(Full) Jim Leach: “What is Precedented and Unprecedented in American Politics”

(Full) Jim Leach: “What is Precedented and Unprecedented in American Politics”


(tinkling piano) – Ladies and gentlemen, I’m Jeff Kueter and I
have the great privilege and honor to be the president and CEO of your University of
Iowa Alumni Association. We represent the 270,000
graduates of the University that live all around the world. We try to serve them to
the best extent possible to make sure that their experience, their alumni experience is
meaningful where they live and in ways that are
impactful on their lives so that when the University calls on them, they’re willing to say yes. This program that you have tonight is part of our life-long learning series and it’s a continuing program
of the Alumni Association designed to bring educational programming to the alumni base. We pull on faculty and staff
of the University primarily to come and talk to you,
the alumni and the city and the friends of the
University that reside here in Johnson county, about their areas of expertise in subjects that are important to
the public discourse. And tonight’s event
certainly fits that model. We’re pleased to have with us tonight Congressman James Leach. Jim now is a College of Law professor having joined the faculty in 2013. He served most recently then as Chairman of the National
Endowment of Humanities, but of course, he’s best known as being the representative in
Congress from this area for more than 30 years. During that time, he chaired The Banking and Financial
Services Committee among others and was the
chair of the Congressional Executive Commission on China. He’s been a professor of
the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University,
the interim director of The Institute of Politics, an elector of the John F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard. He holds 14 honorary degrees,
and has earned decorations from foreign governments as
well as many institutions and associations throughout
the United States. We are pleased and
privileged to have him here at The University of Iowa
and we’re very grateful and thankful that he’s with us tonight. I present to you: Congressman Leach. (applause) – Thank you very much, Jeff. And personally, I think
we all should acknowledge that this has been an
extraordinarily sober year accentuated by an
extraordinary sobering event this past week. And as Americans, we all share the grief of our fellow citizens who were targeted for this truly preposterous mass-shooting. Anyway, my hypothesis this evening is that history is to governance what experience is to
a doctor or a lawyer, a carpenter or a chef. Unless we’re dealing with
exclusively names and dates, history itself is not orderly or precise. And if we think about
the depth of history, we have to probe the whys and wherefores as well as the consequences of events. And in this regard, when
one looks at these things, history becomes a bit murky and sometimes, history is more controversial
than current events. Speaking about the concept of faith, Saint Paul once said that we all look through a glass, darkly. And what he meant was that one could have confidence in faith, but there is no one that’s a mere mortal
that can truly understand the will of God. And you might make an
analogous observation about history itself. The lens of history is also dark and maybe may depend upon
the observation point and the observation point may relate to the background of the individual viewer and it may also relate to the time period in which one is making an observation. This lack of clarity, though
is a significant reason why political science is a misnomer. Politics is an art, it’s not a science. And there’s no such thing as certitude as there is in mathematics. And in terms of difficulty,
I think the case for upgrading rather than
downgrading the liberal arts has never been part, because
if you think it through, as difficult it is for scientists
to understand dark matter, it’s far more difficult
for a decision-maker or the public at large to
understand dark motives. In… In many eras, there have been a sage that has said something to the effect that if one doesn’t look at history, one invites repetition of past mistakes. And there’s no doubt that this is a valid observation, but it doesn’t mean that history’s always well-understood and it doesn’t mean that
seemingly-related challenges have been, are helpful in dealing with current circumstances. And for example, as historians,
it’s the most-reviewed point in history, look at World War I, there is a great effort
to try and figure out why we had a war, based upon
a relatively minor event. Why tens of millions of people were killed because of the assassination
of a minor Archduke. And there’s a general conclusion
that the international system did not have enough flexibility. Then we come to World War II and we think of the English Prime
Minister who goes down in history as someone who
appeased a bit during the ’30s and it appears that you can
have too much flexibility as well as too little. And so you have two great
wars that, in a way, relate to two different interpretations of historical judgement. I might mention in this regard that there’s no iron-clad set of laws that relate to history. And this is partly the
case because to agree that there’s one constant in history, it’s probably human nature. But human nature is
varied, and it’s varied at different times and it’s varied in different combinations. And I mention this
because the closest thing to looking at human
nature that’s come down from the ancients is the
idea of seven deadly sins. Which are, by the way, I
had to look them up today. (laughter) Pride, greed, lust, envy,
gluttony, wrath and sloth, contrasted with seven virtues. And I’m confident nobody
here knows all seven virtues. Humility, chastity, charity,
kindness, temperance, patience and diligence. And the reasons I mention
this is that you can take this, these set of attributes
or criticisms of people and make analogous sets. And in every single day,
there’s a little bit of a different mixture. And so, you can take the same circumstance and one day you have one way of thinking, another day, you have a little different. And so how these interplay
are of great significance, but they’re also difficult to understand. Now in a democracy, we all make judgments for various reasons. And one relates to political parties, one relates to whether
candidates share issues, but always there’s a circumstance that there’s a judgement call to. For example, someone may be
sharing a political party, may be sharing a political attitude, but you might think
they’re a bit of a fox. I’m trying to come up
with words that aren’t too much like the words used
in American politics today. (laughter) But I also reference this
because one of the things that doesn’t get talked
about and I think is of enormous significance is that our founders truly
dwelled on the concept of human nature. And it was terribly meaningful because as Madison explicated more than any of the others, There very positive
aspects of human nature and there are also a few
that are more worrisome and that is the precise
reason why we established a constitutional system
with checks and balances. And every American understands
checks and balances. The executive, legislative,
judicial branch. There are two factors, though, that often get almost no thinking. And that is that this
breakdown is not precise. There are overlaps between the Congress and the Executive, between
the Executive and the Courts, between the Courts and the Congress. In fact, the recent, that is
five years ago, six years ago, Court ruling that I am most appalled by, the one called Citizens United, is the Supreme Court of the
United States making law, not interpreting law. It had the option of declaring
a law of the Congress unconstitutional, which it
did, but then it turned around and absolutely made up whole cloth of law, which is very different
than the type of law the Congress had did. And I mention this
because we have overlaps. And actually, there’s
no way of challenging the Supreme Court. Although, one can hope
the Court changes its mind or has a different composition. I’m… In trying to come up
with something relevant for this evening, after coming up with a theoretical title
about precedents and unprecedented aspects of American history. I’m gonna first demarcate American history in four ways. One: The beginning of the Republic, which was all about whether
society could be formed based on the rights of man. The second great debate
in American history was all about definitions. How do you define man? Is it someone that is simply pale? Simply male? Simply a property owner or all three? And then had a debate about
and largely symbolized in the last century, about
the right of opportunity. In a way, contrasting
Franklin Delano Roosevelt on one hand with the
philosophy and theories of Ronald Reagan on the other. And by the way, neither
were near as radical as their reputations. Roosevelt even in the second term, ran on the notion of a balanced budget. Ronald Reagan was actually
quite a practical president in many ways. And in one of the circumstances
that I lived through, and did not, in this case, witness, but heard immediately about
that was truly moving, the President of the United
States was shot one day at the Hilton hotel in Washington, D.C. He was closer to death than anyone knows. The first non-family member to visit him was Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill. And Tip was a symbolic
liberal in Washington. And Tip and Reagan were both Irish. They both liked each other a lot. Tip walked in to Reagan’s hospital room and was stunned, apparently, by how weak the President looked. He got down on his knees,
took Reagan’s hand, and kissed it. Can anyone visualize (laughter) a Republican today walking
into the hospital room of Barrack Obama? I mean, this is a really
moving circumstance. And what is interesting to
me if you take the concepts that have evolved in a
kind of discussive way, if someone is talking to
you in a, at a dinner table and mentions the word Congress,
you instantly say something about dysfunctional. A word that everybody’s known,
but never applied the way it is being applied today. The Founders never talked
about dysfunctionality, they never talked about gridlock, and even if you come to
the Reagan administration, which was fairly controversial, those words were never used. I mean it was always understood that Reagan would have an approach, Tip O’Neill would try to modify it. Tip might lose, well, he won some. But there would always a result. You’d always have functionality. And this was an assumption. And I just stress this because that was what they were
trying to establish: a government that would be limited, a government in which no one
would have too much power, but a government that would work. And that was the effort in
the Constitutional Convention. And the other aspect, in
addition to separation of powers, that was so central to the
beginning of the Republic was the provision was made for
the Constitution to change. Everybody knew that there
was something different in judgement calls about
the issue of slavery, but everybody at the
Constitutional Convention also knew that there was no way
you could form a country without accepting it
in one way or another. And yet the Declaration of
Independence was so profound in the concept that all
men are created equal. Well, anyway, we come
to the first inaugural, which I consider to be the most relevant speech
for America today. And it’s intriguing that
probably only one paragraph was written by the speaker. And the speaker, of course,
was George Washington. But he called over to Mount Vernon, his friend, James Madison,
and he said to Madison that an aid of his had written a speech and would he review it. And Madison said of course, and he went in the other room, and after a while he
returned to Washington and Washington said “What do you think?” And Madison said “This is terrible.” And Washington said “Why?” He said “Well, first of all,
it’s an hour, maybe more. “No one can endure that. “And secondly, it’s very
regal, and the kind of society “we’re building is of a
very different order.” And so George Washington
said “Well, would you like “to write me a first inaugural?” and he said “Sure.” And he came back a couple days later, and it’s a totally Madisonian script except the first paragraph,
which only Washington could have written. Because it begins and Washington’s talking to the Congress assembled
in New York City, at something called Federal Hall. And he’s seeking their
support and their assistance. And so he begins by saying
“you must understand “that I have no civil
administrative experience “and I was not born with many abilities.” (audience chuckles) In other words, he said I’m
inexperienced and I’m dumb. (laughter) And he said it more deftly than that, but the point is, I
don’t think any president or any governor has ever
begun a speech that way. (laughter) And yet, if one thinks about it, it is the circumstance of
all presidents at this time, and by this I mean, if
you imagine for yourself, the ablest person you can conceive of who has views closely to your own. And they’re, they get elected president of the United States, that person will only know a little bit about a few things that will
be dealt with in government. Government is now absolutely gigantic. And our society is absolutely gigantic. And because government touches
many aspects of society, you absolutely, desperately
need truly good people to have work with you. And you have to be able
to delegate authority and recognize when you have
to be totally responsible and when you have to delegate
to your cabinet members to your ambassadors, whoever it may be. And so one of the reasons
that once you vote for or against any presidential candidate, is frankly who you think
they’re gonna have around them. And if you think they’re gonna be good. If you think the person can cope. And those are really
big kinds of decisions. Anyway, in this first
inaugural, Washington deals with something that people
haven’t thought about for ages. And that is how should
elected people vote. Once you guide them. And he established three nos. And he said there should
be no local prejudices, meaning that one should vote
for the national interest over the local. Secondly, that there should
be no separate views. And by that he meant
that people should not be conniving to form another country. And thirdly, he said there should be no party animosities. (light laughter) Well, those are big nos. And then he said “how do you decide?” And he said you should
follow and I’ll quote this: “The pure and immutable
principles of private morality”. And that sounds kind of
other-worldly and kind of not only abstract but obtuse. But what he really is
saying is you should follow a clarion call of independent judgment. And then you ask yourself
how’s Congress operate today? And I will try to explain this
because it, it’s something that involves chemistry. And Congress today, and it
didn’t happen overnight, there is a philosophical
precept that sometimes there are changes in
degree that at some point become a difference in kind. And that’s what’s occurred: Congress changed gradually
over the last 40 years or so in ways of making decisions. Until today, going from three
or four party caucuses a year, which that party caucus
meaning the Republicans meet in some room together, the Democrats meet in some room together. Now we have one or two caucuses a week. And the caucuses have
become, instead of a caucus being brought together
to talk about schedule in the coming election or whatever, they’re about what
we’re gonna do to defeat the other party. And they’re analogous as
close as I can suggest, to a football team at half-time, in which you’re trying to figure
out every strategy you can to defeat the other, other side. Well, what I think
Congress has lost track of is, is who the team is. And so, if you think of
anybody in public life, you take a oath of office. The oath is to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States, which is a very unusual oath, because if you take a British oath, it’s to support the
Queen and her successors. Which is a very different theory than supporting the Constitution. What does supporting the Constitution and protecting it mean? It means you work within the system, you’re guided by the
processes of government, that are established. And these processes that the
government, that the founders visualized that you’d have
people elected from all sorts of different states with all
sorts of different backgrounds and you’d have to build
your judgements together. And in the Declaration, we talk about all men being created equal. Well, if all men are created equal, and I’ll get into the definitions of man in a little bit further but
if all men are created equal, it, it follows that everybody’s
judgement should be treated with respect, but they’re not. And so what we have is kind
of a food fight in Congress, and that’s why we have
words like dysfunctionality and that just don’t fit the times. Anyway, Washington made
two other observations. And the one’s not an observation. One is, he referred to
a greater authority. And he referred to it four or five times. And that’s like the Great
Father of Humankind. But he never references
the word Jesus Christ or the word God, because Madison wrote this
and even though the majority of the country was Christian,
they were making way for the Bill of Rights
to get to be crafted, in fact, that was the principle
duty of the first Congress, was the Bill of Rights in
which we very progressively, among other things, called
for freedom of religion. But anyway, Washington
concluded his address with the successive government
depends upon, and I quote these two words: “tempered
consultations” between those who are holding of. of the public trust. And that literally means between members, it also means between
branches of government. And so one can make their
own judgement of whether we’re living up to the
model that Washington said. Now Washington also
had a farewell address. And intriguingly, he
intended to serve one term, and so near the end of this first term, he called Madison back and said how about a farewell address. And Madison said sure and he wrote one. And then the feelings
between Alexander Hamilton and Jefferson became more stark. And Washington felt that to
keep the country together, he better run for a
second term, which he did. And towards the end of the second term, he called Hamilton in
and said would you review Madison’s draft, and Hamilton
did; changed some, added some, but didn’t throw out most. And in the second inaugural, excuse me, the farewell address,
which was never delivered, he really took Madison’s advice. And what he did was he published
it in the spring of 1797 as a letter to the people of
the United States of America. And he basically had three quick themes: one, it was a call for national
unity, because even then, it wasn’t clear it could be held together. He called for national
expansion and we forget that there were, there
was debate at the time, on whether there should be
another country to the west. And whether it be to the
southwest or northwest. And then it warned against
foreign entanglements, a subject that I wish four
or five of our presidents had paid more attention to, such as John Fitzgerald
Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon on the Vietnam war and, and George W. Bush on the Iraq war, in which we engaged in countries
that did not attack us. On the religious front,
Jefferson is the most interesting of the Founders. He was considered a Deist and he took the subject of
religion unbelievably seriously. And he studied, he was maybe, well, he was certainly our only political comparative religionist. And one of, maybe one of
the few in the country that studied comparative religion. And he made a really, truly
interesting conclusion. And that is that he
said what mattered most between the great religions of the world was not where there were differences, but where there were commonalities. And then he listed them. He also changed his own
Bible and basically, he took the passages he liked and took out the ones he didn’t. (laughter) Which I don’t know that means
that when we’re thinking about the ten commandments,
who would take what out. I just…
(laughter) Too many jokes on that subject. Anyway, Jefferson is also the one, who in this famous letter of 1802 to the Baptist Assembly in
Connecticut, he used the phrase “separation of church and state”. Which is come down in a very
meaningful way to all of us. Now as a, as a person, his
morality was perhaps imperfect. If you read about the Hemings woman. As a Founder, he’s pretty
impressive as a president. He’s responsible for an abuse of, of constitutional authority
which all of us celebrate. And that is: he clearly bought Louisiana without first getting a
law passed in Congress. And that’s a pretty good purchase. In fact, we’re part of that purchase. And as a candidate, he
is, he’s topped Trump in some of his language
that he’s responsible for. Donald Trump has called
Jeb Bush “low-energy”. That’s not the worst
thing that can be said about someone. Trump, er Jefferson hired a journalist to call John Adams a hermaphrodite. (laughter) Luckily, I had to look that up. I’m sorry. Anyway, Adams was not too pleased and refused to talk or
communicate with him for a decade, slightly more than a decade. And then a well-known physician who was the, named Benjamin
Rush who was the physician to all of the Founders in Philadelphia wrote the two of them
and got them together and then they agreed to do a
set of letters back and forth that are now a part of American history. And then, as you know, they
both died on the same day, on July 4th in the 1820s. Anyway, back to the subject
of the second great debate, which was about definitions. In some ways, Lincoln is the star, but he also was a follower. And the great, greatest precipitator of the Abolitionist movement was a woman and this is Harriet Beecher Stowe. And Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a novel that was read by more
Americans than any other book, up to that time. And there, there have been very
few novels in world history that had been been published. And it captured the
imagination of, of the country and the soul of, particularly,
the new englanders. It is possibly apocaphrical
and possibly not, that Abraham Lincoln
had this famous meeting with Harriet Beecher Stowe. I don’t know if you know this, that Stowe visited the
White House in 1862. And as she came in, Lincoln
shook her hand and said “And so, you are the little
lady that started it, “this big war”. And that’s a really profound thought, but not totally without
some justification. In any regard, mid-1850s,
change had started in American politics in the north. And that is the conservative
party, the Whigs, did one of the fastest disappearing acts in the history of politics. And, in short order, that
is less than five years, the Whigs got bifurcated
into two political parties. And one was called the American party, which otherwise held the
title The know-nothings. And the Know-nothings
were a party which were as close to a single-issue
ticket as there could be, until this year. (laughter) And that is, they were totally
and utterly anti-immigrant. And they were particularly virulent in their anti-Catholicism. And they argued that one
couldn’t be a Catholic and have dual loyalty to the
Papacy and to the country. And this is obviously preposterous, but it didn’t seem that way then. And then in the west, and beginning in three small towns, one of which is 15 miles south of here, called Crawfordsville. In a church in Crawfordsville, in a small building in, on Wisconsin, and a slightly-larger
building in Jackson, Michigan, groups of people came together who formed the Republican
party of the United States. And by 1856, and this is
less than three years later, the Republicans had a thoroughly credible, although murderous presidential candidate, and his name was John C. Fremont. And Fremont was an adventurer, who killed a lot of Indians. He became the military governor of a foreign state that
named the Bear-flag republic and one of California’s first two senators as the Bear-flag republic
took down its flag. And he married well, he
married Thomas Hart Benton’s only daughter, I think only daughter, and Thomas Hart Benton
was the first five-term United States Senator for Missouri whose grandson or
great-grandson was a painter and print maker. Largely regionalist but
also more than that. Anyway, Thomas Hart Benton carried 37% of the electoral college and the support came from small towns and from the west, of which
we were part of the west. Because one of the reasons
the Whigs had collapsed was that everybody that had come west had come here with
nothing and had to borrow. And the borrowing had
ties to the eastern banks and the eastern banks
were quite unpopular. And so, the Whigs splintered into the American party and
into the Republican Party and that elected a Democratic president, which laid the groundwork for
the next election in 1860, for Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln, by the way,
named John C. Fremont the military commander of the west, until he fired John C.
Fremont for disobedience. And one his most severe
acts of disobedience was that John C. Fremont issued the first Emancipation Proclamation. And it was Lincoln’s view and the view of virtually everyone in Washington, that would cause at least
one and probably two and maybe three poor states
to join the Confederacy. And so he wanted to
hold the Union together. In Iowa, we had a fabulous
German-language paper in Davenport called Der Demokrat. And it had been a strong
booster of Lincoln and was a strongly-Republican paper and I use the word Republican with care: 19th Century Republicans
were the progressive party and Democrats were pro-slavery in general. But anyway, the only time it varied with Lincoln was it objected strenuously that he was too slow to issue
the Emancipation Proclamation. But as it worked out, he issued it at a particular moment in
time that was quite helpful to the Republic, because more
states hadn’t left the Union and because it was a major factor in blocking the possibility
of Britain and maybe France of supporting the Confederacy
rather than the Union. And there are a lot of people in Europe that were, still had their
eyes on the Americas. And looked at the idea
of a splintered land as being more hopeful for their interests than a single republic. So, anyway, the Emancipation
Proclamation was about principle, it was
also about the politics of, of paying attention
to where others stood. I just want to mention one other aspect of the Know-nothings, because
part of its strenuousness in being more anti-Catholic
than Trump’s supporters are anti-Islamic was
because so many people were competing for jobs,
with the new immigrants from Ireland and Italy. And this was a very concerning phenomenon, and it involved more
than the working classes. One of the real polymaths
of the early 19th century was Samuel F. B. Morse,
who invented the telegraph and the Morse code. He also was the premiere
portrait painter of the era and the founder of something called The National Academy of Design, which was the Citadel
at the time of the arts. But he ran for Mayor of New York on a Know-nothing-type ticket and he argued that all
Catholic immigration should be blocked and that all Catholics in this country should not be allowed to hold public office. Now the reason I mention that is that some of these movements
are not just movements of one class of people. That they’re often movements
that go much beyond. The 1850s also sound,
found the great incident that many members of the
House of Representatives in the 20th century used to celebrate, and that is when a Congressman
named Preston Brooks walked over the Senate floor and caned almost to death a United States Senator, whose name is Charles Sumner. And it was all about
Sumner having referenced a Senator from South Carolina who happened to be the uncle of Brooks. And Sumner had called him, excuse me, Sumner, yes, had called
him a pimp for slavery. Which was also a term that
was not well-received. And so, for literally a century,
southerners had considered this caning to be an act of chivalry. Northerners of assault and battery, and realistically were
likely simply evidenced that there was going to be no way to resolve the slavery issue without war. Especially when the Supreme
Court of the United States made it very clear in the
worst ruling in its history, was called the Dred Scott ruling. It suggested that individuals
with dark-hued skin could be bought and sold as property. Now it’s my personal view,
and, and some people think it’s a little too glib, but I don’t, that there’s inverted logic
in the most, second-worst ruling in the Court’s history. That being Citizens United. In Citizens United, inverting Dred Scott, it holds a class of property that is corporations have the
rights of human beings and therefore, are protected
by the First Amendment to buy and sell candidates. (laughter) Any (chuckles) anyway. Lincoln was fond of, if you ever, if you remember the movie, Lincoln (stutters) he said, and you
really had to wonder exactly what he meant for a minute. He, he said “you know,
Euclid used to argue “that things equal to
the same thing are equal “to each other”. And so you had to stop
for a minute and say what’s he referring to. And, and in math, if you ever
remember this from 8th grade, it’s if “A” equals “B” and “B” equals “C”, then “A” equals “C”. Well, what he was saying was
if a dark-hued person is a man and a light-complected person is a man, both being men, they’re
equal to each other. And that makes great sense. Now a corollary to me of this is that if “A” is not equal to “B”, then “B” is not equal to “A”. And what I mean by this is if in Citizens United, a
corporation is not a person, then a person can’t be a corporation, and the second great aspect assumption of Citizens United is
if, that money is speech. But if you go to a
dictionary, money is a medium of exchange and it can be
used to facilitate speech, it can also be used to
facilitate buying a book, a car or political influence. (scale of three chimes) But (stutters) if money isn’t
speech, speech can’t be money and therefore, Citizens
United is a logical sophistry. Now that’s my own view, not
everyone agrees with it. But it’s also, Citizens
United is about who is a man. The 13th Amendment to our
Constitution establishes African-Americans as men,
with citizenship rights. The 19th Amendment
establishes women as men, with citizenship rights. And the question is whether
a corporation is a man, which I deny, and then whether money is speech, and whether the color
green is a voice of man. Anyway, all of this is kind of confusing. (laughter) Anyway, America was defined
best in the poetry blanket. And Lincoln did not say on
the greatest battlefield of the Civil War, that people have given the last full measure of their devotion to support a government of,
by and for corporations. And no corporations were
killed at Gettysburg. Anyway, the struggle for
many rights continued into the 20th century and we
had the great civil rights movements and we also have
them continue, somewhat, with skirmishes today on the
question of voting tactics and whether there are
suppression-types of things that states can do. Which I think is, is about as unseemly as a democracy can be. Who is a citizen got a
little bit complicated in the 20th century, and when
the great liberal oppressive, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
by Executive decree, not by legislation, sent the
Japanese-Americans into camps, and in 1939, the government of
the United States of America turned back a merchant
ship, the M.S. St. Louis, with 908 Jewish refugees from Germany, and didn’t allow it to land in America. And I raise this issue, or these issues, that everybody vaguely kind
of remembers and knows, but they should be front and center, on the concerns being expressed
today about immigration. And what a great society
can do and what it cannot do or should not do. On the third debate is about opportunity. And one of its first
emminations that I think is, and I, I hesitate to be
critical of the Supreme Court, because it is truly one
of the great civilizing and balancing institutions
of any government in the history of, of, of any society. But, in 1890, the United
States Congress passed something called the
Sherman Antitrust Law. And everybody vaguely knows
that that, what that means. And you have to be
cautious about monopolizing commercial power. Well, in 1893, the Supreme
Court of the United States held that the Sherman Act did not apply to a manufacturing corporation
but it did apply to unions. And I can’t think of a
less-reasonable ruling. In fact, when the Clayton Act
was adopted two decades later, it reversed that aspect
of the Court’s decision. What, what I, why I raise this
is that you have the issue of opportunity, but you
also have one similarity to today to the 1890s and
that is we are statistically in a second gilded age. And gilded age means
were the well-to-do have a disproportionate
amount of wealth compared to everybody else. And the numbers now are chilling. And so, we also have had lots of periods in which everybody has risen together but we’re now in one of the two periods in which that is not the case. And all of us as citizens
should be concerned. Now on the plus side,
the opportunity to debate under Franklin Roosevelt, we had the WPA, we had the Federal Deposit
Insurance were passed, we had an island, by the way, who played one of the largest roles
of anyone in the history of, of, of a public administration. And this is Harry Hopkins,
who was a de facto chief-of-staff to Franklin Roosevelt and lived for three and a half years in the White House in the Lincoln bedroom. And Hopkins was the architect of the WPA, which hired 7 million
people over a 7-year period and also ran two other WPA
programs, or excuse me, two other jobs programs. But what very few people knew at the time, other than at the State Department, is that Harry Hopkins was the principle foreign possibly advisor to the President of the United States. And he was F.D.R’s
liaison to Great Britain, and Churchill. He was F.D.R’s liaison with the Russians. He was F.D.R’s liaison with the Pentagon. And he was the great booster
of what we call Lend-Lease in, in the, in the ’30s. We did have very strong
feelings between Republicans and Isolationists and the President and Hopkins, who’d been a
social worker in New York and a graduate of Grinnell College was also very, very big
on the military build up. And in historical terms,
there are very few people, that have a record that
has been more vindicated by history than Harry Hopkins. But let me move on and mention some things in the ’40s that, that I think are truly remarkable. And one involves the senator
named Vandenberg from Michigan, who in the ’30s had been one
of the two most sticklish senators against everything but everything that Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted. In 1946, he was considering running for President of the United States. And he was visited by two journalists that were preeminent at the time. One towards the end of his long career and one towards the beginning. And the two together were Walter Lemmon and James “Scotty” Reston. And they came to talk to
him about his possibility running for president. Then, possibly discussed
in advance, I have no idea, they entered a discussion saying you know, you’ve got this record
of being an isolationist and, and the war kind of
has vindicated Roosevelt, have you thought of, of
kind of changing directions and supporting the new
President, Harry Truman? And he said well, what do you mean? He said well, there’s
this new Truman doctrine, there’s this issue of coming up, of aiding western Europe, which became
the Marshal Plan and NATO. And he said why should I do that. And they explained and
Vandenberg apparently said well, would you like to write me a speech? And they said sure and they
came back a few days later. These two great newspaper
men with a speech for a senator of the United States. And he gave this speech
on the Senate floor, which became to symbolize that you stand with the President at the water’s edge. Well, one of them in the New York Times, and one of them in the Washington Post wrote editorials saying in effect this is one of the greatest speeches in the history of the United States. (laughter) And Certainly it was the greatest speech of the 20th century
(laughter) given in the United States Senate. And it made quite a hero of Vandenberg, and, but it came to
symbolize bipartisanship. And we had this era of bipartisanship. And certainly, Eisenhower saw some of it. The worst example of some
partisanship under Ike was you know the 1957
Civil Rights, er, yeah, Civil Rights Bill that
Lyndon Baines Johnson as the leader of the Senate eviscerated and passed in a very, very mild way. But LBJ, 8 years later as
President of the United States, passed the Eisenhower Civil Rights Act. Well, why not? But as a general, Ike held good relations with the Congress, and it
was quite an era to grow up in America. I would just like to mention in all this, because, to me, it’s,
it’s really intriguing. We’ve come to call a generation
the greatest generation and we do it almost glibly now. I think it is one of the most
apt descriptions ever given because that generation not
only won the greatest war in history, it then preceded
at enormous expense, to win the peace. And we’ve never thought a
lot about this eustation between war and the peace
until the last few years, when we’ve been engaged in
wars that haven’t gone so well and peace that hasn’t gone well at all. And so there’s more and more attention to what happens in the wake of war and more and more attention
to considerations of that before engaging in war. But that generation got it perfectly and, and people forget that tax rates under Dwight David Eisenhower
were almost double those under Barrack Hussein Obama. And no one ever called Ike a Socialist. (laughter) Now we have a problem that frankly the supporters of Trump and the supporters of Bernie Sanders have it right. That is that the establishment
has disappointed. And this is a very award thing. In fact in the war in Iraq,
the cost is approaching four trillion dollars. And then we have the loss of life and then we have the
loss of life of others, not just our own, and we’ve precipitated some things, none the least, that I think are quite regrettable. And then we’re facing an aspect of this that, that relates to the word religion that we were warned about,
first of all, here in Iowa. And what I’m getting
at is people may recall that in 1946, Winston
Churchill gave a speech in Fulton Missouri that is considered one of the greatest speeches ever given in this country because he
coined the term “iron curtain”. Well, some, I guess, 17 years later, in Grinnell Iowa, another Britisher named
Arnold Twomey gave a speech that he intended to be more important than the Churchillian
speech and what he said in this speech was he want,
that he wanted to talk about what is likely to precipitate
war in the foreseeable future. And he said that Russians
had it all wrong. That a dialect of cold
materials and class struggle was historically nonsense. And then he said Americans
have to understand that they’re involved in a very important civil rights struggle,
but there’s no great evidence that race relations
are gonna be causes of war itself of a significant dimension. And then he said what
is likely to cause war in the foreseeable future are
religious differentiations. And that seemed totally
and utterly out of sync with anything anyone in
America was thinking. I mean, it seemed
ridiculous, partly ridiculous because in large measure,
we had advanced as a society into less-religious intense kind of feelings against other religions,
so though that’s always a little bit or part of relation. But we were in the cold
war and that idea just didn’t seem to fit anything
but if Umber is saying based on the last decade, was
Arnold Twomey a little bit pression, one would
have to say just maybe. And I will tell you as
someone who lived through this in the United States Congress. We’d engaged war in the
Gulf, the, what we call the first Gulf War under George H.W. Bush in which we had 50 allies and it was about pushing back a country that
had invaded another country. And so we’d been engaged in the Gulf, but a decade later, when 9/11 hit, and when the buildup started to rise for the possible intervention again, there was hardly a congressman that had ever heard of Sabaeans. And I mention this because
we entered this war unknowing and we also entered the war with mischievous information being given by the Executive branch. Relating to something called Yellow Cake relating to allegations
that Iraq was part of 9/11 and there’s no evidence
whatsoever that that’s the case. And so we entered a war
under false promises and a war that has not worked. But I, I reference this only because if people had read the
speech of Arnold Twomey and given it any weight, that would have been a
real serious consideration. And so, we have to learn
from others as well as from what, what we have done. Now in terms of the unprecedented, I would like to, to
stress that there are two extraordinary things that,
that, that we’re gonna be living with for the rest of our lives that, that are, are not happy ones. And one is that we’re one
of the first generations and now it’s much more
serious, that are living with weapons that can
destroy virtually all of life on the planet and that’s the
nature of nuclear weapons. There are also other
weapons of mass destruction of which the worst is perhaps biological, certainly biological. We’re also looking at novel ways in which weapons can be delivered. You can deliver awful
weapons by airplanes, you can deliver them by missiles. You can deliver them by sailboats. You can deliver them through the mail. There is now a subject that the Russians have just suggested that a small submarine with a nuclear weapon can be brought up to a coastal city and cause a nuclear tsunami. And I, I raise this just because the greatest political science observation that I know of in modern
times, comes from a scientist. And that is Einstein once suggested that splitting the atom
had changed everything except our way of thinking. And that’s a pretty awesome thought, in a world in which, literally,
history is laden with war. There is hardly a period
in time, in which someone, somewhere isn’t at war. And now we’re seeing these
weapons of mass destruction proliferate and bizarre odious suggestions on how they might or might not be used. President Eisenhower warned years ago of a military industrial complex. Today, my worry’s about the role of what I call a political
ideological complex, where ideologs use politicians as pawns and politicians use
ideologs especially those with deep pockets as enablers
of personal ambition. And this reinforcing
set of mutual interest has little to do with the common good and much to do with the
breakdown in civility and public life. Civility to some is kind
of a mandy, mandy concept but it, it’s not simply or
principally about manners. It doesn’t mean that a spirited debate is to be ignored or avoided. Indeed, the case can be maintained that few things are more important than argumentation in a democracy. Without argumentation, there’s a tendency to dogmatism and possibly even tyranny. And so, what civility
does require is simply willingness to listen to other people and willingness to take their
concerns into consideration, with an understanding that
we all rely on each other. Uncivil speech which
we’ve heard a lot about is really dispiriting for society. Nevertheless, in many
ways, more mischievous in governance is very civil speech. And let me explain what I mean. On Capitol Hill, every
day, members of Congress walk to and from the
House floor, the Senate, vice versa. And they’re very civil
people, well-dressed friends. They were lobbyists. And a typical conversation
goes something like this: Hi, Joe, you know, tomorrow
we have this vote coming up. Gosh, we were sure
happy to max out for you in last campaign, we want to
more than max out in this one, with more allies, but we really
need your support tomorrow. And by the way, how are the wife and kids? (laughter) And that’s very, very civil. And yet, implicitly,
it suggests a contract between a lobbyist and
an elected official. And that there’s a
quid-pro-quo that’s expected. And so I am not particularly worried about some of the bad words in politics, but I am very worried
about the obligations that are being undertaken. In America, fortunately,
because of our system, there is very, very little corruption in American politics. But there is a huge growth
in conflicts of interest. And the conflicts of
interest have been made by the Supreme Court of
the United States, legal. And so there’s no corruption
from a legal point of view, but the system itself is
no longer as idealistic and no longer as
uplifting as it should be. Well, let me just end with
another concept about the law. And that is we also live in a world in which international law matters. and if one were looking
at the 20th century, I think most Americans
might come to the conclusion maybe we made a mistake not joining The League of Nations. By the way, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the vice-presidential candidate, 1920, and he gave over 200
speeches in which he argued for The League of Nations. But, he didn’t argue the
way Woodrow Wilson argued. He said the reason we
should join the League is if we don’t, those darned
Europeans will control international relations. So it’s kind of an anti-corrupt
argument which I thought was semantic jargon. And by the way, do any of you
know how the United Nations got its name? I will tell you; it’s a great story. In 1943, Winston Churchill
was visiting the White House, and staying in the Lincoln bedroom, kicking Harry Hopkins out of his bed. And they talked about forming
another global organization at the end of the war. And they talked about you couldn’t call it the League of Nations again. You needed a name and
they couldn’t come up with a name and then Churchill retired to the Lincoln bedroom. And then all of a sudden,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his wheelchair, wheeled
into the Lincoln bedroom as Churchill was emerging from the bath. (laughter) sans loincloth. (laughter) And which, quick as he is, he said well, you know, the Prime
Minister of Great Britain has nothing to hide from the President of the United States. (laughter) At which point, it is understood, that Franklin Delano Roosevelt stammered U-u-u-u-United Nations! And that’s how the name
came to be approved. (laughter) I think that’s a great story. And true, not apocryphal. Anyway, of other things that
the United States Senate I think has been derelict
on, I’ll have to be careful, because I never served in the Senate, but it has to date not ratified the Conference of Test Ban. It has not ratified the Law of the Seas. Tragically, the test ban is less important than it would have been
if it’d been ratified in the 1960s. Ever actually been
negotiated in the 1960s. Instead, we negotiated something called The Limited Test Ban, that ended up being a, an environmental agreement more than an arms-control agreement. But, if we had then, we
might have a different number of nuclear powers. On the Law of the Seas,
we now have problems in coastal regions off China and potentially in the Arctic. The other countries of
interest have ratified and we are in a very weak position from its beginning of
its being negotiated, which was done in the
late ’70s, early ’80s, with our negotiator being one
of the greatest Republicans to ever serve in modern
times, Elliot Richardson. We refused to ratify, even though the Department of Defense, led by the Department of the Navy has
been its staunchest supporter from the beginning. Because it says what straits of the world our ships can go through and defines them as international waters. The Arctic is loaded
with natural resources, it’s also gonna be a major waterway and there clearly gonna
be serious legal battles underway and the United States is gonna be behind the 8-ball because
it has not ratified the Law of the Sea, which is
in the direct national interest of every American citizen. And it’s all relates to politics. And a fact that the Law
of the Sea was negotiated by the United Nations, which, for some, means that it can’t possibly be right and that to some it means
that a international treaty gives up American sovereignty even though our Founders wrote treaty
ratification language into the Constitution because
as a general framework, then and now, you have treaties
to advance mutual interests. And this one could not more. Let me just end by saying
that many Americans have figured out that we have
this tragic juxtaposition. That this country leads
the world in business, in the arts, in the
professions, every field of academia, but somehow,
the political system is letting us down. And so, one of the great
challenges of our time is to bring the political
system up to the standards of the rest of our society
and to make America respected again in the world. Thank you, very much. (applause) Well, I’m, I’m told that,
that, that there, there’s time for some questions, if
anyone would like to ask. I’m a little bit blinded by the lights, so i’m gonna have to
ask this young man to, Okay, go ahead. (low murmured chitchat) – [Voiceover] Go to the mic. – [Voiceover] Want to go first? – [Voiceover] Please. – [Voiceover] Hi, Jim. (speech
warbling on mic), thank you. That was beautiful. Would you just care to
comment a little bit on the, the Libertarian Gary Johnson and the phenomenon that
he is in recent weeks, been polling in palliative percent or better in a 3-way race? – Well, first to your question. I don’t know, I’ve never
met Gary and so I can’t comment him. I have met his running mate, Bill Weld, and so you have two governors running on the Libertarian ticket. And Bill Weld was considered
a moderate Republican Governor of Massachusetts. He was married to a woman
who was the granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, which I always thought was kinda cute. But he no longer is, so
there’s no Roosevelt tie at the moment. None of us know what kind of impact a third party’s gonna make in this race. I thought at one point,
that Mayor Bloomberg was going to run and I know him not well. Well, relatively well, and I would have been
sympathetic to his candidacy. When he decided not to run,
he made an interesting case that was both very confident
and also somewhat troubling. He pointed out that if he ran, he was confident he’d win several states. But, he did not see a prospect of winning the majority of the electoral college. But, the way our system works
is that people kind of know that its an electoral college
decision-making process. But what happens if no
candidate gets a majority of the electoral college? And the Constitution is quite clear: and it’s not necessarily totally rational, but this is its, its clarity, clarity. The Presidency of the
United States will be chosen by the House of Representatives. The House can only vote
between three candidates: the top three candidates
of the electoral college. It was the judgement of Mayor Bloomberg, and I’m confident he
did a lot of surveying to reach this judgement,
that that would mean in his judgement that he
could not possibly prevail and that the Democratic candidate
probably could not either. Because when the vote goes to
the House of Representatives, it is not a vote of each individual member adding up to 435, it’s a vote by state. And Republicans control the
large number of small states. And so he believed that
at the time he decided to back out, that that
would elect either Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz. And he believed both would be
against the national interest. And so, he decided not to run. Now in terms of, of
the Libertarian ticket, I don’t know if it would
be any different or not. It’d be conceivable it might have a slightly higher chance
in the electoral college than Bloomberg, but I don’t
about how much higher. And, maybe less, I just don’t know. It’s, it’s hard to know. Now there have been for years, a major League of Women Voters issue has been to go to direct election for presidents to avoid all of this. There was a Stanford
University engineer who, 15 years or so ago figured
out a non-constitutional amendment way of having direct
elections of the president. Have you, have any of
you heard about this? – [Voiceover] Yeah – And the way, its really,
its kind of an intriguing way to do it, it’s also a bit mischievous. But right now, every state
has a different rule, but in general, the electors
that the state sends to Washington after the election must vote for who carries that state. What this engineer figured out is what if a group of states passed a law that said that the electors have to vote for the individual who
carries the national vote? But then, obviously, and
the big states liked this in, in one sense because they’re
the ones that feel they’re being left out of the
presidential activities. But to have it possibly happen, it’d be a two-step process that, let’s say Massachusetts passes it, but it, it’s with the proviso
it doesn’t go into effect until enough states that
amount to a majority of the electoral college
have also passed it. And that’s a logical circumstance. Now, what I think could also
happen if that happened, let’s say, and I think
Massachusetts has passed it, by the way, and one, maybe
two states have passed this. But let’s say you’re a typical, you’re a Massachusetts person. Your state has gone democratic, ’cause it’s a pretty democratic state. But let’s pretend the national vote went for the Republican candidate. You might say to yourself oh, I hate that. And instantly call a
session of the State House, and pass a law knocking out this law. And, and so, whether the
states would keep their words is a question mark is what I’m getting at. But it’s this oddity, and by
the way the vice-president is chosen by the United States Senate. And that is by each senator gets a vote. In the House, each House
member gets a vote, but they get the vote in
caucus of their state. And so if you have 5
Republicans and 7 Democrats, presumably, the vote will be for, it will go to the Democrat. If you have two and two,
which Iowa could well, it might just be a push. Or it could be there’d
be someone that would, would break with their party. But it’s, it is really awkward
to have this voting by state. And that’s something that
maybe Gary will be part of. Now, he has a chance, I think the state he has the best chance in
could well be Utah, I guess, where the Mormons really,
really don’t like Trump. And, and by the way,
that’s for two reasons. One, Mormons are quite
conservative in social issues, but they’re also enormously progressive in foreign affairs. There are more Mormons in South
America than North America. And many of them have served
mission in South America and so with all these people that have served missions abroad, they are intriguingly
progressive internationally, people-to-people love them. And in all other aspects of politics, they’re very conservative. And that’s one of the kind of interesting make-ups of the state. Yes, you have a question? – [Voiceover] I’m, I’m employed here. (laughter) – [Voiceover] Hey there, my name is Ahan, I’m a recent graduate from
the University of Iowa and I have a question
regarding how, you know, free speech on campuses. As a recent graduate, I’ve been involved on like political campaigns
and university clubs, you know, political clubs. And what I’ve seen, you
know, there’s a big precedent towards free speech on campuses
that have been you know, involved in some safe spaces. And you know students not willing to have a proper dialog on, on campuses. And what I see from that is you know, if students can’t have a dialog on campus and talk about issues
that matter the most, how can they have a dialog when they go to the real world or
society because society does not have safe spaces or
you know, or micro-aggressions with trigger warnings, anything like that. So as someone who served on Capitol Hill, has seen politics in Washington D.C. and now as a professor on campus, what do you, what do you
think about what’s going on on campus and our free-speech situation? What would you do to
like solve the problem and what your take on it overall? And by the way, really
good speech, thank you. – Oh, thank you. Well I, I’d say, first,
I’ve read slightly about it, but barely, just because I,
I’ve never seen the problem. I, I remember as you’ve
articulated, remember years ago they had an issue in Iowa where in the communications department, they had an X-rated movie
and one of the students was offended and so the
administration thought and thought and thought and they came up with a solution. Which was that any time
there was an X-rated film, there had to be a published announcement that there was an X-rated film and if you were offended, don’t come. (laughter) Well, it caused a huge (speech drowned out by laughter) I mean, human nature
is human nature and so. But that was, I know there is a discussion and and it involves lots of campuses about whether or not there’s free speech. And then this question:
what happens if a student uses a racial epitaphs
against another student? And where are you as a
society and shouldn’t a university community
be a hate-free zone? Shouldn’t like the country
be a hate-free zone? But that doesn’t mean that you can control every word that’s said all the time. Now obviously, we have
a presidential candidate that’s making non-P.C.
a part of his appeal to more than a few people. My own view is it, it’s
really hard to regulate and it’s also the concept
of manners or P.C, is more often appropriate
than inappropriate, but you hate to make a rule about it. And that’s why we have a
Constitution that talks about free speech. And then the question
becomes does it turn over into injuring another person. And there, it’s natural
that a university wants to be respectful of everybody. And, and, and how you
draw the lines in those, I, I can’t tell you. (stammers) I know you hear
at much of discussions at the Law School. People say the university
dare not write a rule unless they get a lawyer in the room. (laughter) And, and I think there’s validity to that and, and not just a lawyer, but someone who’s really
thoughtful on the subject. But it’s, it’s, there are
balancing circumstances one should be careful of. And you certainly want to
have a university community be a loving community to
the degree you can, too. And so that ends up as the goal, possibly having an instinct
that isn’t totally free in all speech, everywhere. – [Voiceover] Hey, Molly. – [Voiceover] Your old pal, Molly, here. – Yes, Molly? – [Voiceover] I had a
couple questions for you. The first one on gun control. We know that any criminal
legally or illegally can get their hands on any
weapon they want, pretty much. You okay up there? Do you have some water? – I’m fine, go ahead. – [Voiceover] They can get
their hands on any weapon, what do you think the
solution is logically, other than banning weapons
because something’s always gonna be happening and it
seems to be getting worse. And my other question was
I was sitting back here recalling those ratty lawn
chairs that students used to drag from event to event and I wondered: do those still exist when you
leave them in your well for me or, or should I write
up a, you know, kinda writ of habeas lawn-chairus
or something to obtain those? – Well, they, they don’t still exist, but you raised a really
profound question on gun control and everybody wishes society
were a little different than it currently is
with all the violence. Of all the minimalist
suggestions that one would think would be acceptable to
even the, the most hardened gun-controller is to use
the analogy to privacy, we have total privacy
constitutional protections, but the FBI, with court
approval, can wire-tap someone. And it strikes me that
the Justice Department on their terrorist
list, with a court-order should be able to prohibit
these assault rifles from being sold to a very,
very small number of people. Now that doesn’t mean
that they will be blocked from not getting it somewhere, somehow, but it’s, it’s, it’s the
minimalist symbolic step that can be made and
I’d be frankly surprised if the NRA couldn’t
stomach it, but who knows? And one of the traumas of our day is that, and by day I mean
circumstance in the country, there are now so many guns out there that it’s pretty hard to go backwards and there are certain things
that defy rationality. I mean, the idea that you
can carry a gun to school is just preposterous. And everybody wants to protect hunters, but carrying guns to
school don’t seem to be, to be the answer. – [Voiceover] So what do
you see as the answer? How do you see this progressing? – Excuse me, I can’t hear you. – [Voiceover] How do you
see this as progressing? – Well, I, I– – [Voiceover] Is there an
end to this or do you think– – I don’t know. We’ve got and had some comments
of some in political life on this minimal issue I just mentioned, some favorable and some unfavorable, and so much like lines are being drawn. And if one thinks it
can be advanced easily, I mean most democratic
presidential candidates are convinced that Al Gore proved that you couldn’t come up
with any kind of gun control because he lost his own state over it. And everybody that’s a Democrat, therefore gets presidentially berated, is kind of shy of the issue. This President has made
some comments and different (speech drown out by
audience member coughing) and then you have this
issue in American politics, it’s kind of, I mean,
what it clarifies is, we’ve moved into this
single-issue kind of politics. That someone can be with
the majority of the people on an issue, but the
majority will not vote for that candidate because of that issue and there’s a powerful
minority that will only vote for that candidate because of it. And so you have this
majority versus minority in which the minority is
stronger than the majority in a democracy. And that is the way it’s looked
at in, in political life. – [Voiceover] Have a question? – [Voiceover] Jim, my
impression from hearing your innuendos and shuffles, that you’re, maybe it’s because you just moved to Iowa city three years ago, but you seem more Democrat
than Republican today. (laughter) But my question is after all
this big banking spending, risking with the CEOs and slops and all these derivatives,
and the crisis we had in 2008, do you regret your bill,
the Gramm-Leach Bill? – Where there is nothing
in that bill that touches the subject you just raised. – [Voiceover] Well, it gave
the government guarantee on a lot of this risky investment. In the end– – No, the banks, banks
can do CEOs, derivatives, long before. It’s a myth that that bill
authorized any of that. – [Voiceover] Didn’t it authorize
the, the use of guaranteed bank investments and–
– [Jim] No. – [Voiceover] Local banks.
– [Jim] No. – [Voiceover] The
conglomerates, as they built the local banks, together. Didn’t, didn’t, didn’t our guarantee of money in Midwest One, isn’t that a– – I don’t know what you
mean about Midwest One, I don’t know a thing about that. But we’ve had federal deposit
insurance since the ’30s. What you can say is,
with the Fed, of this, that the United States government, in its regulatory apparatus
refused to stipulate higher amounts of capital to back deposits and new activities. And that is a function
of regulatory judgement, not mandated by any act of Congress, with the exception, and
one of the great myths is, because we have from World War II on, all the powers with the
exception of applying it to a few new actors that
so-called “F” existed, for federal regulators if
they wanted to use them, that went into the so-called
Frank-Something bill. That’s considered a great change. But all those powers, the regulators had. And it’s amazing that
people haven’t noted that. – [Voiceover] Thank you so much. – [Voiceover] Thank you very much. (applause) – Thank you for those informative and thought-provoking comments. I wanna thank all of you
for joining us this evening and remind you that this
is a program brought to you by the University of
Iowa Alumni Association and I encourage all of you
to investigate other programs and activities that we
have in store for you. Notably on the 30th of June, we’ll be down at the
University of Iowa Libraries in their new exhibit space to profile and discuss the new exhibit
that they have there, discussing Star Trek, so
quite a different kind of conversation we’re going to have, but nevertheless, very
informative and interesting. Thank you all for being with us tonight, have a good evening and see you around. (applause)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *