who want to change a very long and enduring institution. i think that the keys that david is making has at least persuaded me. but i do want to say that i respect a good faith of the large majority of americans who take an opposite view of me. [applause] >> banks. now it's time for questions and going to exercise the power of the chair to ask david the first question, which carries on from his presentation. i really wanted to hear the chapter about the candidate. the republican party does many scorecard. they don't have a candidate now.
they have governor romney, what is your story on him? and also, soared to get us moving towards the future here. do you have any views about the potential -- vice presidential candidate as santorum and king greenwich or they thought not to be rep candidates for the vice president the quakes are there other people that you have looked into? >> well, i was afraid you are going to ask about governor ronnie. in that chapter eight, the scorecard, i go back and review the public statements does, et cetera and governor romney is the case of course goes back to the famous 1993 or so pro-gay statements and pledges that he
was running against ted kennedy. of course, all his religious right opponents went back to the statements that were condemned that he was still a closeted pro-gay candidate. it may feel he is a tough nut to crack. when he started running for president even before he left the office of governor, of course he opposed same-sex marriage when it blossomed in massachusetts but the supreme court decision, he supported banning it. i mean, he ultimately accepted it because he had no choice really. although others are advocating to go to the ramparts. after he left office, he made a few comments about supporting employment nondiscrimination, although not at the federal level, but the state level.
the often tailors his remarks to the audience to which he is speaking. so you saw during last year, when he was run of the family leader or add a voters value summit right here in d.c., he would say all the right things. and yet when you go to new hampshire, for example, he openly talked about supporting domestic partnerships or a certain kind of package of rice for gay couples. and i'm sure he did his best to keep below the radar is possible because he's constantly attacked by rick santorum and others for any hint of pro-tolerance. he got a d. in my report card. actually come e-mail me d+ because the partnerships team in the major new hampshire.
>> what was the timeline on the republican legislature's rejection to reveal same-sex marriage quite >> those earlier this year possibly marcher show. >> bioassay simmering issue. >> it was one of the few states that the legislature. >> a number of them are asked about it and i believe romney was asked about it and keep his usual talking point about traditional marriage and i believe supporting the federal marriage amendment, which he does. so you know, i don't think his views are going to get much better on this. ironically though, i argued in an op-ed that obama is coming out explicitly for same-sex marriage is a plus for him and gives him some opportunities but i doubt he'll take advantage of, but i think they are there.
there was always this question at the intensity of support by religious right voters. most of them have finally warmed up to him simply because he is the candidate or will be. but when obama came out and said he explicitly supported same-sex marriage, that really sent them over the edge. they were already angry about the decisions on his part. so i think most of those voters sour anybody but obama voters and i think that affords romney the ability to reach out to those moderate and independent at women voters who would like to see him say, for example, a pledge to support employment nondiscrimination for something that bush and clinton and obama all did, support a tax equity
that would allow gay couples the same tax privileges on the health insurance kind of thing. you know, he is involved in every other issue. a healthy theme in the federal marriage act and finally figure out being for federalism in the 10th amendment are actually good republican issues. that said, i don't think it's going to do any of that. so i'm just going to take a wait and see attitude. >> what about the vice president? >> oh yeah, i love christie. i would vote for him in a heartbeat. >> it is not an endorsement by the cato institute, by the way. i don't really have any preferences and unfortunately even if they have more socially tolerant views on these issues,
though different doubt that once they become candidates. >> let's see what audience questions had to us because of this, please read until you're called upon. before the microphone is the crucial thing because remember everyone in the room and we're also going out over the internet and television. please announce your name and if you like your affiliation and i would also say, please make sure that your question is in the form of a question. and if you want to direct it at one or the other of our panelists. listserv is a gentleman down here in the middle. we will try to get to everyone. >> hi, my name is dj and i've no affiliation. i have a question of whether there is a position of trying to promote gay raised so to speak
is being done on this left right can anyone to match, which to me means i like gays orate disklike gays. and to me, the better argument is for the pure argument is that i don't have to like gays, i'd have to associate with gays. that's not my personal belief, but i'm saying is that if someone's personal belief, they can still take the libertarian attitude, while i'm going to let them live a way they to live as i want to live the way i want to live. and therefore, whether or what he associate with them, whether i want to teach my children, i so would afford them the same rights, which is essentially the pure libertarian. and my question really is, aren't you guys too much lucky
not to serve sort of a left right continuum as opposed to what i would say is a libertarian continuum, -- >> thank you. david quiet >> well, i think you distillate the libertarian message pretty well, but i don't think that contradicts the battle lines really that we have. i certainly don't and i don't think most gay right leaders. that doesn't mean you have to have gay as a best friend. they're talking about political rights, traditional rice that the gay movement has talked about. "don't ask, don't tell," public employment, nondiscrimination,
politically the case against discrimination, even though by the government in various ways, shapes and forms even though from an abstract point of view of the argument should be just as strong whether they are gay people are not. >> the latest polls say that 60% know a sub 15 person. >> that would have been 20% 20 years ago. >> in the 50s and 60's no one would have admitted to that so there's a huge cultural shift and change and that is driven as expanded support for gay rights. >> in the 50s they did knew people who are gay. they just didn't know they were gay. >> right, so back to your question, yes i think ultimately that is what freedom means. i don't have to like you. i don't have to associate with you. i don't have to believe what you believe, but if you live in a free society have to grant you all the same rights that i have.
>> kathleen with the cato institute. the difficulty i find among conversing with conservatives is that once the government -- government recognizes same-sex marriage and other gay rights the government has to enforce that recognition on you in the populace and so you see cases like the christian photographer in new mexico who was forced to to -- >> to photograph a wedding. i think the 13th amendment takes care of that case. >> also the case in new jersey where you have a church that was denied tax-exempt status because they refuse to rent out the cathedral to the same-sex couple or a more recent case in new york which is a catholic hospital currently undergoing litigation because they don't recognize a certain health benefit. >> well, you know and i totally understand those positions and i agree with the richest --
religious right conservatives on method may talk about issues like that it's really a bait and switch. why would you talk about the photographer when you're talking about pink -- same-sex marriage rights. you are comparing apples and oranges. in fact most of the same people believe in nondiscrimination laws. they are perfectly fine with them when they apply to race, creed, religion or any other category. it's only when you talk about sexual orientation a suddenly they have this newfound concern for freedom of association. i think they are grand hypocrites on that issue and while i agree with them, they could at least be consistent about it and say well, i don't believe public accommodation law is correct and i would like to repeal them and not have them for any group of people. >> let me disagree slightly on that. you know, our entire civil rights legislation and accommodation in fair housing laws have exceptions for cases
personally close to you. if you have an apartment unit in your house, you are not necessarily covered by them and so forth. you have the right to discriminate against not rent your basement apartment to somebody you consider it a key for whatever reason including those otherwise prohibited by law. and i think that in these cases you know, should clergymen be required to officiate at marriages they disapprove of? well of course not. that is a free exercise of religion. the court was unanimous on the law in that january case involving the minister. new mexico thing is an obvious outrage. i mean it's against the 13th amendment to require somebody to photograph the wedding when he doesn't want to photograph that wedding. >> absolutely. wherever they have same-sex
marriage, they have bent over backwards to exempt churches and religious organizations from participating and they absolutely should. if a church doesn't even want to allow people to be members or to walk through its doors that is fine by me but don't talk about saying i'm going to prevent legal equality for gays and because sometime in the future somebody might pass a law that says you know, this lady has to photograph gay weddings. those are separate issues and they should be treated simply. >> just a brief remark. the 13th amendment ended slavery. >> the woman and purple i believe right in the aisle. a. >> hi. my name is emily. i had a discussion with social conservatives specifically that marriage is between a man and a woman and i think maybe one of the issues with this that has become such an emotional
argument and a lot of the time they are fine when they are arguing -- because it is just too personal. do you think maybe it would be better to argue from a logical standpoint that once the government takes a stand and takes a stand on marriage and grant certain benefits to married couples that it no longer holds that religious connotation and through societal development marriage is no longer understood as a traditionally religious institution? do you think if you're accurate that way people may be more reset it to viewing it as something different overall and as a legitimate right that all people deserve? >> well, i think it's important. i talk about in this book and many other applicants of legal equality of done so. you have to make the distention between that religion and the ceremonial part you talk about in the legal or civil p having, being religious and having a wedding in a church is neither sufficient nor necessary to have a legal marriage.
only that civil portion of marriage has the legal implications and that is getting the marriage license which you can then complete or by going to a justice of the piece. it doesn't say anything about religion, belief in god, having children. and so, i think that is the fundamental mistake that a lot of opponents of same-sex marriage and gay rights think of. they think of their own marriage and it's this holy union and they think of their religious values and what they were taught and all that and i get all that, but they are then crossing the line because of their personal views. they are then crossing the line with the religious aspect of marriage over to the civil and saying well, because my religion says that you are not a god-fearing person or a bad person that don't get access to
the same legal contracts and rights that i do. that is a common mistake. certainly it has been pointed out enough to social conservatives and religious right people but in fortunately their religious values and private religious values ar usually chomp their alleged belief in limited government. >> when you are talking about marriage, sexuality, you are talking about things that are very personally important to people and they are going to have strong feelings about these things. you know, that is their lives, doing things a certain way or many evangelical groups are many regretful that many of the people who have similar beliefs are behaving in ways that they consider wrong. so you are going to have strong feelings. is one of the reasons why i urge you know, trying to conduct this debate in a way that is respectful of others and take a different view. and the fact that they have,
they are positively motivated even though one disagrees with them. we have less of an intersection of the state into this church in some countries. about 20 years ago i was in france, is renting a house in normandy with family came over and we visited a church, a city in normandy which i am not pronouncing with a proper french accent. it was a saturday and there was a wedding ceremony. it was a very well-dressed bourgeois extended family there there and so forth. the priest was officiating and this lovely cathedral and so forth and after the wedding fell sir john and so forth, they stand down, the priest stands down then here comes the authority of the state, a clerk comes in right there in the church. and you know has him signed the registry and so forth.
my parents were staunch atheist and very opposed to religion and were appalled at the idea that a government person comes into a church, just physically being there and performing official duties in a church setting. that was the view of, in their view and find a violation of our principle of free exercise of religion without state supervision thank you very much. so different countries have different attitudes. >> the gentleman for up and three in. >> my name is stephen. nixon could go to beijing, why can't romney go to dupont circle? [laughter] >> maybe he can. >> i see get that kit that is a rhetorical question. >> a president doesn't you know, take a stance on same-sex marriage and you mentioned the family marriage amendment which is obviously an dead duck and is
never going to pass congress and is never going to pass 30 legislators. i object to presidential candidates volunteering positions constitutional amendments are being questioned by them because the president doesn't actually have any role under the constitution and the constitutional amendment except as a citizen of a state who can vote for members of congress and members of the legislature. he is in the same position as the rest of us except i am d.c. so i don't vote for members of congress or state legislature. but you know it's not a presidential role under the constitution to pass constitutional amendments. as a member of congress and ask your state legislator. >> inode, that is why i think he could just as easily stay out of that issue. it is kind of disingenuous to say i'm going to work for a federal marriage amendment if he has literally no role. >> they talk about it too. >> they talk about everything
including things that violate the laws of physics and mostly economic laws that we can't really expect restraint. the gentleman here. on the right. >> thank you. i think my question is for mr. lampo. mr. lampo, how do you feel and how do you think the republican party feels and more important libertarians feel about a woman's right to choose? now i recognize when we get into a woman's right to choose, you have to the question of another life intentionally. which you don't have ms gay marriage issue but i'm talking about roe v. wade where there was a period there is not a severed life. what is your view on that and how do you compare it to your view on gay marriage? >> well i hesitate because it's such, in many ways, mostly
different topic and i hesitate to get my view on it. but, even libertarians are split on that issue, so it is in that way, it's kind of a very unique political issue because even strong libertarians, because of that element of life, that second life to talk about it complicates the whole issue. i am pro-choice, so of course opponents of my book and my message will say well see, he's not a real conservative. that but that is my view on it. i think my view is consistent with the traditional libertarian view of about personal rights, control over your body but i fully respect the position and views of people who are pro-life. i do agree with the conservatives that the
government shouldn't fund it or subsidize it in any way. my pro-choice liberal friends don't like that about my views. but i think they are consistent. >> one of the interesting things about public opinion of the millennial generation, people currently under 30 and so forth, is that by a large majority are in favor of same-sex marriage. they are more in favor of for strict and abortions been at least slightly than their elders and i think you know there is a number of reasons for that. the sonograms technology. it becomes harder to argue that the fetus is not in some sense a human life and i think the other factor which is that everybody born in america 38 years or younger could have had his or her life ended by a legal and inexpensive abortion, it seems to me if they reflect on that they might not think so well of
abortion. just speculation. >> the women here, three in and for up. >> thank you. i am an intern here at the cato institute. i am curious, there are arguments among libertarians regarding this gay rights and gay marriage. one is the federal definition of marriage should be amended to include more people and the other is rather than constantly read negotiating the exclusion criteria for marriage, we should abolish the federal monopoly on the institution just kind of live and let live and let people do if they want. so i guess i am curious as to why we are focusing so much on the former framework rather than the latter? >> well i think because we have something called the defense of marriage act.
if that were repeal the federal government would essentially not be involved in that issue, but the opponents of legal equality want to get the feds involved even more. the federal federal marriage amendment. michael is right. i think it has little chance but it is a real, really important position on the part of people like the american family association, family research council and the usual suspects so to speak. i don't say that disrespectfully. and that is another reason why i think it is kind of gratuitous for the various republican candidates but especially governor romney to say he supported and will work for it. so if you want to disengage and federal government from this issue, repealed doma, and i think that is certainly a good start. >> then you have a situation that you would have which is
this interesting characteristic which is same-sex couples who have marriage is recognized under state law, where the marriage was done or where they live, you know, would qualify for things like the marital deduction and people from other states, it would be an incentive for other states to change their laws and the opponents of same-sex marriage would say it's unfair. that is how we got the marital deduction in the first place because community properties dates which is inherited french continental law, had married couples in post-world war ii period able able to combine under the husband and not many women were working then and get a lower marginal tax rate than people in other states at which point congress stepped in and the same legal situation in each
state. speak to that point again, there are some who believe in the federal marriage amendment that it's a very different kind of federal marriage amendment basically saying that marriage is a fundamental right and it should be by constitutional amendment granted or extended to all couples in all states. >> and we make it a supreme court decision saying this much, right? >> we made but certainly to me that amendment process would be even more possible and more difficult than the anti-marriage federal marriage amendment that has lost several rounds trying to get that started. >> one more question. >> the gentleman right here in the middle. >> hi. i'm from the american -- institute and i wanted to ask you there is a large increasing
support for gay marriage and most of the successes for the right movement have, from the courts and not legislators on issued it. do you think this is the most effective way to affect the gay rights agenda going forward or should there be a greater focus on changing behavior? >> certainly the latter of pork from any moral question, certainly the latter for the longevity would be preferable, but when the courts overturned jim crow, i don't think it was proper to make an argument. moe seven most southerners should have voted on that question. i think that is a good analogy. there there are certain inalienable rights as we no, they think the courts certainly have a proper role in affirming those rights. we all know courts can overboard and judges can make all kinds of decisions based on their personal preferences instead of the constitution or its general
presumption of liberty and many people believe it extends to people. so when the legislature does it or a court that sits on the proper grounds, think that is just as valid as if people vote on it. >> i have to say in conclusion, i am dubious about the court case. i mean, you know we will see if the ninth circuit which is basically ruled that there is a right to same-sex marriages is affirmed by the supreme court which it may well be or reversed as it often has. i have that sort of stand with jonathan rauch that it's preferable to do this by legislature. that means it won't happen everywhere. states like alabama and mississippi were 70% of the people are either black or white evangelical protestants, they are not going to pass same-sex marriage in the legislature anytime soon i can tell you.
on the other hand we have seen legislatures in new hampshire and connecticut, new york pass same-sex marriage so we saw that it survived the political process and effectively endorsed by the voters of massachusetts after being opposed by a court. we have seen it come close in new jersey, where governor christie wants a referendum. and i think you know, as the millennials become a march -- larger party electorate in time we are going to see marks have been. california's vote was 52-48 against the late and i think if it came up this year california would vote in favor. so far it's only been the opponents of same-sex marriage that want to bring it to referendum. i think it may be time in some states for proponents to bring in a referendum and take their chances for the voters because i think the chances for the voters -- that's going to be a step-by-step process. let me just conclude by noting
that i am also a resident fellow of american enterprise the american enterprise institute so i am a rival of the think-tank and i'm eyes happy to be here at cato. >> i would like to thank both david and michael for appearing today. are booked today has been "a fundamental freedom" by david lampo available from your favorite bookstore and also available to you here in the audience outside and i'm sure david will be happy to sign any copy you might want or to talk to you about the book and you will have an opportunity to do so and you will have an opportunity to meet the author because we are going to go up there and have lunch as part of our cato forum. lunches upstairs on the second floor in the georgia maker conference center. you have to vote the stairs. people will help you find it. it's a little bit different if you are coming here for the first time are you went to the old cato before we reconstructed things. i should say also and i've been asked to say the restrooms on the second floor. look for the yellow wall on the
right. i would like to see everyone upstairs and thank you. [applause] >> booktv has over 150,000 twitter followers. follow booktv on twitter to get publishing news, scheduling of dates, author information and talk directly with authors during our life programming. twitter.com/booktv. >> booktv is on location here at the annual book publishers convention in new york city. joining us here on our booktv said is michael cader who is the founder of publishers marketplace and he is going to be talking about some of the upcoming books in the fall of 2012. first of all mr. cader what his publishers marketplace and publishers lunch? >> they are the research of certainty from the professional book trade so publishers lunch is a daily newsletter that more
or less everyone will read. it has databases that people in the book business used to find each other reggae to report their deals, to get business done with each other. >> are they subscriptions? >> they are subscriptions, there is a pay subscription option in a free subscription options so the door is open to all but their heaviest users or those who pay. >> would assure but background about publishing industry? >> i spent my entire koran but publishing. for many as i have my own company called the book packager which is the book world equivalent of an independent producer so i would create and produce books that other major publishers would publish so i did that for about 15 years under my own company. i worked in publishing when i first started out and when i transitioned into this digital side of telling other people about what is happening in publishing about a decade ago right before the first internet bubble burst.
good timing or bad timing depending on how you look at a. >> has it been successful? >> it's been very successful. it's been very stimulating and 200 people have done very well, 45,000 book publishing very well. it's a very dynamic time in book publishing so if you'd like change and if you like the transition, the job i created for myself as an exciting want to have because i get to help everyone else in the world learn about the change as well as applying it to their own business. >> publishers marketplace and publishers lunch has put together a new item for this year, and tell us what this is. >> it looks like a physical book where you're holding it but in fact java centers the only place where the physical and the book is available. what that signifies as we have a free e-book available both for people in the book trade but also for passionate readers at home. the consumer version of this is called buzz books 2012 and it's
available on every major book platform so kindle, google, apple bookstore as a free download and it's really, we think the first time that readers of whom have been able to do the same thing that happens here at jaffa center every year just for publishing. some of the big books that aren't going to be published until this fall. >> what are some of the folks featured in here? >> we have 30 for books in all. the most high-profile we have is no young's memoir which is heavily anticipated by many neal young fans and in fact the excerpt has are to become the subject of hundreds of posts on neal young's fan for. rutted janssens back with her follow up, does my church make me look? other nonfiction includes -- and that may have a lot of very hard corp. fiction.
you're probably broadcasting people like robert kingsolver, jenna diaz, the memoir the tender bar, so we have excerpts from all of their books. we also have other very well-known authors like dennis mccain or malik halperin. authors who are writing their first book but who are being counted either by their publishers ordered by the booksellers we spoke to our other influencers the in the book publishing world and new voices that are once to watch that may cause an impact this phone may resonate with them. >> michael cader you have a wide selection provokes, correct? >> we thought it was important to measure we included a y. a section. what readers know is happening bookstores. young adult literature has really exploded to the point that it is now being read by teens but also what we call crossover adult readers so they are too we feature well-known authors like david levitan, but
again also a lot of new discovery voices like sarah mott who publishers think will stand a chance of being the next stephanie meyer or the next young adult discovery. >> then put this together. you approach the publishers, is that correct and asked them if they would be willing to submit some books? >> we came up a sort of a dual nomination process. we approached it journalistically at first so our staff wanted to look at the fall season as we need to do for ourselves to get ready for the va and see what will become of the big books so we drop our own list of candidates and in fact the book also includes an essay in the beginning that mentions hundreds of books. it really looks at the -- not just the books that are excerpted because we did reproduce excerpts for books we think are notable but will out to cover the fall season in its entirety. we took that list them into the publishers to boston to nominate the title they would be promoting that they thought
would be good for fault. we kind of cross-reference this again with what we have found on our own. we talked a booksellers and other influencers. we also wanted to make sure we had balance so we didn't have more than three or four excerpts for any single large house. we have seven to eight independent houses represented along with the giant publishers so we wanted to survey the literary landscape and represents things from small publishers and things from big publishers. >> you were publishers eager to have their books buzzed about? >> they were very eager. i think publishers recognize and organizers recognized industry has to move to expand. there is nothing that makes the reader more excited than the work itself. the readers want to meet authors and rephrase things and the thea itself infected them by the 1000 passionate readers to the convention this year for the first time. it occurred to us that we need to have --
build this bridge between the industry and the readers to keep the industry going so on the one hand we curated a selection that helped insiders to business better. they come to the convention knowing what some of the big books are and have read some of them for themselves so they know which galleys they want to buy in which authors that want to talk about and in which authors they will might want to come to their stores. there are 1000 people coming from the outside world for all given. to share in the excitement an intern when we are talking about publishers to the idea we said you mind if we put this in regular bookstores to and they'll got very excited. they stood wow that is really where we are all trying to get to by producing an early alert system that lets readers see what's coming. >> michael cader the web site again is -- >> if viewers want to download this to their readers what his web site? >> they can find information at publishers marketplace.com bar rehab links to all the stores that are carrying it. they can go to the e-book store
of choice and just look for buzz books 2012. it's a free download and it's on every major e-book platform and many minor a bit platforms. we weren't trying to distribute it as widely as possible rather than to go to the two or three big source of people might know about. >> when will it be taken down? when will the link be taken down? >> the book will be that available, we can't say on sale because it's for free come until december. it covers anywhere from late august through january 2013 so that the special value of getting to look at things ahead of publication should last for many months. we are talking about it a lot now because of convention time and we just released it. people don't have to read it now. they enjoy it for months to come and it will still give them a preview of books still on the way. >> michael cader at this point to e-books outsell physical books? have a cross that threshold yet? >> not nearly in toto so if you
look at the industry as a whole e-books comprise roughly 25% of revenues but that changes all the time. where the percentage in the big brand-new bestsellers where often the e-book will comprise more than half of the sale particularly for fiction. nonfiction interestingly has lagged somewhat. there is something about the fast narrative pace of fiction that lends itself most ideally to the digital form so when you talk about where he e-books are biggest to have to think about which part of the publishing business you are talking about. >> what about on a personal level? what is your mix of e-books and physical books? >> i've read both. i've been reading digitally for over a decade because that is how we get a news and i process it or collected a lot of galleys from publishers that are still often easier to read. they send you digital galleys now but there's something about a printed galley. for books that are ready on the market i often read on a variety
of readers. i need to test out every reader and i need to know every platform at any time just and the features that people are playing with select about in through between that through it is called buzz books. >> we have been talking to michael cader the founder of the public marketplace and publishers lunch. thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> what are you reading this summer? booktv wants wants to know. >> well i am reading three books this summer. i plan to travel of little and as i travel, i am going to reread a book. it's a little book and it's called across that bridge. i just want to go back and read it and to see whether it is saying what i wanted to say. another book i am reading as
robert caro's talk about lyndon johnson. i got to know lyndon johnson. i met with him on more than one occasion, but the most amazing deal with him was the day he signed the voting rights act, august 6, 1965, 47 years ago. and to read his story, his unbelievable ability and capacity to get things done is amazing. it's a big book and it's almost too heavy to travel with. but i want to read it and it's a good book. another book that came out just a few days ago by norm ornstein about the congress.
that it is broken, that it needs to be fixed and congress is hijacked by extremists and it's going to be a tough book to read. >> for more information on this and other summer reading list, visit the tv.org. >> i am going to tell you a personal story today and is something that i normally don't do, but this story i am going to tell you is in large part what motivated me to write this second book, what it is like to go to war. and, one of the things i talk about in that second book is our culture has basically got somere kind of an agreement.tten they call it sort of the code of silence about what really goes on in combat, what really goes on when our nation asks their kids to go out and kill some other kids.
i am no pacifist but i think that we can not want to thinkk about it very much. in my family is the same as all families. i was 50 years old when i found out that my father had fought in the battle of the bulge. well dad, you know, wasn't that a big deal? i would get all kinds of stories about, we got drunk in normandy and that kind of stuff but what it is that you know our culture is very good on don't whine. and you don't brag, you don't brag. any combat veteran will tell you that 95% of the time about 4% of the time its things yoomu want d brag about. that doesn't leave very much to to -- talk about in this culture so one of the things i was hoping to do with this book is start breaking that down a little bit. a little personal history so you
know. i grew up in this very small town in oregon.ma it was a locking town calledll t seaside oregon and back when i grew up, i think virtually all the fathers have beenn in world way r ii, and we called it the service back then. that was when your uncle was in the service and i think again our culture is starting to make a change. ire don't hear it call the serve any more. i heareaic it called the militay and i think that's t an interesting switch in language that is happening that we should think about. i got a scholarship to yale and joined the marines. ines because was the thing to do. guys on my high school football team joined the marines. i joined the plc program which is a sort of marine rotc. you get run through boot camp in the summer and people who
survive go to college as reservists. you don't get paid but you get to be a marine. sounds like a good deal. we don't have to wear uniforms or march around during college. i got the road scholarship and thought i wouldn't be able to go. i wrote a letter to the marine corps and they said that is fine. take it. i was there about six weeks and started to feel really guilty because the guys are served with and kids from my own high school had been over there and lost five boys from my high school in vietnam and there i am drinking beer and having a wonderful time feeling iowa's hiding. i went to the war and ended up in the fourth marines and we were stationed in the jungle in the mountains and the ocean border. and eventually the executive,
and finally after i got shot a couple times. and how can you get aaron metals. i wrote this book "what it is like to go to war" for several reasons. the audience was young people who were considering making the military career. i wanted to reach them. i don't want any romantics joining the united states military or the armed forces. i want to join with clear heads and clear eyes about what they're getting into. i wrote it for veterans because i have struggled with a lot of things. if aiken struggle with these things and get some clarity to someone reading it, might be helped by it. i also wanted to write it for the general public and particularly policymakers.
is important that we understand that we are involved very deeply in our wars and we tend to think we are not. i opened the book with a quote from bismarck. one of my favorite quotes. bismarck said any fool can learn from their own mistakes. i prefer to learn from other people's mistakes. i thought if i can put some mistakes down that i learned the hard way maybe someone else could do it. here is where i launch into this story. we were on an assault and going up a very steep hill and by this time it had broken down into chaos. as anybody will tell u.s. and as the first shot is fired, the way it gets done is individuals 18 and 19-year-old marine's figure out how to get there and and that is how it really works.
two hand grenades came flying off of the top of the hill and exploded and are got knocked unconscious and when i came to, sort of a mess but still functioning. we through two grenades back and two more grenades came flying from the top and we were scrambling up hill to get under them so they went below us. we through two back and, karl marlantes figured that we only have two grenade back. i told the two guys who were with me next time you throw grenades are am going to be around the side and in a position to shoot you guys when they have to stand up to throw their grenades at us. i worked my way around the side of the hill. i could see one of the soldiers was already dead. the other one just like us was a kid, late teens. he rose to throw the grenade and
our eyes locked. this is a very unusual thing in combat. generally don't ever lock eyes with people you are about to kill and he was no further away than the third or fourth row. i was waiting for him and i remember whispering, wishing i could speak i won't throw the trigger. if you don't throw it i won't pull the trigger. i pulled the trigger. i remember being slightly chagrined because i anticipated the recoil on the rifle. drill sergeant kick you in the rear end for doing what they call blocking your shot and it hit the dirt slightly in front of the guy. and the battle still going on.
about ten years later i was in one of these california groups they had. remember the california stuff about getting in touch with your feelings and no one had heard of pg s t. totally unaware of it. i was the typical sort of guy trying to -- my wife had brought me there. finally the leader turns on me and says i understand you were in the vietnam war. she said how do you feel about that? i said -- a typical answer. she said why don't we start talking about it? she asked me to apologize to a kid that are shot. i am game. i said i will do that. i start to think about that kid. that kid had a mother and sister
or whatever and i started to cry and i started to ball. i started crying so hard that my ribs ached. i couldn't stop for three days. literally three days i couldn't stop crying. i go to work and have to suck it up. folks start to talk to me had to leave and go outside and walk around. i managed to shove that down again and deal with this. i got five kids to raise. everything is cool again. 1990 i am driving down i 5 at 2:00 in the morning and this is a wonderful -- you are all by yourself, the dashboard in front of you and country music, radio and no one can touch you at your doing something and it is time -- two eyes appeared on the windshield in front of me.