Thank you. Thank you Professor Brice for the introduction of how it's always rather risky to be introduced by this story. And because they tell people what you've done and what you know, and also what you're like you to say I will speak rather now that I've been denounced is an expert on De tocqueville. I admitted I do relate many of my recent speeches to what he said about America, but principally because his judgment rather to fulfill more than many of the observations he madeAbout American political institutions and some of the ID is it we're inheriting in our democracy that what he predicted has come very close to fulfilled or at least to the point where we ought to take a look at the warnings which he sounded for us. And I think that responsibility rests I tan outside principally on the academic Community with the professors and the and the students there are rather sweeping judge, but I think three institutional groups that are principally responsible for political action in the country and political ideas. What is the academic Community which Bakery to be long-range rash judgments or the second is the Press which should be someone in between making recommendations and preserved immediately to politicians have to make almost to the day by day judgments today the Academic Community is the only one that is much respected. The indication of that is that people still hold you responsible in the case of politicians is rather General indifference in the case of the press. So I think almost general of disrespect twitch is a stage beyond that but as long as you're criticized I speak now students and teachers Community. You can feel that you at least you're worth while people are paying some attention to you and also it means you have to respond last year when I was campaigning in a limited way the general concern of the commentators was that the students that lie beyond that the whole student Community was a pathetic. I can find it very difficult to satisfy the outside critics in 1950 generally students were criticized and the community of which they were apart for being indifferent. In 1960, they were criticized for being too active. Adding 70 again. The disposition was to say Well, they're not active enough. On two campuses last year in particular I ran into this attitude in action at the University of Ohio. I was speaking on the played in there was a television crew from it was either NBC or ABC and I told what are you doing? This is where we're going to Ohio University to study student apathy. And I said well, why don't you come to my meeting? Addison well, that's not on our agenda but you love you might stop and they might be apathetic. Why don't you come and see if we had 1,200 students? They had their in for 5 years and then the same thing happened at the University of Wisconsin. It was CBS at night and we had a meeting with about 3,600 people which is a pretty good rally, but they said they'll wait week. We're not to wear not covering politics. We're we're covering apathy and saw the network reports were that on these campuses that the app has a rather curious about television news. I I think we'd be better off in politics at least if if all the television reports of political action verb, and I'm sort of weird. We don't allow advertising of either liquor or cigarettes on television on the grounds that this might corrupt you on the negative side. Everything to me we could have a civil ruling about politics and religion say no religion on politics and television and no political advertising and no political to lose it in between. We could LED television handle football games and and Detergents and they are at that whole range of vital decisions. But in any case apathy was the word rather honestly in the case of television show in contrast newspapers talk about having editors boys the news happens and then they edited which can be bad. But television has news producers. which is a totally different concept we're going to produce the news and then we will take a picture of it when it happens and then and they actually That they actually do it for five years ago. They discovered they remember us students may have missed it. But CBS proposed invasion of Haiti. They had bought the television rights to it. In advance and the payment was going to be used for Nancy The Invasion. and I thought but that was essentially the same principle used last year with reference to the Indiana 500 ABC had bought the rights to film it. And so the other networks were excluded from this great news event. And if you watch it for some reason they didn't show the race while it was being held and showed it at night and the other television network started pretending that they said was kind of a rumor that the race is over, but we don't want to tell you because you have to watch ABC cuz they bought it see and so it was no race ready until ABC put it on that knife even though it was over. Some 6 or 8 hours hours before and the same thing could have happened with the presidential debates which were really produce news. It really wasn't, you know until Cronk I told us at the sounded fail that we knew the Carter and forwarded. I thought they stopped to think they said I said water bronchitis or just that that wasn't the case he says it to Who said rather curiously the commentator said we have lost our sound, you know, which is an indication of their possessiveness not their time, but they're sound also we knew they owned the time but water said once we get our sound back while you'll get your candidates back and we can let this thing go on and how do I get off on this site I do with it. And no one was the moderator the night that the sound failed and he said that he really had never been afraid of Television until then. He said that neither one of the candidates made a move. He said they both began to sweat slightly, but they wouldn't even wipe their brows and they had to turn the cameras away and go out and wipe them off. And then put the cameras back on when the sound came they started up exactly where they've been when the sound went off which I stopped me about where we live with this kind of media control in any case you were supposed to be apathetic in 50 and apathetic now and I started to die die. What should they be active about? How do you how do you manifest your interest in the 1970s? And I think you manifest into somewhat different way from the way in which it was necessary to do in the sixties when you had an immediate cause it was a practical cars in the field of politics and it was a median or as today. There's a need to stand off to look at some of the ideas that are Incorporated politics doll and also to take it rather hard look at political institutions. And I don't want to deal with substitute matters here in my general remarks wouldn't have a question. Which we can get into that accept me to note that. and in the last campaign What is the general rule are there are about seven areas of demagoguery that are tolerated American politics three of the usually occupied by the Republicans and three are claimed by the Democrats and what is sort of up for grabs. It depends on which party does not have the presidency Republicans usually brought against the welfare Maps. This is standard for the last 30 years. They don't run against poverty. They just ride against the welfare mess. They also run against government in efficiency of a promise that they're going to reorganize the government and this supposed he will take care of all of our problems. And then they say something about the state department as you say will have on American foreign policy and we won't have any French words around the state department and they cut off the mustaches and all that sort of thing. And this is the Republican. Are you the Democrats running against the big corporations have been doing that since 1893? And every year it gets worse. You know, I really had a still do have it. I think of Heather But there's three or four areas of government in which they they prosper by virtue of failure. The ad I trust division of the justice department in the antitrust subcommittees of the judicial committee is of the Congress that a man named dr. Blair who was in charge and every spring along about groundhogs that he come out with a with a big charge and he say the concentration of power the corporation's is worse this year than it was last year because I need more money to fight them. So they give me more money and go back in. The next year, dr. Blair would come out with another chart or the same charge but he had extended the line. So it's worse than it was so the Democrats been doing that since roughly eighteen ninety-three and they still persist in in in doing it the other agency that did the same thing with the FBI. They used to say crime is worse this year than it was last year who were say, I need more money to control it. So we give you more and go away and come back the next you say crime is worse again. So we had a sort of a progressive increase is crying what episode of the FBI Appropriations the other was the resolution of the debt ceiling which is up now. They passed out in 54. I think it was to control the national debt at 200 and some billion dollars is resolution. They're considering I will set it at 700 billion. So they pass it every year. And they adopted a modification of it used to have just the debt-ceiling now, they have something called a permanent debt ceiling in the temporary debt ceiling and I think the permanent one now is 400 billion and the temporary is 720 so you can take your choices. I make us feel better if they put the permit wanted about 40 in the temporary wanted 707, but you have to anticipate every September now there's a debt-ceiling resolution. Cloud which will require the secretary of the Democrats is is is reforming the income tax so as to make it more Equitable this is been going on since 1917 and it's in WW2 happens in every campaign it after and as long as you say you're going to make an equitable you if you can you can run for a long time because there's a difference between equity and Justice we did have a member of Congress who we said had his great to find an equity & income tax go to then try to make it Universal then once he had done that he would say I've established Justice there is a difference but it is a standard area for Democrats to operate in the third area would show Usually Democrats offer is the promise full employment. And they're promising that again and the 7th area which is open to all is to attack the defense department. Had to say we're under defended if Republicans are out of power. They say we're under defended by the Democrats. If the Democrats are out and Republicans are in they say we're under defended by the Republicans in 1952. And Eisenhower. Randy said we were under defended by the Democrats and in 60 when Kennedy ran against Eisenhower. He said we were under defended by Eisenhower and then when Nixon Randy said we were under defended under Johnson and when Carter Randy said we were under defended. Change it a little bit. He said that the National Guard wasn't adequately armed know what I never use that before that was an innovation. I said, it was really worried about that after Kent State, but he said that before I left the National Guard in adequately armed and Ford said they were adequately armed but he would he would make them more than adequately armed soon as he had inadequate arms to replace the adequate arms if he would take care of the Guard. Well the point is it that in the last Campaign which took some stuff to do problems, which I'm not going to talk about was that each of these seven areas was exploited by the Democrats. They never been able to do that before they usually been limited to 4, but in the Carter campaign all seven were made the subject of political exploitation in to a large extent the difficulties Administration now are having to answer for issues that were raised in a somewhat demagogic matter in all seven of these areas in the last campaign, but the principal part of which talk to you about is is the matter of clinical procedure and political institutions. Dr. Rice made some reference to this in in the introductory remarks and I dad only did what he said that we have to I think keep in mind and procedures are important. We're inclined to think that that democracy is somehow self-operating or the the founding fathers were so wise Did they have in the Constitution Define practices and procedures? So why is he that they were they need not be re-examined or in any case they accommodate an adjusting cells to history what in fact this is not the case. There are two or three areas in which the founding fathers in the Constitution fell a little bit short never should have put the Kaplan Washington anytime anyone tells you that they were why is beyond imagination you say why do they put the capital here? And there's no one can answer that but there's three areas in which change has sort of outrun. I suppose he at. That the constitution can be adjusted but we're not anticipated when the Constitution was adopted. One of these was the growth of military power in the country. There was there was no indication that they ever anticipated the time when you would have a military system of the power and magnitude of that which we have a detailed feeling 1831 at a time when I think we had something like 5,000. soldiers in the United States Army said that this country had to be concerned and anticipate a time and it had a military establishment, which was greater than what was needed for its immediate military needs. You said when that happened the military would become a republic within the Republic at a special forces affecting the economic Association to put ecolife and the foreign policy of the country that he foresaw. As I said when they were only five thousand soldiers in the next alarm me, but even then they military we're asking for more We didn't have an actual Cavalry then it was not unlike the agitation you getting off of the Air Force and they were all so say we had to have a Navy so the pressure was there to build up the military perhaps it was really in any case today. We do have a military establishment, which is a fulfillment really of of what de tocqueville predicted it. It's a separate force in the American economic life in American socialite. And certainly it has a significant effect upon the politics of the country of particular on foreign policy and rather curiously. This point was noted by President Eisenhower. Deities farewell address and 1960 he warned against the existence of the military-industrial complex. It was many people said his best speech at a wise, but but the important thing is that he didn't say this military industrial complex develop while I was president and I've left it here for you. I just want you to know that it's there and it was decent of him to tell us that it was but from that time on it has taken on a separate kind of existence a separate for somewhat beyond the control of the government or the Country Inn in in the normal operation of political control back in 1960. There wasn't someone speaking for John Kennedy when he was a big issue of whether Kennedy would send an ambassador to the Vatican or not. People have forgotten about that. They don't even know where the Vatican is any more of it in 60. It was a big issue, but he said if I were president, I would advise him to the Pentagon. Just some kind of diplomatic representation and then take a look at u.s. Steel and ITT and General Motors and see if they would accept diplomatic representation. And once we had representation that those centers of power which have much more effective on American life in the Vatican that we have no master left over who'd made a significant contribution to the campaign. We could send him there but a disposition not just to see if it continues what was happening to us as de tocqueville had indicated it was bound to happen. But to go along as though existing controls and procedures were entirely adequate to deal with that problem the second development. That was not anticipated was the concentration of power in in great corporations. And I've made some reference to that the constitution was designed the laws growing out of it in anticipation of a rather free competitive Society of small farms and small businesses. And this was to be the way of it but the corporation's then developed and then the great concentration of economic power. So we have it in at least an economically of something very close to corporate feudalism in this country and it's not only limited they developed their own foreign policy and it's not surprising that they would I mean it is almost certain to happen to the point is that we have not develop any procedures for dealing with it and I supposed to classical example that was so was the ITT a particular day in Chile. Where they admitted that they were running the foreign policy of their own and when Mr. Janine was challenged. cuz he had um Offered the money to the federal government, which they were to give to the CIA to do something that ITT wanted done. He was horrified when they when people thought this was disturbing you said why? We have taken money Federal money from the CIA which they gave to us to do something. They want it done. Is it why not turn it around. We just want them to do something for us and we will pay them to do what we want done in the same way that they paid us to do what they wanted. You should just a straight kind of corporate business deal. and it he was criticized but in a way he didn't deserve it because he was almost the incorporation reincarnation in him of the corporate spirit that he could not see any any conflict between having a CIA work for ITT anymore lead seen any conflict and having ITT do with the CIA ask him to do for the federal government. And so this runs through the whole system. And again, it's more or less escapes from the normal procedures of control of Direction in the federal government and the third development. Somewhat related these are political things won The Growing Power of the presidency and secondly of the institution known as the as the is a two party system. and I speak first of the presidency cuz the Constitution can see to that office has won a very limited and circumscribed power but in the last 30 or 40 years with the help of historians to some extent and I've had So difference is over the years on this particular issue. I was rather than Curry's when two or three years ago. He published the book warning against the dangers of the imperial presidency, although a 1968. He proposed me on the grounds that the my conception of the presidency was a weak one. It would not work. Well, this was not altogether surprised because I thought I had started made a career of writing history about strong presidents. He wrote The Age of Jackson whom he looked upon as a strong presidency was recently strong, but he was still constitutional more or less what he wrote that after the age was over and you wrote The Age of Roosevelt while it was taking place, which is it new approach to history and finally, he wrote The Age of Kennedy in advance and that's the work of Genius. I mean, he's the only historian who of the need for a strong president if the country was to progress what it wasn't taken up yesterday from from Arthur, but it just started ran through The whole political science establishment of the country it was definable it so you could write articles about it. You can start assist aided by historical selective historical references and it began to be the accepted Doctrine and also you could start a diagram it and set up an adversary relationship the president against the Congress a strong president congressman. And so the game sort of went on and the prospect it up and said that's right. That's the way it's got to be and eventually the president's sort of begin to believe it and the politicians and not just to talk about a strong presidency. Would you say Well, that's alright depending upon how the strength is exercise but a personalized presidency what you something different which means the presidency is what the president wants it to be it can be stronger. I can be weak it's hard as his office to use any way he wants to And the first clear demonstration of this rubbish. I hate the last truly constitutional phrase. I think he was fairly strong, but he wasn't personal at least you didn't personalized. The office was Harry Truman who kept the lines clear to what was his power and his responsibilities. What was the power and responsibilities a cartoon of the Congress and so on? in the Eisenhower Administration It was not a strong presidency, but it was a personalized presidency before he ran. The Democrats try to get him to run. And the Republicans tried to get him to run and both parties are just said look like you just have to run, you know, you don't have to do anything. You don't want to do once you're elected you can just have the office and we're not going to put any obligations on you except the Republican offer a hickey believe they would ask him then the Democrats in office are they said? Well, I'm here and I will now delegate power. So he delegated power to the Secretary of State who interned delegated to his brother the head of the CIA. He delegated power to to the Secretary of the Treasury. He delegated powers of the Attorney General sort of out of control much of it was not used by thee but the principle of cost of the Constitutional presidency was violated in a negative someone pass away, but nonetheless of violation a present should be unconstitutional president. You shouldn't be much more than that and he shouldn't be much What are the subsequent Democratic president season in the Republican want to Richard Nixon the combination of of the concept of a powerful president and if a personalized one sword came together. And the case of the Kennedy administration it was first personalized as to style but also more than that. There was a substitute personalization in the in the in the selection of of the cabinet. We got to pick people who had no particular political base against whom the party had no particular claims are controlled would say the cabinet belongs to me Dean Rusk Secretary of State both of us who'd been in Congress and never heard of Dean Rusk very White Secretary of State or or Robert McNamara quite suddenly taken out of the automobile industry made the Secretary of Defense not with Party Support not with a record of service. It could be identified but largely as a choice made by the president himself. And what's that begins to happen lately? They have to sort of build up the person saying this is a super person who's come in. He has his first note so that it begins to go for the president the special power to the cabinet members McNamara came in they said for example, he made no small mistakes. We see that's a great recommendation. I just worried about it immediately. I said, I just assumed he made some small mistakes. What about the big ones? And so we had to wait to find out that that was where he was weak. But but the de Concepcion was it Was that this was a special kind of person who had been sort of picked by the president. You were not read the question him and it sort of fit into Siri I've been developing really came a little bit later but it felt almost everything that the churches have been trying to give up specially the Catholic Church invite at the Vatican Council everything they try to give up was picked up by the state department from the Pentagon and infallibility. If you knew what the president does you would agree with him. You know, what what's the difference between that and infallibility? Are they say if you knew what Robert McNamara knows you wouldn't criticize him. Well, I never knew what he do, you know, but the idea was that this was the backyard off you say and in the silence you or are the idea of the Inquisition given up with the enemies list developed over here in the index was some of the substitute for that was something called sanitizing the record as head of some things that the people out not to know, you know, we just keep this for the Intergroup. And recycling on this and 67 I said, I'd really be worried if they started to talk Latin over in the defense department. Are we supposed to be a joking and we found out a committee of Congress sometime later that actually they had the Army had contracted with one of the think tanks in the country for them to figure out what would be necessary to impose an American Peace On The World. No, no modest object if I mean it and they had called it pox Americana. We never got the text. We don't know whether that was just a codename or whether they actually had put it out in in Latin. But but they had begun to think this way in the unlimited sort of projection of ideas under McNamara most of it and also that they had developed a medical movement. But whether you define the armed services that someone came up with the idea that there was an overlapping in the religions that were carried by the Department of Defense so that they said why we can save money and lots of things if we had a kind of a GI religion, but we'd run together the three or four branches of Christians and whatever else and in the Jewish community in front of all together just have a GI religion and this boodoo boodoo significantly so channels in the defense department when Congress said you can't go any farther. But this is an idea taking a hole in it with this conception of of power in the personalization the indifference redo what the culture of the country is manifested in such as he's well, in any case I don't want to overdo. The personalization would have carried to Stage 5. You can run through Johnson. Nixon and which was rather obvious it first began to show in in in the Johnson Administration in the in his growing use of the possessive pronoun my Bob more and more things to talk about my cabinet my party or my vice-president her one day. He said Airbase. He said someone move those helicopters, and they said I can't have orders from the commanding officer and President Johnson said, they're my helicopters. Will it really work to know the commander-in-chief doesn't have that kind of control over helicopters on a base, but he had accepted in a way that this was was the full and total extent of his power. What if it has been limited to those sort of verbal manifestation that wouldn't have been so bad but in the execution of the office, he began to use offices and officers as so He had no constitutional restraints. Perhaps the most serious one was to take the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and put him in charge of the assassination Commission on judicial proceeding in which the the Integrity of the card and the Integrity of the Chief Justice were put on the line and an investigation which was bound to be something less than clear and then defended are you take the UN Ambassador Mister Goldberg a good appointment and ask him to come away so that you and to settle an opera strike and so through the whole structure of government a lack of sensitivity to to what the office was and how the person who held that office ought to be treated. This was carried another stage further by Nixon in the personalization of it. Is this way there? Where is Johnson would appoint good people to the office? He would then use them in the office for some other purpose next in the downstairs conception the Supreme Court for example as a projection of President Nixon. Which it should not be the detached view is a Supreme Court is something really quite separate of the tradition of this country and it's not to be a projection of the present. But this was a Nixon conception of it all United Nations Ambassador. That wears Johnson made good appointments Nixon began to appoint people who had no political standing whatsoever. But a personalization say well each office is my office and it has nothing to do with tradition or even with constitutional definitions and also expect she'll Edition vocabulary. He didn't say my he began to say we Which is much more intimate control. I wonder who he included when he first began to use it because I didn't really want to be included in that Collective. I know Mark Twain, it said that no one should use the collectively unless you were the king of England. I think the Archbishop of Canterbury and someone with a tapeworm, but but but here was Nixon the president of the states saying we and cutting us all in on it and actually he carried it through in his first build Apache Watergate. He said that that He was responsible. He said but we are all to blame. Now if he had said we were responsible it it says indirect but he was to blame you would have had a proper use of language in the proper distinction but a disposition to say and he had said that the president was the moral leader of the country earlier and there's a question about that. I'm sorry for the present to be a moral leader. But to say the present is the moral leader of the country it is to take in the office if he if he really understood why he would say is to take to the office a a power and responsibility which was never intended to have the nothing in the Constitution that says the presidency more on the religious leader of the country. But nothing in the early tradition. You didn't find Thomas Jefferson or Adams or Andrew Jackson there even Abraham Lincoln saying he was the moral leader of the country, but in 1968 70 week with this is the kind of line we get the same ideas is been carried over to the Carter Administration. It's him. Well, it's it's not the same. It isn't the same exceptions. But the concept of the personalization of the office is essentially the same now as it was under Nixon him don't want to belabor the point. Carter said with reference to The Vamps say it was his own. This was a personal judgment upon him and he almost said I thought when when he was television appearance after parole answered left it that this was so unfair to him because he was he was making these great moral judgment. Everyone said I won't let you like me anymore. And this is her car's position now, he's not going to let us like him. EBay change to let us later on but right now you have to live without feeling the gym. He's letting you like him and this is hard to kick to know what's left in that state of indecision. The second idea that's been allowed to develop the procedural one again, which was not anticipating away in the Constitution was the danger of a strong presidency the personalized presidency what was anticipated and action was taken to try to prevent it and that is the idea of A two-party political system the Constitution was drafted actually see it with the hope that partisanship would be discouraged. But particularly two-party politics. John Adams said about the time the Constitution was adopted at the worst thing we can have it a political system such as they can see for this country was to have politics control by two strong political factions. He said it was a it was a prescription for your responsible politics and forbade government roughly two hundred years ago and two hundred years later. The general theme has been developed that you can't govern the country unless you have politics controlled by two political parties will first it was just an idea and and the historians and the politicians would say they would say if you have two-party politics democracy work, so they would then say look at England. They say look at France one works. The other doesn't England still has to Party politics, but it doesn't work. So they don't use that example anymore. But she won't look at the United States. Did you say well how well are we done? It's like they said Watergate prove that the system can survive. Well, it didn't prove much about the system is like said the captain of the Titanic go said that the crossing was successful accepting for one incident involving ice, you know. Other than that, it was pretty successful saying it was everything was going fine. But to say that I don't want to go through the whole list of play shouldn't in Watergate at least it proves that the system does not completely disintegrate but it doesn't prove anything about the virtue of two parties. If anything you say if this is what you get the two parties that we better look for some other approach in any case both in practice The argument is not sustained nor is it sustained by Theory? If one really takes a look at the Constitution and the manner in which his politics were expected to operate to elect Congress set of the house and also through the Electoral College to elect the president. But what's the idea got loose then the politicians began to pass laws to freeze ascenda two-party politics state after State. We probably have 20 States. Now with unconstitutional laws. I'll give you protection to the Republicans into the Democrats and in 1975 and 76 for the first time in history. A federal law was passed which effectively establishes two political parties as the only established parties in this country. They say what you have political Freedom. You can be a Republican or a Democrat. Which is somewhat different from the conception of the founding fathers and not very liberal radio few months ago. The president of Egypt Sadat announced that they were going to have three political parties in Egypt. He said the Egyptians were mature enough now politically to handle three political parties. The Russians have won the Egyptians have three we have to so we're mature enough to operate somewhere between the Russians and the Egyptians now according to the conception of people were making judgments about it, but to to move to provide by law. For the financing in the operation of two political parties in the fact is to say that the government itself will control the political process by which the government itself is chosen. And this is essentially the was the point of the American Revolution. They said that we don't want the government determine the government for us. We want a free and open political system. But here we are two hundred years later without reflection accepting a practical judgment, which doesn't stand the test of examination of the two party system has worked well at all. So accepting a theory which was repudiated by the men who drafted the Constitution which was taken into account when the Constitution was drafted and the third growing out of this sort of thing. The idea that the if democracy is not working. Well, what you got to do is make it easier. And we have at least three proposals around now, they didn't really originated with the vice president. But he put them together. This is one of the things that comes when you start giving new meaning to an old office. Vice presidents used to be rather quiet and passive people and they were stirred up and we were lucky the last three or four administration's again, and he was personalizing the present. They said I have to give new meaning to the vice presidency and Truman didn't do it for Alben Barkley at Roosevelt. Never did he try to make a mean less the longer they were in but beginning of was President Johnson or Eisenhower re they said he was going to give new responsibilities to Richard Nixon the office was going to mean something more and then President Kennedy was going to do the same thing with President Johnson and Then President Johnson was going to do the same thing with Vice President Humphrey and then following that the Knicks it was going to do it with Agnew was really getting rolling by that time. I mean you really giving new meaning to the office again, in this case of mr. Carter said that he was going to give no response to a new meeting for these recommendations and then he came up with three of the right away one was the instant registration to come to the polls and register. You don't have to anticipate take your responsibilities seriously, but just come on the day and will register you. Someone said I would be called the Richard Daley Memorial program. Richard it all would have peed even allow post-mortem registration. Y'all just had to figure the few everybody had a right to vote for president least 8 times in a lifetime if you miss one by by Falling Away early why they'd let you vote the next election. Anyway, instant registration Federal Financing of all, you're not going to extend it to the to the house into the sanitate. You don't have to take any kind of fiscal responsibility for politics were going to take care of that for you were going to go to pay for the elections are going to pay the salaries will take care of all of this will have will have purely governmental candidates government refinance and they liked it in a in an election directed largely by the government itself. So contrary to the tradition of the country Play the revolution itself. I mean say it really wasn't Finance with matching funds mean George didn't say your head and you can have a revolution in and we'll keep it going that way and it also involves some rather large contributors. We've been honoring them for $200 contribution $1,000 in New York Times that they thought a thousand dollars worth of freedom of speech was enough for any citizen, which is a fine concept of freedom of speech by the process Again by having the government for Nancy election, the government lay down standards as to which parties qualify and it effective control the process by which the government itself is chosen and the third proposed growing out of this was the direct election of the president. Supposedly because the Electoral College is not use they say well, let's get rid of it and the like people directly so you have no intervention in the fact what this means is that the representative government was conceived by the vendor draft. The Constitution is set aside and the most unreflective appeal in the time when we lived in a state of distraction because he appealed by which people are asked to make a significant choice about the presidents of the United States in a fact It would mean that the television instrument would probably be the most important process in the election of President as it was in 1976. What's the debates were set up? Even the Press had no significant bearing upon that election. They became little more than than television commentators are almost like sportswear. They say it before the first debate. They say what will the strategy be still will forward use a full press or will they use a single wing or what kind of uniforms will I wear and then I gave you an analysis after they said Willie change the strategy for the next game. I saw two newspapers and Right after the first debate and they had television station is gotten I think they were for college debate judges to judge the bait. And the headline said I forgot what the percentage was was Ford wins, 21.9 Carter 16.8. That's pretty refine and Carter lost two points for swallowing is an Adam's apple. So you might have lost the presidency because of that they say and in high school and college debate. You don't do that. You just don't swallow you stay right there and hold firm. But but this the kind of projection of of presidential politics today now say it hasn't worked very well people don't vote. Let's have even more of a well. We have a question. I'd invite Tiffany again repeating. I think there's a really great burn is on the academic. I think it's crazy ideas do have consequences if you fail in it. It's not really fair to stay at off and say the Press is an adequate or the past any kind of harsh judgment upon the politicians.