Blueprints for Liberty: How Cooperatives are Designing the Freedom Cities of Tomorrow

[00:00:00] So, welcome John Lawrence Graham, um, to our flashback to a fabulous future podcast. You've written a book called Charlotte's War, and I read through it. I must admit, I had to skim up pretty fast, but I did enjoy the overall arc of the story, and, um, the historical context that was shared. So if you don't mind just taking a few minutes to introduce who you are, what your background is, and kind of what prompted you to write this book, then we'll go from there.

Great. Cheryl, thanks so much for inviting me on the show. I very much appreciate it, and I appreciate your interest in history. That's something we share. Um, my background is I, for 40 years, taught, uh, international business at the University of Southern California and at UC Irvine and at some other universities around the world.

[00:01:00] Um, but I, my second love is, is history. So that's part of the reason why I wanted to do something, uh, substantial in the area of history. The purpose in writing the book is to promote peace. And so I have several books that try to do that, uh, even my business books, mainly I write about, uh, international business and international negotiations.

And the concept behind that is that we get to, the best way to build peace is through international trade. But I also have a couple other books. One is on, um, drug policy. Uh, the title of that book is called, uh, Spiced, The Global Marketing of Psychoactive Substances. And the purpose of that book, it has a chapter, for example, on salt and sugar and marijuana and alcohol and tobacco and cocaine and opioids.

has each of the [00:02:00] chapters and talks about how they're marketed in similar ways. And the peace goal there is to keep peace in the streets. The drug war has been very costly and based on a lot of, uh, mistakes and lawmaking and also, uh, some terrible marketing practices. Um, another book I, I have, we're doing a third edition that'll be out later this year.

The current edition is called All in the Family. It's about multi generational families and they were trying to help create peace in the home, particularly trying to, uh, settle, um, the problem of baby boomers and, uh, they're certainly in large numbers moving in with their kids and that will continue for the rest of the century.

And so we're trying to create a peaceful, creative atmosphere there. And then Charlotte's War, that's my, uh, novel. And, uh, that just, this came out, uh, just this last [00:03:00] May. And it's a book about an extended family, uh, trying to, uh, Uh, navigate through three different wars, world War ii, uh, the Korean War, and mostly it's about Vietnam.

Uh, Charlotte is, and her son Jack, are the main fictional characters. Um, she's basically, uh, well I'll get into her character, but more, but she was raised in China, uh, as the daughter of, uh, missionaries there. And she becomes, she gets a PhD in anthropology and becomes a. He was a peace protester during the Vietnam War, and her son, as did her husband and brother, is headed in the direction of harm's way, and she's trying to bring an early end to the Vietnam War through her various contacts.

So that's what the book is about. The historical [00:04:00] characters are Henry Kissinger and Ho Chi Minh and they interact with Charlotte. Um, uh, and that's what most of the book is about. The historical context is uh, completely accurate. I take a few liberties. There's some conversations between, uh, Nixon and Kissinger, but basically it's right out of the history books I studied, um, to bring those characters to, characters to life.

Uh, and, but whenever they are interacting with Charlotte or other, uh, fictional characters, then it is fiction. But, uh, anyway, I'm happy to talk about the facts. of the Vietnam War. I kind of lived through that area. Um, in addition to my academic background, um, I also served nine years in the U. S. Navy in underwater demolition and seal teams.

Uh, in the early 70s, I was on active duty during the Vietnam conflict, [00:05:00] although I'm happy to say it was a bench sitter. I was not in the war. Um, and, uh, then I spent five years in the reserves also, uh, as an officer in the teams. So that's kind of my mixed background. I have a, uh, background in peace and interest in peace.

But I also have a deep military experience as well, and I try to use the combination in telling Charlotte's story.

Yes, thank you. And I think one thing that you and I definitely share is a desire for peace. Now, and I'm sure you would also agree with this, you know, had some conversations prior to this, but is that peace doesn't always come because we always agree on issues.

Yes. Or that we see things through the same, you know, lens history can be either viewed or interpreted as a student of history, yourself and myself too. Sometimes I will [00:06:00] read about an, an incident in history and read three different. authors interpretation of what happened, and it can be like, Oh, my goodness, is this even the same event that happened because people think so differently?

And I think that's good. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that it's really helpful. The more perspectives we have, I think the, the better decisions that we make moving forward, if we only look at things through one lens, Then we tend to want to move forward either from that perspective or because of that perspective.

I appreciate, and you know, as I was reading through the book, um, Charlotte's War, there were some times in there, you know, I find myself maybe disagreeing a little bit, but I thought, you know, this is interesting. And as I read on a little bit more, I was like, Oh, I can see how he, you know, came to that conclusion or how, you know, and then it, it, in some instances would change my mind.

In other instances, it would. I wouldn't say reaffirm my own [00:07:00] position, but it just made me look at things differently. And I think that's something really important in the world we live in today, is to be able to think critically and to look at things through different lenses.

Sure, sure. And I'll, there's another reason why the different lenses are important, and maybe we'll get to that, but one of the great things about cultural diversity or diversity generally.

It is, uh, it puts different ideas on the table if people are willing to listen. And, uh, that leads to creative outcomes that, where everybody is better off. But, uh, the main theme of the book, the main underlying theme is hopeful. And that is that, uh, we're just about through with coercion in international relations.

If I look back at World War II or even go back to World War I, the last century, imperialism [00:08:00] basically came to an end. I mean, the big event was the British giving up India, but right after World War II, we, the United States gave up the Philippines. The French were kind of laggards, and thus we had a decade, decades long war in Vietnam, but they have eventually given up most of their colonies as well.

And colonialism by its nature is coercive.

I think, you know, our audience probably understands, you know, the, the first two incidents you gave, you know, with India, but I, and this was something that was very enlightening to me as I was reading through your book, was the connection between the French and Vietnam.

I don't think most people realize that connection. Do you mind elaborating a little more on that?

Sure, the, uh, Indochina, and that, that includes, uh, what is now Laos. Cambodia and Vietnam, the name refers to the lands in between [00:09:00] India and China and, uh, the French turned that into a colony in the mid 1800s, uh, and it stayed that way until 1954.

At the end of World War II, well, during World War II, the Japanese kicked the French out of Indochina. and took over. At the end of World War II, um, Ho Chi Minh and his fellows published a Declaration of Independence from France, uh, and then there was a war fought for nine years, uh, between France and the revolutionaries.

The interesting historical aspect, one of the many interesting historical aspects, is the Declaration of Independence promulgated by Ho Chi Minh and his colleagues is a love letter to the United States. It directly quotes Jefferson's writing. [00:10:00] On, and the others on our Declaration of Independence, and, uh, one of the interesting things about it, and I included the whole thing in the book, because I think it's important to read the whole thing.

Never is the word communism mentioned, um, and in fact, uh, Ho Chi Minh is arguing that the French, uh, went out of their way to hurt capitalism among the Vietnamese, And so he's, in his words, he's supportive of, uh, capitalism, or as he said, the bourgeoisie, uh, of Vietnamese. But anyway, it's, uh, it is interesting.

I didn't really know the details. until I started researching for the book. I was stationed in the Philippines in 1972. Our folks, uh, were, SEAL team and UDT were operating in Vietnam and, uh, I had been [00:11:00] a chemistry major in college and I, I really wasn't paying attention to world events at the time. I was just, uh, I had been drafted.

I joined the Navy. To be safe, I had a wife and a kid and I felt responsible for them. But, uh, I really didn't understand what was going on, and only more recently I've read the history there. And also, I have the benefit, of course, of, uh, things like the Pentagon Papers that help understand, uh, how America got fouled up in, uh, that area of the world as well.

Yes, thank you. Um, now we can go ahead and move forward with this concept of imperialism. And I think, you know, just in my study of history and after reading through what you've written, our earlier wars were somewhat similar. It's either freedom fighting wars or for imperialism. And then as we moved into Korea [00:12:00] and Vietnam and these types of things, I think the mentality and the dynamics of the wars changed significantly.

So if you don't mind kind of going down that road a little bit.

One of the other underlying themes of the book that comes right out of the preface is that we've been misunderstanding Russia and the Soviet Union for more than a hundred years. And, uh, if you look at the main conflict, um, in the second half of the century, I mean, in World War II, we fought with, uh, or beside the Russians against the Germans.

We were allies. We gave them many weapons, which we happened to also pass through another ally, which was Iran. So in World War II, we were allied with both Iran and Russia against the Germans. Uh, right after the war, um, a couple of significant congressional elections were, [00:13:00] uh, held. One in California in 1946, Richard Nixon ran for Congress in Southern California.

And then on the East Coast, John Kennedy ran for Congress in 1946 in Massachusetts. Um, they represent two different views of international relations, and those really translated into, uh, the 1960 presidential election, but Kennedy was arguing for engagement, uh, things like, uh, international trade, and Nixon's main political tool was, uh, scaring people about communism.

And the silly thing about that had, I mean, most Americans don't read Karl Marx. Most Americans don't read Adam Smith, actually, but those are the two kind of competing philosophies, both from the 17 and 1800s. And Marx's theories about, uh, communist revolution, only work [00:14:00] when you have rich people and poor people, or proletariat and bourgeoisie as he described them.

If you have a big middle class, you're never going to have a communist revolution. It just doesn't, the theory doesn't make sense. And after World War II, the United States, has this huge, powerful middle class. And so Nixon was using fear of communism as a political tool. He described his, uh, Democrat competitor in Southern California, the incumbent, as a pinko, literally.

And Nixon used that fear of communism throughout his career. And that delivered the Vietnam War. To us, uh, that same fear of communism and it's, it's still happening. We have fear of China right now, but it's not fear of China so much as fear of communist China. And China is really not a communist country anymore.

They're late. They use that [00:15:00] label. But if you go to Shanghai and walk around the shopping district, uh, you can't see communism. You see free enterprise. Uh, yes, it's centrally controlled. That's not a good thing. There are a lot of human rights violations, but China is not a communist country. And, uh, but it's still used to motivate, uh, uh, votes in this country and actually by both parties now.

I'm glad to see that Biden and Xi are beginning to talk to each other again. At least there's some indication that they're going to do that because that's actually been quite a good relationship for the last 50 years. A positive relationship and it's time we get back to that. I mean, the big problems still Russia, but that's a whole nother issue too.

Yeah, that's, you know, um, well let's jump back a little bit 'cause it makes me think of something, [00:16:00] um, in terms of Nixon, you know, prior to Watergate and all of the controversy there. Don't necessarily wanna get into all of that, but. You know, he was known for having these, and Kissinger, having reached out to China and built these good relationships with China that then deteriorated after they were gone.

And that's what's been promoted in many historical records. What are your thoughts on that?

Yeah, well, it was a big deal for Nixon to go to China. Um, although, uh, the history of it is, uh, there are some congressional members who are thinking of trying to reach detente with China as well. Uh, prominent is Teddy Kennedy was talking about going there.

But Nixon and Kissinger, uh, did break the ice. Their goal in the negotiations in 72 and they went in February 72 and they went to China [00:17:00] was to get China to lean on Vietnam to capitulate to American demands and what the Chinese goals were to get the United States to let China take over Taiwan so neither of those political goals goals were achieved.

Some really good film came back from those meetings that had an effect on, uh, Nixon's, uh, 1972 election. So that was a benefit to the Nixon camp. But the real accomplishment there was the opening of trade, and that was mostly handled by the Secretary of State at the time. So, opening China was great, they've been a hugely important trading partner, and still are, even this most recent year, despite all the criticisms and the way Trump treated, uh, China.

very much. Uh, they're still very important and, uh, so that, uh, you can give, uh, Nixon [00:18:00] and Kissinger credit for making, uh, that detente work. They also, for that matter, um, substantially reduced nuclear weapons. But the behavior with respect to Vietnam was, was just awful. If you look at the history, they basically, uh, stretched out the war an extra four years.

The Johnson, Johnson administration in November of 68 was ready to settle, uh, with the Vietnamese and Nixon, uh, worked, it's not clear how much, uh, Kissinger was involved, but the Nixon administration worked. against that settlement through informal sources, uh, many people think that was treason because, uh, in any case, that disruption in the negotiations in Paris in 1968, um, made the war last another four years and, and cost thousands of Americans lives and millions of, uh, [00:19:00] Vietnamese lives.

Yeah. And I just, you know, for clarification for my audience, You know, my own personal stance is that politicians in general, I don't care which side of the aisle you're on, are both equal opportunity opportunists and equal opportunity offenders. So, um, I, I see things depending on the day and, you know, the, the issue a little bit, you know, in different ways, but let's jump back to, to, um, JFK, because I think people perceive and I could be wrong, but, you know, I kind of grew up.

I was a baby boomer. with JFK being in support of the war. And I know we're venturing into conspiracy theory area, don't really want to go down there, but you know, if you have any factual information, um, from what I read, I don't know who killed Kennedy. Don't really care at this point in time. I mean, I do, but I, it's a conversation for a different day, [00:20:00] but I don't think it's any coincidence that both JFK and his brother Robert were killed.

I mean, that's, there's just no But that Kennedy favored the war, when in reality, the things that I have read about Kennedy was, it was his opposition to the war that probably made some enemies.

Yeah, it was interesting, right at the beginning of the book, we look at the Kennedy Nixon presidential debates.

And those are really interesting, because Nixon was arguing, as usual, red scare, hard line, get tough with the Russians and the Chinese. And Kennedy was arguing, uh, more for engagement for things like the Peace Corps and, uh, having ambassadors learn languages and he was interested in trade, but he did in the, in the debates.

say things about, uh, communism as slavery. And so [00:21:00] the belief, general belief on both sides of the aisle was that communism was a danger, particularly in, in, uh, international relations. So I agree completely. If you look at Vietnam, you know, maybe the worst, uh, the worst decision maker, the Nixon. was Johnson.

Johnson just poured troops and weaponry and, uh, into Vietnam. Uh, I don't, it's hard to say what Kennedy would have done facing the same circumstances. He had been sending, Kennedy, before he died, was sending, he created SEAL team and, uh, the Green Berets specifically to train people in other countries, do proxy wars and, uh, but that missions creeped in Vietnam and both those, uh, [00:22:00] things that he created, um, got involved in combat and Kennedy lied to that, lied about that.

on television in people's living rooms at the time. Uh, so, but I don't know where, where Kennedy would have taken it had he survived, or for that matter, his brother. His brother was, uh, arguing for peace. in Vietnam, and had he been elected against Nixon, and he may very well have been, uh, things would have turned out differently, I'm sure, but the guy that really, uh, took the violent approach in Vietnam, uh, was, uh, Johnson, and Nixon started pulling troops out right away, and I was the beneficiary of that.

Uh, when I was stationed in the Philippines, we trained some Vietnamese frogmen how to get in and out of a submarine, And it was toward the goal of Vietnamization, that was the word [00:23:00] of the war. And, uh, through his, uh, term beginning in 68 and going all the way to 72, he continued to pull troops out while he was bombing the hell out of places like Laos and Cambodia illegally, by the way.

And also North Vietnam. Um, so he was using both tools, a very large stick, but also the carrot of the reality of, uh, the war would never be, uh, won, so to speak.

Yeah, um, and just switch gears just a little bit here, and I find this very interesting because I think we don't talk about, you know, Korea, Vietnam, that those periods of time very much because of the controversy surrounding them.

And I think there's just, I don't know, there's too many political players that I think have either been glamorized or villainized. [00:24:00] you know, depending on how people view things. But in your book, Charlotte's War, there's a couple things that I thought were interesting that came out early on, you know, with, with the advent of the radio and, I mean, people having radios in their house.

I realize radios King prior to World War II. But, um, in addition to that, you know, television, you know, Kennedy was so charismatic and so, you know, his ability to communicate with an audience, especially over TV, um, I think really helped him significantly. And I'd like to talk a little bit about technology and its impact on politics as it started there.

The other thing I'd like to get to, and you know, get through the technology discussion first is In the book, um, Charlotte's War, Charlotte was having, she was engaged or whatever to this young man and, um, they weren't married [00:25:00] and she ended up, you know, getting pregnant. And it was after that period of time when birth control kind of came onto the scene and I, I find it interesting, another interesting discussion on the impact that, you know, birth control played a significant role in changing the whole dynamic of women's rights and women's, you know, ability to be more integrated into everyday life.

Work Society, I guess, Charlotte, you know, as you mentioned, was an anthropologist. Is that right? Yes, that's the title. Yeah, and you know, she did have pretty good success for her period of time. So anyway, if you could jump back to the, what you believe is, you know, the impact of technology on politics, and then we can move into the other discussion.

Well, we can talk about TV and birth control, uh, most important technologies that have had [00:26:00] a huge impact on everyday life and world politics and have the potential for even more, thankfully. Um, I'll go back to the term. Well, let's see, let's start with TV. So in the preface, I talk about a trip I took to Russia.

This is real history, uh, real experience I had in the preface. I went to Russia in 1989. I was there to teach Russians how to negotiate with Americans. and Japanese because the Russians were interested in, uh, this was when Gorbachev came into office and they were interested in, uh, using, um, parade to further their interests.

Really what was going on at that point in time is the Japanese were killing us both. economically. They didn't spend anything on the military. Instead, Japan was taking over the world, changing the game to economics instead of military power. But [00:27:00] anyway, back in 89, one of the things I did is I saw the first televised debate between Gorbachev and a political opponent.

And I saw it in a resort hotel north of, northeast of, uh, Moscow. And the hotel, there's a big TV in the lobby and everybody, nobody was outside. Everybody was in watching that debate because they had never seen such a thing. So, the 1960 debates. were important because they changed this charisma became, uh, happened in your living room.

All of a sudden, you could see a politician in your living room saying what they were going to do, lying what they were, might do, all those kinds of things. And one of Nixon's big problems, uh, which I mentioned in the analysis, one of the things I study is, uh, nonverbal behaviors in negotiation. And Nixon was blinking a lot, which [00:28:00] is usually a tell for, um, a line, and, you know, whether people became conscious.

of that or not. You can look back at these because they're on, uh, the debates are all on YouTube. It's quite interesting to see Nixon's problem with, uh, honesty. And he told some whoppers during those debates. So the, you know, now you've got, uh, All kinds of high tech playing into things. I mean, and I started the book in 1938.

And in one sense, it was, uh, Charlotte was a mother when TV came out. And so it was the television, uh, generation arguing with the radio generation. And of course, then we have the Internet and we have all the screens all over the house, basically. Let alone, uh, other kinds of IT, and now we have, uh, artificial intelligence.

All that is [00:29:00] hard to know where it's all going. Um, particularly related to warfare. Um, the drones are completely changing things. I was laughing about Top Gun, Maverick, the most recent, uh, movie that was a big hit. And, uh, that movie makes no sense at all in an age of drones. What? Um, so that was interesting to see.

But birth control, I want to talk about birth control real quick. And it relates to peace building in an important way. Uh, the best, one of the best books I've ever read is by Stephen Pinker. Uh, he's a linguistics expert at Harvard, but he wrote a book called, uh, The Better Nature of Uh, Our Angels. And it's a book about peace and how we are living in one of the probably the most peaceful time the world has ever seen.

Now that sounds like a crazy talk when you've got all these murders [00:30:00] going on in the United States and this war in Ukraine and Russia. But if you look at the numbers, if you look at the trend lines and not the headlines, um, then you realize that it's, the world is actually quite peaceful right now. And, uh, he explains four reasons, and I won't go into all four, I just want to focus on the one that you mentioned, Um, but of the four reasons, uh, one is people, rule of law, people are, uh, paying more attention to rule of law.

One is rule of reason, so a lot of the wars in the past were based on, um, religious reasons. And now, uh, we have fewer wars because we aren't fighting so many of those. The third thing he mentions is women. He found that when women were higher up in government, there tended to be less military solutions to problems.

And the fourth one I like is [00:31:00] with more trade, you get less war. But, uh, birth control changed society, um, and, uh, changed the roles of both men and women. And, uh, they're still changing. But, uh, with women in more powerful political positions, they're basically shedding the coercion of the United States by men in the past century.

And, uh, so coercion is going away in this century, not only in international relations, but also in relations in American homes and neighborhoods and in politics.

Yeah, I, I, those are very interesting points and, um, I agree. I, jumping back a little bit to the technology, you know, back in the days of Nixon and, um, JFK, I'm sure they were not prepped as [00:32:00] much for their, you know, television appearances.

It was more like, oh, let's put some makeup on. You know, here's some questions you're going to be asked. Here's some counter arguments, arguments that you might want to make kind of thing. But nowadays I almost find it, um, I use this word very loosely, but unnecessary to have these televised debates because they're so scripted and they're so soundbite oriented.

And, you know, it's hard to catch somebody lying because you don't, you can't really dig into the details of things. And, you know, they're trained on these kind, they're trained to avoid these kind of behaviors that might indicate, you know, like in a practice debate, somebody might say, Oh, your eyes are blinking too much.

So you don't want to do that because it'll come across as that you're lying. So, I think it's interesting that, you know, how much it changed the political landscape at the time, and then technology has continued to do so. But one of the things that I like to focus on in our [00:33:00] podcast here is, you know, how can we take what we've learned from the past and move forward and with a blueprint and I really, really am a proponent of exploring the law of unintended consequences.

I think technology is great. I love technology. It's allowing us to have a conversation. You in California, me in Virginia. And, um, I use technology, I use artificial intelligence, um, but on the flip side, I see the potential that it's had, you know, with all of this discussion since the 2016 election about Russian interference in the elections, and all of this fake news, and all of this, you know, misinformation, disinformation, you know, technology's opened up that whole new thing.

And I'm not sure we could have predicted that. Um, maybe so. I mean, I already look at artificial intelligence and I'm like, Ooh, I can already see some real problems with, you know, like deep fakes and things like that, [00:34:00] um, on the political side of things, but I can also see a tremendous amount of harm that it can do, but I also see all the good that it can do.

So, that's where I think having these open, broad discussions where everybody comes together and says, here's my ideas, your ideas. You know, you're going to see things from a different perspective so that we can create a blueprint moving forward. And with the birth control issue, I totally agree. You know, it opened up so many doors for women that just weren't there.

And I do think it's had an impact overall on the world and its peacekeeping efforts. I think that's great. But just recently, and I guess it's of some interest to me. Because, um, you know, I took birth control when I was younger and then had a hard time getting pregnant. And then I have since been finding more and more studies that say, Oh, if you take birth control for an extended period of time, and I mean like, you know, 10 years plus or something, [00:35:00] and then you decide you want to get pregnant, you know, it can inhibit your ability to get pregnant.

Now, I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that's, you know, some of the information that's coming out. So, for all these things that are really good, and there's always a downside to something, and so I, I don't think that we should say, no more birth control. You know, that's not the solution by any means, or women, you know, stay home.

That's not the solution, um, or get rid of technology. That's not the solution, but that's why I like having these discussions, because I think it, It helps people see things through a much larger lens. And hopefully we'll never be able to predict the future. Of course, all these sci fi books, you know, books would help us on some level.

Um, I think some people are very creative in their interpretation of what the future could bring. But, um, yeah. So what are your thoughts on that?

Well, [00:36:00] it raises a lot of different things to talk about, but let me go to back to TV. And what TV did, uh, was really, uh, to elections in the United States was it just brought a ton of money in and really the country's electoral system is corrupted, not in the way Trump complains.

But, uh, it's corrupted by all the billions of dollars flowing through, uh, getting, uh, television advertising and other kinds of advertising. And the people in Congress and in government aren't, are not interested in changing that. And the only thing that's going to change it, I think, is if, uh, people, individuals, start asking sitting congressional, uh, sitting politicians a very simple question.[00:37:00]

Uh, the question is, do donations to your campaign influence your voting? And they're going to say no. They're going to lie to your face. But we need to be asking that question to get that basic truth. out on the table because all these men and women in politics are hugely influenced. by the big companies spending big money and the rich, very rich spending big money and, uh, citizens aren't being represented.

That's why everybody is so cranky with government generally. Uh, it's not just the Republicans or the Democrats. It's both of them. This government isn't serving, uh, the people the way it was intended, and the parties are both to blame. Uh, if you go back in history, George Washington thought political parties were a bad idea, and it's really true because the candidates represent the parties and the money that the parties [00:38:00] raise.

They don't represent their constituents.

That's interesting because I, I, you know, very aware of George Washington's comment and I highly respect George Washington. I'm not trying to take anything away from him at all, but I'm like, okay, then what, what would your solution, how would we do this? Just everybody kind of, you know, everybody run who wants to run.

And yeah, I agree. And I go look at FEC filings and see. Who's donating to your politician, your favorite politicians, you know, campaigns. But I also think technology can also possibly be a solution to this because we can organize more grassroots efforts and we can have more conversations like this, you know, just amongst everyday people.

And I don't have a political agenda on this podcast. I don't get the impression you have a real political agenda. You know, you have an agenda [00:39:00] and it's to bring peace. But that is not necessary. I don't see that as a political agenda. I just see that as, you know, a worthwhile pursuit. And so I think technology, you know, has brought about our ability to do that.

So I think that's wonderful. And I think we need to embrace that. and find ways to use that in a, you know, productive way.

Oh, I think the main thing is to elect independents and, um, who will promise to represent, uh, people, not the money. It's really a congressional campaign you can do for about 25, 000, uh, as a minimum campaign.

One of the things that's nice about The internet is, people can easily look at where a candidate stands, uh, on the website, um, if they'll bother to do it, but right now people are getting too much [00:40:00] information from the television,

which

is controlled by the money. And, uh, so I, I see hope for, uh, the technology helping in that just as you described, um, helping us communicate better, but it, uh, the people have to get, stand up against all this money being spent because, I mean, If you make a small donation, you get no attention from your congressional representative.

The congressional representatives are paying attention to the party, which is in many cases their biggest donor, but also, uh, the big donors. And, uh, so we people being served by the current political system. And I think we ought to be comparing to how they do it in other countries. I don't know if The British Parliament has the same kinds of problems, but anyway,

another big

topic.

Yeah, it is. I mean, we could have a whole other, you know, podcast on this topic, but I do think you're [00:41:00] right. You know, it's hard for us, and I air quotes here, little people, to recognize the power that we have. We feel so, um, neutered by all of this big money, all these big donations. And I've been trying to pay a lot more attention to my politician.

Where does he get his money from? You know, cause you'll hear him on one side say, Oh, I really am against, you know, all these social media giants. Well, but I look at your FEC filings and I see you're getting Mountains of money from them. And then I look at the way you vote and I go, Oh, I see. You're voting the way they want you to, but you're talking to me the way you think I want to hear.

And I, it's so hard, but I keep trying to tell people don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do.

Yeah.

Um, because it's easy to say anything. And [00:42:00] so I think we need to really educate people on where to get, and I always encourage people when you read something, do your best to find the original source and not somebody's interpretation of that source so that you can, you know, I teach constitution classes and we're talking about various, um, Supreme Court, you know, decisions.

And they're like, Oh, this, this. And I'm like, okay, it's clear. You've read a few talking points here and there here's the actual decision. Take a few minutes. And even though I know they're hard to understand, they're written in legal language and whatever, but if you just read, you know, their, their summaries, they're not so hard to understand.

Um, and I try to point people to various sites where you can see it's, it's easy to look up. how your particular politician voted on something. And here's where you can find their FEC filings and see who's donating to their causes. [00:43:00] Because I think once people recognize that they can be empowered and that just, um, it, it doesn't take an army of people to do this.

It just takes small groups of people. being persistent and exercising the power that they have.

So I'll

give you the final word here.

Well, I just, I think the worst example of our political system is the use of fear appeals. We really need a big enemy so we can have a big military budget. And this is something Eisenhower, of course, criticized.

Uh, another, probably Washington and Eisenhower, our greatest generals. Um, but Eisenhower, um, criticized the military industrial complex, and it's true, I, I mean, we need China, I, when the, uh, Cold War ended, [00:44:00] so to speak, um, and the wall came down, uh, what the industrial, the military industrial complex did was pivot to China.

in the year 2000 and 1999 and 2000 and China became the big enemy and China is a very weak big enemy. I mean, the scary one is Russia, if you count nuclear warheads, but we spend so much money on defense. We spend, if you add in what we spend on VA benefits, It's more than a trillion dollars a year and China is, is less than 300 million.

So we spent so much more money than any of these other, uh, countries. Nobody's ever going to attack the United States unless it's something like 9 11. And, uh, we're not going to have a war with [00:45:00] China. Neither one of us can afford that war. But yet the politicians, uh, the, Thing that really makes me an independent is free trade is so important and, uh, you hear all the criticisms of it and, uh, but anyway, I free trade is my mantra, uh, the three free trade delivers three things.

It delivers interdependence between countries. They tend not to fight. And the U. S. and China is a good example of that. We are interdependent. They bring, free trade brings interaction between people in the countries and they learn about cultures and things like that. But at the very beginning, we talked about something else that was, uh, creativity and, and free trade brings new ideas.

Uh, it always has. And those new ideas help, uh, mankind progress. womankind as well, I guess I [00:46:00] should say humankind. But, uh, free trade works in all those ways and it's super important that, uh, uh, the American people understand that and, uh, we can benefit from it.

Yeah, I think those are, they're good points and I would add to your list of the military industrial complex.

I totally agree on that, but also the, Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex lately has been kind of, and then, and even more, not even more so, but just add to the list, the Social Media Industrial Complex. I'm like,

yes, yes,

these guys rule the world. And I, I think once, once we recognize the role that these organizations or whatever you want to call them, complexes play, Um, play in our lives, then we're better equipped to manage their influence in our life.

Well, it goes back to, and I'll shut up after this, but you were talking about [00:47:00] the Constitution. The Constitution is quite clear that the government is, uh, the job of government is to rein in free enterprise. Right now Free Enterprise, or the big companies, are running the government through all their donations, and, uh, that's the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended.

So, have your, have your students read the whole Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Oh, we do, we do. Yes, good. Yeah, and it's amazing how short it is. It's not like it's going to be a big, where I struggle, and I personally struggle as well as my students is, you know, as I read through the Federalist and even the Anti Federalist papers, that's where the discussions about what went in, reading the Constitution itself is extremely valuable, but understanding their thought processes that went into that, I think is even more valuable because once you [00:48:00] understand why they decided certain things.

it's easier to say, okay, yes, this is something valuable that we need. Um, or don't need, you know, whichever the case may be. So it's, and you come from academia and I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with me here. We need to up our reading levels so that we can engage with this, you know, various information in a meaningful way.

Yeah. I'm a big

fan of the notion of Um, not spending money on guns, but instead spend money on books. Of course, I have a new book out. There you go! There you go. Education is really the best investment of all.

I believe that the most profound piece of technology that ever impacted was, you know, Gutenberg Crest.

Um, [00:49:00] because it allowed people to read and that has made more, brought more benefit to the world than most anything else we've ever created. Without a downside. How's that? Well, there's this, you know, misinformation, I guess, but anyway, thank you, um, for taking your time to visit with me today and, um, I look forward to your future books.

And even some of your, I've only read Charlotte's War, so now I've got more reading to do. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Uh, really appreciate, uh, being on the show and, and trying to answer your good questions. Why, thanks for your

time and, um, we'll talk to you later.

Great.

Bye bye. Bye bye.