The 1960s in America: Crash Course US History #40

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course
US History and today we’re gonna talk about the 1960s.
Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Great. The decade made famous by the narcissists who lived through
it. Hey, Me From the Past, finally you and I agree
about something wholeheartedly. But while I don’t wish to indulge the baby-boomers’
fantasies about their centrality to world history, the sixties were an important time.
I mean, there was the Cold War, Vietnam, a rising tide of conservatism (despite Woodstock),
racism. There were the Kennedy’s and Camelot, John,
Paul, George, and to a lesser extent, Ringo. And of course, there was also Martin Luther
King Jr. intro
So, the 1960s saw people organizing and actively working for change both in the social order
and in government. This included the student movement, the women’s movement, movements
for gay rights, and a push by the courts to expand rights in general.
But, by the end of the 1960s, the anti-war movement seemed to have overshadowed all the
rest. So as you’ll no doubt remember from last
week, the civil rights movement began in the 1950s if not before, but many of its key moments
happened in the sixties. And this really began with sit-ins that took
place in Greensboro North Carolina. Black university students walked into Woolworths
and waited at the lunch counters to be served, or, more likely, arrested.
After 5 months of that, those students eventually got Woolworths to serve black customers.
Then, in 1961 leaders from the Congress On Racial Equality launched Freedom Rides to
integrate interstate buses. Volunteers rode the buses into the Deep South where they faced
violence including beatings and a bombing in Anniston AL.
But despite that, those freedom rides also proved successful and eventually the ICC desegregated
interstate buses. In fact, by the end of the 60s over 70,000
people had taken part in demonstrations, from sit-ins, to teach-ins, to marches.
But they weren’t all successful. Martin Luther King’s year-long protests in Albany,
GA didn’t end discrimination in the city. And it took JFK ordering federal troops to
escort James Meredith to class for him to attend the University of Mississippi.
The University of Mississippi: America’s fallback college. Sorry, I’m from Alabama.
So, the Civil Rights movement reached its greatest national prominence in 1963 when
Martin Luther King came to my hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, where there had been
more than 50 racially-motivated bombings since WWII.
Television brought the reality of the Jim Crow South into people’s homes as images
of Bull Connor’s police dogs and water cannons being turned on peaceful marchers, many of
them children, horrified viewers and eventually led Kennedy to endorse the movement’s goals.
Probably should mention that John F. Kennedy was president of the United States at the
time, having been elected in 1960. He was assassinated in 1963 leading to Lyndon Johnson.
Alright, politics over. Anyway, in response to these peaceful protests,
Birmingham jailed Martin Luther King where he wrote one of the great letters in American
history (doesn’t have a great name): Letter from Birmingham Jail.
1963 also saw the March on Washington, the largest public demonstration in American history
up to that time where King gave his famous speech, “I have a Dream.”
King and the other organizers called for a civil rights bill and help for the poor, demanding
public works, a higher minimum wage, and an end to discrimination in employment.
Which eventually, in one of the great bright spots in American history, did sort of happen
with the Civil Rights Act. So, one reason American history teachers focus
on the Civil Rights Movement so much is that it successfully brought actual legislative
change. After being elected president, John F. Kennedy
was initially cool to civil rights, but to be fair, the Cold War occupied a lot of his
time, what with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs and whatnot.
But the demonstrations of 1963 pushed John F. Kennedy to support civil rights more actively.
According to our dear friend, the historian Eric Foner, “Kennedy realized that the United
States simply could not declare itself the champion of freedom throughout the world while
maintaining a system of racial inequality at home.”[1]
So that June he appeared on TV and called on Congress to pass a law that would ban discrimination
in all public accommodations. And then he was assassinated. Thanks, Lee
Harvey Oswald. Or possibly someone else. But probably Lee Harvey Oswald.
So then, Lyndon Johnson became president and he pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. The law prohibited discrimination in employment,
schools, hospitals, and privately owned public places like restaurants, and hotels and theaters,
and it also banned discrimination on the basis of sex.
The Civil Rights Act was a major moment in American legislative history, but it hardly
made the United States a haven of equality. So, Civil Rights leaders continued to push
for the enfranchisement of African Americans. After Freedom Summer workers registered people
in Mississippi to vote, King launched a march for voting rights in Selma, Alabama in January,
1965. And television swayed public opinion in favor
of the demonstrators. Thank you, TV, for your one and only gift to humanity. Just kidding.
Battlestar Galactica. So, in 1965 Congress passed the Voting Rights
Act, which gave the federal government the power to oversee voting in places where discrimination
was practiced. In 1965, Congress also passed the Hart-Cellar
Act, which got rid of national origin quotas and allowed Asian immigrants to immigrate
to the United States. Unfortunately the law also introduced quotas on immigrants from
the Western Hemisphere. Lyndon Johnson’s domestic initiatives from
1965 through 1967 are known as the Great Society, and it’s possible that if he hadn’t been
responsible for America escalating the war in Vietnam, he might have been remembered,
at least by liberals, as one of America’s greatest presidents.
Because the Great Society expanded a lot of the promises of the New Deal, especially in
the creation of health insurance programs, like Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid
for the poor. He also went to War on Poverty. Never go to
war with a noun. You will always lose. Johnson treated poverty as a social problem,
rather than an economic one. So instead of focusing on jobs or guaranteed income, his
initiatives stressed things like training. That unfortunately failed to take into account
shifts in the economy away from high wage union manufacturing jobs toward more lower-wage
service jobs. [2] Here’s what Eric Foner had to say about
Johnson’s domestic accomplishments: “By the 1990s […] the historic gap between whites
and blacks in education, income, and access to skilled employment narrowed considerably.
But with deindustrialization and urban decay affecting numerous families and most suburbs
still being off limits to non-white people, the median wealth of white households remained
ten times greater than that of African Americans, and nearly a quarter of all black children
lived in poverty.” While Congress was busy enacting Johnson’s
Great Society programs, the movement for African American freedom was changing. Let’s go
to the ThoughtBubble. Persistent poverty and continued discrimination
in the workplace, housing, education, and criminal justice system might explain the
shift away from integration and toward black power, a celebration of African American culture
and criticism of whites’ oppression. 1964 saw the beginnings of riots in city ghettoes,
for instance, mostly in Northern cities. The worst riots were in 1965 in Watts, in
southern California. These left 35 people dead, 900 injured, and $30 million in damage.
Newark and Detroit also saw devastating riots in 1967. In 1968 the Kerner Report blamed
the cause of the rioting on segregation, poverty, and white racism.
Then there’s Malcolm X, who many white people regarded as an advocate for violence, but
who also called for self-reliance. It’s tempting to see leadership shifting from King
to X as the civil rights movement became more militant, but Malcolm X was active in the
early 1960s and he was killed in 1965, three years before Martin Luther King was assassinated
and before all the major shifts in emphasis towards black power.
Older Civil Rights groups like CORE abandoned integration as a goal after 1965 and started
to call for black power. The rhetoric of Black Power could be strident, but its message of
black empowerment was deeply resonant for many. Oakland’s Black Panther Party did
carry guns in self-defense but they also offered a lot of neighborhood services. But the Black
Power turned many white people away from the struggle for African American freedom, and
by the end of the 1960s, many Americans’ attention had shifted to anti-war movement.
Thanks, ThoughtBubble. So it was Vietnam that really galvanized students even though many
didn’t have to go to Vietnam because they had student deferments. They just really,
really didn’t want their friends to go. The anti-war movement and the civil rights
movement inspired other groups to seek an end to oppression. Like, Latinos organized
to celebrate their heritage and end discrimination. Latino activism was like black power, but
much more explicitly linked to labor justice, especially the strike efforts led by Cesar
Chavez and the United Farm Workers. The American Indian Movement, founded in 1968,
took over Alcatraz to symbolize the land that had been taken from Native Americans. And
they won greater tribal control over education, economic development, and they also filed
suits for restitution. And in June of 1969, after police raided a
gay bar, called the Stonewall Inn, members of the gay community began a series of demonstrations
in New York City, which touched off the modern gay liberation movement.
Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules here are pretty simple.
I read the Mystery Document, guess the author, I’m either right or I get shocked.
Alright, what have we got here. If the Bill of Rights contains no guarantee
that a citizen shall be secure against lethal poisons distributed either by private individuals
or by public officials [I already know it!], it is surely only because our forefathers,
despite their considerable wisdom and foresight, could conceive of no such problem. Rachel Carson! Silent Spring. YES. I am on
such a roll. Silent Spring was a massively important book
because it was the first time that anyone really described all of the astonishingly
poisonous things we were putting into the air and the ground and the water.
Fortunately, that’s all been straightened out now and everything that we do and make
as human beings is now sustainable. What’s that? Oh god.
The environmental movement gained huge bipartisan support and it resulted in important legislation
during the Nixon era, including the Clean Air and Water Acts, and the Endangered Species
Act. And yes, I said that environmental legislation was passed during the Nixon administration.
But perhaps the most significant freedom movement in terms of number of people involved and
long-lasting effects was the American Feminist movement.
This is usually said to have begun with the publication of Betty Friedan’s book The
Feminine Mystique, which set out to describe “the problem that has no name.” Turns
out the name is “misogyny.” [3] Friedan described a constricting social and
economic system that affected mostly middle class women, but it resonated with the educated
classes and led to the foundation of the National Organization of Women in 1966.
Participation in student and civil rights movements led many women to identify themselves
as members of a group that was systematically discriminated against.
And by “systemic,” I mean that in 1963, 5.8% of doctors were women and 3.7% of lawyers
were women and fewer than 10% of doctoral degrees went to women. They are more than
half of the population. While Congress responded with the Equal Pay
Act in 1963, younger women sought greater power and autonomy in addition to legislation.
Crucially, 60s-era feminists opened America to the idea that the “personal is political,”
especially when it came to equal pay, childcare, and abortion.
Weirdly, the branch of government that provided most support to the expansion of personal
freedom in the 1960s was the most conservative one, the Supreme Court. The Warren Court handed
down so many decisions expanding civil rights that the era has sometimes been called a rights
revolution. The Warren court expanded the protections
of free speech and assembly under the First Amendment and freedom of the press in the
New York Times v. Sullivan decision. It struck down a law banning interracial marriage in
the most appropriately named case ever, Loving v. Virginia.
And although this would become a lightning rod for many conservatives, Supreme Court
decisions greatly expanded the protections of people accused of crimes.
Gideon v. Wainwright secured the right to attorney, Mapp v. Ohio established the exclusionary
rule under the Fourth Amendment, and Miranda v. Arizona provided fodder for Channing Tatum
in his great movie, 21 Jump Street, insuring that he would always have to say to every
perp, “You have the right to remain silent.” But you can’t silence my heart, Channing
Tatum. It beats only for thee. But, the most innovative and controversial
decisions actually established a new right where none had existed in the constitution.
Griswold v. Connecticut, dealt with contraception, and Roe v. Wade, guaranteed a woman’s right
to an abortion (at least in the first trimester). And those two decisions formed the basis of
a new right, the right to privacy. Protests, the counter culture, and the liberation
movements continued well into the early 1970s, losing steam with the end of the Vietnam war
and America’s economy plunging into the toilet. For many, though, the year 1968 sums
up the decade. 1968 began with the Tet Offensive in Vietnam,
which stirred up the anti-war protests. Then racial violence erupted after the assassination
of Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968. Then, anti-war demonstrators as well as some
counter culture types arrived in large numbers at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago
where they were set upon by police and beaten in what was later described as a “police
riot.” 1968 also saw the Prague Spring uprising in
Czechoslovakia crushed by the Soviets. And student demonstrators were killed by the police
in Mexico City where the Olympics were held and Parisian students took to the streets
in widespread protests against, you know, France.
All this unrest scared a lot of people who ended up voting for Richard Nixon and his
promises to return to law and order. Ultimately, like any decade or arbitrary historical
“age,” the 60s defies easy categorization. Yes, there were hippies and liberation movements,
but there were also reactions to those movements. On this one, I’m just gonna leave it up
to Eric Foner to summarize the decade’s legacy:
“[The 1960s] made possible the entrance of numerous members of racial minorities into
the mainstream of American life, while leaving unsolved the problem of urban poverty. It
set in motion a transformation of the status of women. It changed what Americans expected
from government – from clean air and water to medical coverage in old age.
And at the same time, it undermined confidence in national leaders. Relations between young
and old, men and women, and white and non-white, along with every institution in society, changed
as a result.” But there’s one last thing I want to emphasize.
All of this wasn’t really the result of, like, a radical revolution. It was the result
of a process that had been going on for decades. I mean, arguably a process that had been going
on for hundreds of years. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next week.
Crash Course is made with the help of all these nice people and it’s possible because
of generous support from the Bluth Family Frozen Banana Stand. Just kidding. We don’t
have corporate sponsors. We have you. is a voluntary subscription platform
(by the way, you can just click on my face) that allows people who care about stuff, like
you hopefully care about Crash Course, to support it directly on a monthly basis.
I’m over here now, but you should still click on my face. So Subbable has lots of
great Crash Course perks, you can get signed posters and all kinds of things, and most
importantly, you can help us keep this show free, for ever, for everyone. Thank you again
for watching, and as we say in my hometown, there’s always money in the banana stand.

The Rise of Conservatism: Crash Course US History #41

Episode 41: Rise of Conservatism Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse
U.S. history and today we’re going to–Nixon?–we’re going to talk about the rise of conservatism.
So Alabama, where I went to high school, is a pretty conservative state and reliably sends
Republicans to Washington. Like, both of its Senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby,
are Republicans. But did you know that Richard Shelby used to be a Democrat, just like basically
all of Alabama’s Senators since reconstruction? And this shift from Democrat to Republican
throughout the South is the result of the rise in conservative politics in the 1960s
and 1970s that we are going to talk about today. And along the way, we get to put Richard
Nixon’s head in a jar. Stan just informed me that we don’t actually
get to put Richard Nixon’s head in a jar. It’s just a Futurama joke. And now I’m
sad. So, you’ll remember from our last episode
that we learned that not everyone in the 1960s was a psychedelic rock-listening, war-protesting
hippie. In fact, there was a strong undercurrent of conservative thinking that ran throughout
the 1960s, even among young people. And one aspect of this was the rise of free
market ideology and libertarianism. Like, since the 1950s, a majority of Americans had
broadly agreed that “free enterprise” was a good thing and should be encouraged
both in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, and also in deep space
where no man has gone before? No, MFTP. You’re thinking of the Starship
Enterprise, not free enterprise. And anyway, Me From The Past, have you ever
seen a more aggressively communist television program than “The Neutral Zone” from Star
Trek: The Next Generation’s first season? I don’t think so.
intro Alright so, in the 1950s a growing number
of libertarians argued that unregulated capitalism and individual autonomy were the essence of
American freedom. And although they were staunchly anti-communist, their real target was the
regulatory state that had been created by the New Deal. You know, social security, and
not being allowed to, you know, choose how many pigs you kill, etc.
Other conservatives weren’t libertarians at all but moral conservatives who were okay
with the rules that enforced traditional notions of family and morality. Even if that seemed
like, you know, an oppressive government. For them virtue was the essence of America.
But both of these strands of conservatism were very hostile toward communism and also
to the idea of “big government.” And it’s worth noting that since World War
I, the size and scope of the federal government had increased dramatically.
And hostility toward the idea of “big government” remains the signal feature of contemporary
conservatism. Although very few people actually argue for shrinking the government. Because,
you know, that would be very unpopular. People like Medicare.
But it was faith in the free market that infused the ideology of the most vocal young conservatives
in the 1960s. They didn’t receive nearly as much press
as their liberal counterparts but these young conservatives played a pivotal role in reshaping
the Republican Party, especially in the election of 1964.
The 1964 presidential election was important in American history precisely because it was
so incredibly uncompetitive. I mean, Lyndon Johnson was carrying the torch
of a wildly popular American president who had been assassinated a few months before.
He was never going to lose. And indeed he didn’t. The republican candidate,
Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, was demolished by LBJ.
But the mere fact of Goldwater’s nomination was a huge conservative victory. I mean, he
beat out liberal Republican New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And yes, there were liberal
Republicans. Goldwater demanded a harder line in the Cold
War, even suggesting that nuclear war might be an option in the fight against communism.
And he lambasted the New Deal liberal welfare state for destroying American initiative and
individual liberty. I mean, why bother working when you could just enjoy life on the dole?
I mean, unemployment insurance allowed anyone in America to become a hundredaire.
But it was his stance on the Cold War that doomed his candidacy. In his acceptance speech,
Goldwater famously declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Which made it really easy for Johnson to paint Goldwater as an extremist.
In the famous “Daisy” advertisement, Johnson’s supporters countered Goldwater’s campaign
slogan of “in your heart, you know he’s right” with “but in your guts you know
he’s nuts.” So in the end, Goldwater received a paltry
27 million votes to Johnson’s 43 million, and Democrats racked up huge majorities in
both houses of Congress. This hides, however, the significance of the election. Five of
the six states that Goldwater carried were in the Deep South, which had been reliably
democratic, known as the “Solid South,” in fact.
Now, it’s too simple to say that race alone led to the shift from Democratic to the Republican
party in the South because Goldwater didn’t really talk much about race.
But the Democrats, especially under LBJ, became the party associated with defending civil
rights and ending segregation, and that definitely played a role in white southerners’ abandoning
the Democrats, as was demonstrated even more clearly in the 1968 election.
The election of 1968 was a real cluster-Calhoun, I mean, there were riots and there was also
the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, who was very unpopular with the anti-war movement,
and also was named Hubert Humphrey, and that’s just what happened with the Democrats.
But, lost in that picture was the Republican nominee, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was one
of the few candidates in American history to come back and win the presidency after
losing in a previous election. How’d he do it?
Well, it probably wasn’t his charm, but it might have been his patience. Nixon was
famous for his ability to sit and wait in poker games. It made him very successful during
his tour of duty in the South Pacific. In fact, he earned the nickname “Old Iron Butt.”
Plus, he was anti-communist, but didn’t talk a lot about nuking people. And the clincher
was probably that he was from California, which by the late 1960s was becoming the most
populous state in the nation. Nixon won the election, campaigning as the
candidate of the “silent majority” of Americans who weren’t anti-war protesters,
and who didn’t admire free love or the communal ideals of hippies.
And who were alarmed at the rights that the Supreme Court seemed to be expanding, especially
for criminals. This silent majority felt that the rights
revolution had gone too far. I mean, they were concerned about the breakdown in traditional
values and in law and order. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.
Nixon also promised to be tough on crime, which was coded language to whites in the
south that he wouldn’t support civil rights protests. The equation of crime with African
Americans has a long and sordid history in the United States, and Nixon played it up
following a “Southern strategy” to further draw white Democrats who favored segregation
into the Republican ranks. Now, Nixon only won 43% of the vote, but if
you’ve paid attention to American history, you know that you ain’t gotta win a majority
to be the president. He was denied that majority primarily by Alabama
Governor George Wallace, who was running on a pro-segregation ticket and won 13% of the
vote. So 56% of American voters chose candidates
who were either explicitly or quietly against civil rights.
Conservatives who voted for Nixon hoping he would roll back the New Deal were disappointed.
I mean, in some ways the Nixon domestic agenda was just a continuation of LBJ’s Great Society.
This was partly because Congress was still in the hands of Democrats, but also Nixon
didn’t push for conservative programs and he didn’t veto new initiatives. Because
they were popular. And he liked to be popular. So in fact, a number of big government “liberal”
programs began under Nixon. I mean, the environmental movement achieved success with the enactment
of the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board
were created to make new regulations that would protect worker safety and make cars
safer. That’s not government getting out of our
lives, that’s government getting into our cars.
Now, Nixon did abolish the Office of Economic Opportunity, but he also indexed social security
benefits to inflation and he proposed the Family Assistance Plan that would guarantee
a minimum income for all Americans. And, the Nixon years saw some of the most
aggressive affirmative action in American history. LBJ had begun the process by requiring
recipients of federal contracts to have specific numbers of minority employees and timetables
for increasing those numbers. But Nixon expanded this with the Philadelphia
plan, which required federal construction projects to have minority employees. He ended
up attacking this plan after realising that it was wildly unpopular with trade unions,
which had very few black members, but he had proposed it.
And when Nixon had the opportunity to nominate a new Chief Justice to the Supreme Court after
Earl Warren retired in 1969, his choice, Warren Burger was supposed to be a supporter of small
government and conservative ideals, but, just like Nixon, he proved a disappointment in
that regard. Like, in Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenbug Board
of Education, the court upheld a lower court ruling that required busing of students to
achieve integration in Charlotte’s schools. And then the Burger court made it easier for
minorities to sue for employment discrimination, especially with its ruling in Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke. This upheld affirmative action as a valid governmental
interest, although it did strike down the use of strict quotas in university admissions.
Now, many conservatives didn’t like these affirmative action decisions, but one case
above all others had a profound effect on American politics: Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade established a woman’s right to have an abortion in the first trimester
of a pregnancy as well as a more limited right as the pregnancy progressed. And that decision
galvanized first Catholics and then Evangelical Protestants.
And that ties in nicely with another strand in American conservatism that developed in
the 1960s and 1970s. Let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. Many Americans felt that traditional family
values were deteriorating and looked to conservative republican candidates to stop that slide.
They were particularly alarmed by the continuing success of the sexual revolution, as symbolized
by Roe v. Wade and the increasing availability of birth control.
Statistics tend to back up the claims that traditional family values were in decline
in the 1970s. Like, the number of divorces soared to over one million in 1975 exceeding
the number of first time marriages. The birthrate declined with women bearing 1.7 children during
their lifetimes by 1976, less than half the figure in 1957. Now, of course, many people
would argue that the decline of these traditional values allowed more freedom for women and
for a lot of terrible marriages to end, but that’s neither here nor there.
Some conservatives also complained about the passage in 1972 of Title IX, which banned
gender discrimination in higher education, but many more expressed concern about the
increasing number of women in the workforce. Like, by 1980 40% of women with young children
had been in the workforce, up from 20% in 1960.
The backlash against increased opportunity for women is most obviously seen in the defeat
of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1974, although it passed Congress easily in 1972. Opponents
of the ERA, which rather innocuously declared that equality of rights under the law could
not be abridged on account of sex, argued that the ERA would let men off the hook for
providing for their wives and children, and that working women would lead to the further
breakdown of the family. Again, all the ERA stated was that women and men would have equal
rights under the laws of the United States. But, anyway, some anti-ERA supporters, like
Phyllis Schlafly claimed that free enterprise was the greatest liberator of women because
the purchase of new labor saving devices would offer them genuine freedom in their traditional
roles of wife and mother. Essentially, the vacuum cleaner shall make you free. And those
arguments were persuasive to enough people that the ERA was not ratified in the required
¾ of the United States. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Sorry if I let my personal
feelings get in the way on that one. Anyway, Nixon didn’t have much to do with the continuing
sexual revolution; it would have continued without him because, you know, skoodilypooping
is popular. But, he was successfully reelected in 1972,
partly because his opponent was the democratic Barry Goldwater, George McGovern.
McGovern only carried one state and it wasn’t even his home state. It was Massachusetts.
Of course. But even though they couldn’t possibly lose,
Nixon’s campaign decided to cheat. In June of 1972, people from Nixon’s campaign broke
into McGovern’s campaign office, possibly to plant bugs. No, Stan, not those kinds of
bugs. Yes. Those. Now, we don’t know if Nixon actually knew
about the activities of the former employees of the amazingly acronym-ed CREEP, that is
the Committee for the Reelection of the President. But this break in at the Watergate hotel eventually
led to Nixon being the first and so far only American president to resign.
What we do know is this: Nixon was really paranoid about his opponents, even the ones
who appealed to 12% of American voters, especially after Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the New York Times in 1971. So, he drew up an enemies list and created
a special investigative unit called the plumbers whose job was to fix toilets. No, it was to
stop leaks. That makes more sense. I’m sorry, Stan, it’s just by then the
toilets in the White House were over 100 years old, I figured they might need some fixing,
but apparently no. Leaking. Nixon also taped all of the conversations
in the Oval Office and these tapes caused a minor constitutional crisis.
So, during the congressional investigation of Watergate, it became known that these tapes
existed, so the special prosecutor demanded copies.
Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege, and the case went all the way to the Supreme
Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that he had to turn them over. And this is important
because it means that the president is not above the law.
So, what ultimately doomed Nixon was not the break in itself, but the revelations that
he covered it up by authorizing hush money payments to keep the burglars silent and also
instructing the FBI not to investigate the crime.
In August of 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that articles of impeachment be
drawn up against Nixon for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. But the real crime,
ultimately, was abuse of power, and there’s really no question about whether he was guilty
of that. So, Nixon resigned. Aw man, I was thinking I was going to get
away without a Mystery Document today. The rules here are simple.
I guess the author of the Mystery Document, and lately I’m never wrong.
Alright. Today I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole
would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith
in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and
be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”
Aw. I’m going to get shocked today. Is it Sam Ervin? Aw dang it! Gah!
Apparently it was African American congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan. Stan, that is
much too hard. I think you were getting tired of me not being
shocked, Stan, because it’s pretty strange to end an episode on conservatism with a quote
from Barbara Jordan, whose election to Congress has to be seen as a huge victory for liberalism.
But I guess it is symbolic of the very things that many conservatives found unsettling in
the 1970s, including political and economic success for African Americans and women, and
the legislation that helped the marginalized. I know that sounds very judgmental, but on
the other hand, the federal government had become a huge part of every American’s life,
maybe too huge. And certainly conservatives weren’t wrong
when they said that the founding fathers of the U.S. would hardly recognize the nation
that we had become by the 1970s. In fact, Watergate was followed by a Senate
investigation by the Church Committee, which revealed that Nixon was hardly the first president
to abuse his power. The government had spied on Americans throughout
the Cold War and tried to disrupt the Civil Rights movement. And the Church Commission,
Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Vietnam all of these things revealed a government that
truly was out of control and this undermined a fundamental liberal belief that government
is a good institution that is supposed to solve problems and promote freedom.
And for many Conservatives these scandals sent a clear signal that government couldn’t
promote freedom and couldn’t solve problems and that the liberal government of the New
Deal and the Great Society had to be stopped. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next week.
Woah! Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people and it exists because
of…your support on Subbable is a voluntary subscription service
that allows you to support stuff you like monthly for the price of your choosing, so
if you value Crash Course U.S. History and you want this kind of stuff to continue to
exist so we can make educational content free, forever, for everyone, please check out Subbable.
And I am slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning. Thank you again for
your support. I’m coming back around. I can do this. And as we say in my hometown,
don’t forget to be awesome.

Watch me draw 10 presidents

so when I was in high school it was my big dream to become a political cartoonist I started my own political cartooning website and I drew political cartoons every week until 2015 and then I stopped because I realized no one really cared it's just not a style of cartooning that is very popular these days people still like jokes aboot politics but they prefer to get them from Colbert or memes but anyway one side effect of having studied political cartoons is that I figured out how to draw basically all of the US presidents see in political cartooning US presidents are kind of like symbols or even hieroglyphics because everyone knows their faces so well it's not hard to learn how to draw them really quickly and easily so long as you always include like the three main facial features that they're known for so watch as I show you how to quickly draw the last ten US presidents so the first one we're gonna look at is the current President President Donald Trump of course his main feature is his big mop of hair he's got a pretty round head and then he's got these kind of bushy eyebrows little squinty eyes he has really pursed lips sort of long hair in the back just have a lot of fun with the hair he has pretty broad shoulders he has a sort of broad physique broad shoulders as vice president Mike Pence likes to praise yeah basically something like this well use a bit of the color now we'll use one of these fancy alcohol markers just to give a bit of shade to it obviously his hair has a lot of colors people like to play up his sort of phony skin tone as well particularly as it relates to sort of the bags under his eyes which are often rendered in a different color yeah something like that all right let's do President Obama now he has a sort of long elongated sort of head shape he has quite heavy eyebrows and generally people draw him with a sort of happy Pleasant look he's got a pretty distinctive smile that tends to dominate caricatures of him that there he of course also has la mole and he has these big ears that really dominate any cartoons of his face depending on when you want to depict him his hair could be one of many different shades he has a pretty thin physique pretty thin and we kind of build so we'll just give him small shoulders like that and since of course he is the first african-american president let's add a fair bit of color here just some nice shading in and around the face trying to think of how dark I want to make his hair I used to think of him as having quite dark hair but you know like all presidents they age quite rapidly in office and now I think of him as being a relatively greyish man so we'll just sort of get somewhere in between a couple layers of gray but not too much yeah something like this and not too bad a bit more shadow in the ears the ears were pretty pretty big and cavernous yeah something something like this all right and before Obama was George W Bush this is a man who I drew a lot of cartoons of so he's pretty automatic to me he has these big eyebrows little beady eyes and a big sort of upper lip and he of course always had a sort of awkward facial expression which is kind of the big thing to capture with him he had quite big ears as well which people of course played up in a sort of ape-like way he had a pretty thin slim physique as well kind of slumped shoulders his body language in general was a little shrugging a little awkward a little uncomfortable man which was George W Bush we'll just put some color into the eyebrows here and some into the hair as well yeah the big opera whip was always george w bush's thing as well as sort of the puzzled expression he generally wore I think quite light colored suits will give some shadow into the big ears here it's the perplexed expression more than any physical characteristic but I think was george w bush's big thing and before george w bush was Bill Clinton his big thing was this big sort of honk and nose he had he also had quite a mop of hair but the bigger thing was this kind of very broad chin he had and this kind of very tiny mouth in the context of it he was a very large man as well very big shoulders just kind of a broad hefty man he was teased for being sort of overweight we don't think of that as my as one of his characteristics now that he's of course to slimmed down a fair bit in retirement I'll give the nose a lot of color because it was kind of large he had quite pink skin as well a sort of very distinctive complexion he generally wore kind of light suits it was the 90s so it wasn't exactly a great era for for men's fashion maybe a little bit of color in the mouth here something like that if I was coloring him with full color I'd just make his skin pretty much pink yeah just a bit more here or something like that all right and then before Clinton was the old man Bush and the thing about George HW Bush was he was really the only president of modern times to wear glasses which the cartoonists always had a lot of fun with these sort of big spectacles much like his son he kind of often had a awkward sort of facial expression he never quite seemed super comfortable in his own skin he had a long pointy nose kind of big upper lip kind of just this sort of weird awkward old man kind of look to it with this big sort of bony chin he had a very slight build as well that cartoonists often made fun of you know very small shoulders kind of thin and an awkward we'll just put a bit of color in here I love those glasses I just love making these kind of big awkward goggle things on dominating his face it makes him look a lot older a lot more awkward people just really were quite cruel to him as this kind of doddering clumsy old man yeah sort of like that and then before George HW Bush was Ronald Reagan he sort of had a big nose and these little beady kind of eyes his big thing of course that was this big sort of pompadour of black hair he had died they said although he denied it he was kind of an old man you know the oldest president before Trump so he kind of just had a kind of doddering old man look very wrinkly neck that was a big sort of aspect of his character and a big upper lip and you know kind of big ears he had very broad shoulders I don't know if I was the shoulder pads of the 80s that was part of it but always just these large dark suits that he wore of course you know you can go as far as you want in making him as wrinkly and decrepit looking as you want the cartoonists of the time had a lot of fun with his you know sort of wrinkly cavernous face especially the wrinkles in the neck like I said just lots of fun to shade drawing sort of big big holes and wrinkles everywhere in his ears lots of spots to it every day I mean people could be as cruel as they wanted with this kind of stuff yeah we'll just cram in a bit more yeah something like that now Jimmy Carter is an interesting president because there was basically two main ways to draw him you could either draw Jimmy Carter as he was when he was first elected which was this man with this big big smile that was really all anyone would ever draw sometimes they would just draw him as only a smile no other facial features at all you know with nice grinning face you know just a very happy man kind of had a mop of hair wasn't combed in a particular way just happy Jimmy full of the outsider the farm the the peanut farmer from Georgia who was gonna come to Washington and fix everything up after Watergate but then of course after his four years in office things weren't going quite so well and then everybody sort of started throw him in a very different way which was with this big sort of mopey frown with these big lips these kind of like horrible pursed wrinkly chapped lips that were kind of symbolic of how much he had decayed and he would be drawn with a sort of small build a small physique he wasn't I don't think that short of a man but there was kind of this sense that he wasn't up to the job and so they would draw him with like as a man of literally small stature yeah so we'll just add a bit to that these sort of big lips are fun to draw just the kind of the the amount of texture that you've gotten lips is pretty fun and you know just kind of they've depict him in this very craggly awkward sort of way you know all the color taken out of his hair and just kind of a poor sad crumbling man and then before Jimmy Carter was sort of the long-forgotten Gerald Ford who was president for two years after Richard Nixon resigned Gerald Ford was considered this very difficult president to draw in his own time because he had a very sort of boring face he just kind of had a you know he was bald I think now people sort of think of him as being somewhat ape-like but at the time it wasn't really very obvious what his dominant characteristics were he just kind of had a bald head he had a big upper lip a big chin people would sometimes drum with with quite large ears as well I'll just add another one here you know just kind of making him I suppose look a bit more ape-like he was seen as this very sort of stoic Stern boring kind of guy he was a former football player too so he kind of had this big build kind of a very blocky build it was the 70s of course so he would often wear these plaid suits I think he's even wearing a plaid suit in his official presidential portrait but yeah Gerald Ford kind of a boring man boring presidents didn't do much boring caricature I think hopefully it's close enough and in contrast to Gerald Ford there was Richard Nixon who was of course this cartoonist dream everybody drew him in the most over-the-top grotesque way possible he had this long sausage nose these huge heavy eyebrows and these little beady eyes and of course these big sort of voluptuous jowls big pointy ears you know you can sort of imagine what all him talking as you draw it yeah this weird distinctive haircut – very dark hair slicked back and of course because everybody hated Nixon that sort of went into the depictions of him – he was always drawn as this kind of hunchbacked kind of glowering shadowy dark figure which makes him a lot of fun to draw you get to use a lot of dark colors and sort of play up this kind of inner darkness we can do have lots of fun with the shadows as well the cartoonist would often draw him with this sort of unshaven jowls which was a reference to the horrible debate that he did with with John F Kennedy in which he sort of refused to shave or wear any makeup and that kind of haunted him for the rest of his life so we can just draw him as just this man sort of forever lurking in the darkness forever casted sort of forever darkened by these deep dark shadows geez I'm like putting more colour on him than I did on Obama but you know Nixon is this fun guy to draw the caricature of Nixon is sort of almost become this figure independent of the President himself yeah all right and then before Nixon was Lyndon Johnson who is sorry I think a sort of somewhat forgotten president or at least I don't think he's plays as large a role in the public imagination Lyndon Johnson was kind of a weird-looking man he wasn't as distinctive as some of the other presidents he was basically just kind of a craggly old man he had a long sausage nose not unlike Nixon and kind of a long jolly face kind of like Reagan and he had these big years the cartoonists would really sort of go nuts with the ears a lot of the time he was also a very very tall man you know I think he's the second tallest president after Abraham Lincoln would wear dark suits but the thing about him was that he was basically just I don't know he was an old southern politician and his face wasn't particularly distinctive but it was distinctive in the sense that it was sort of this long droopy face with lots of wrinkles and jowls and crags and that kind of thing you know he can much like Reagan he can be a fun guy to to shadow into color just because there's so many little nooks and crannies in his big face to emphasize in color it was that long sort of nose the long chin of his and the long upper lip and then the big ears went a little bit nuts in this drawing I guess just kind of looks like a big mess of fleshy body parts but I suppose that's what a lot of presidents are by the time you become president you're often a relatively old man and you know time has had its way with you and just for fun let's also do JFK because you know he seems like a better one to end on than Lyndon Johnson JFK was considered the handsome presidents so he's a little bit harder to draw but he did have these droopy eyes of course his big grin and then his main feature was his big hairstyle his you know he had a big head of dark hair relatively athletic build strong shoulders but it was the hair really that's the big thing about Kennedy that was the thing that people drew at the time was just add as much color as we can here unlike most presidents you know he wasn't his hair wasn't gray um he became president so there was a lot to play up there the Kennedy was older than he seems to he did have some signs of decay he had bags under his eyes and she knows wrinkles appearing around them and that sort of stuff so I guess playing that up a bit but overall he was a youthful looking man and a handsome looking man which is generally a harder sort of person to caricature than a Lyndon Johnson of Ronald Reagan a Richard Nixon type who have a few more obvious signs of decay so yeah sort of like that so not too bad eh hopefully you enjoyed this slightly different type of video let me know in the comments which one you like the best and let me know if you have any other ideas for a certain group of politicians I could draw maybe more presidents or the Canadian Prime Minister's or the British Prime Minister's or something no matter what country you're talking about the cartoonists there have always found a way to reduce their leaders to just a clump of a few basic facial features think about it the next time you look at a political cartoon or not

10 Obscure Eccentricities of Famous Politicians

How clean, composed, and trustworthy politicians
like for us to think they are. It’s no wonder We The People lap up every
juicy scandal and obsess over every slip up. Sometimes we hope a faux paus by the opposition
will be a key to victory for our party, and reveal what scum the their leader was. Other times we consider it a humanizing, relatable
mistake that all citizens find it in themselves to forgive for the public good, but really
because it’s a mistake made by a member of our party. Then sometimes we learn about sides of certain
politicians that we’re all astounded didn’t sink their careers during campaign season. Both sides are left baffled by how opposition
research didn’t find out this aspect of the politician and spread word far and wide
that they’re unfit for high office, instead of letting them achieve international fame
and fortune. Around the world, in areas both liberal and
conservative, you’ll find politicians in the limelight getting away with this kind
of craziness. 10. David Cameron David Cameron was the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom from 2010 to 2016. There is a huge amount of controversy surrounding
him since he called for the problematic Brexit Referendum, but this entry isn’t about that. This entry is about his very particular approach
to breakfast. In 2017, Tory MP Jake Berry revealed how he’d
once spent the night at Cameron’s place after a Conservative Party event. The next morning, Berry found a plate with
toast piled high on it and the crust removed, and helped himself. Cameron came down shortly after, and an unusually
intense spat broke out over how Berry shouldn’t have eaten those particular slices of toast
with the crust removed. It seemed that Cameron had a specially designated
toast peeler to help get the day going. That seems a level of decadence quite unlike
a “man of the people” as Cameron styled himself. 9. Kim Jong-il The dictator of North Korea from 1994 to 2011,
there was plenty of time for stories about how oddly he was governing his country. They range from his supposed extreme fear
of flying to being willing to kidnap a South Korean film director and his actress wife
to make propaganda films. One of his more humanizing eccentricities
was his extreme interest in food, according to his former chef Kenji Fujimoto. Not out of some paranoia that he would be
poisoned, but culinary tastes that were far more precise than the average person’s. One chef said that Kim Jong-il was capable
of noticing as little as a few grams of sugar less being used in a banquet batch of sushi. He also was known to personally inspect his
rice. He looked through it grain by grain for size,
shape, and quality. Not that he was just a fussy eater. He enjoyed eating fish that was so fresh that
their tails would still be flopping in his mouth. 8. Beto O’Rourke Beto O’Rourke became famous on the national
stage for coming within two points of defeating Ted Cruz for a US Senate seat in Texas during
the 2018 midterm election, an act considered near unthinkable for such a conservative state. In 2019 he decided to run for president. That same year, it came out that O’Rourke
had written something deeply unnerving when he was a teenager. The piece in question was an internet forum
post from when he was 15-years-old. It was about running down children with his
car because, as he put it in the post, “They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles”
when O’Rourke — or at least his fictional surrogate in the story — felt their happiness
was his by right. Some might consider feeling that sort of irrational
anger and venting it through the medium of fiction a common part of the adolescent experience,
but O’Rourke himself said that the post coming to light might hurt his presidential
aspirations. 7. Dana Rohrabacher A former member of the US House of Representatives
from Orange County, Dana Rohrabacher became notorious for close ties to the Russian government
that lasted for decades, such that in 2012 the FBI identified a special Kremlin code
name for him. But in 2013, something came to light which
makes his ability to get reelected a touch bewildering. In 2010 he had moved into a million-dollar
rental home near the Pacific Coast and wrecked it in a staggering number of ways that seemed
to imply a concerted effort to trash the home he spent more than $3,000 a month on. For example, to quote OC Weekly, “The ceilings
showed smoke damage. Light switches had been cracked. Clumps of hair and remnants of what may have
been balloons or some other rubbery material clogged sinks.” Even worse was how a second story bedroom
“contained a huge, mysterious, lubricant-like stain … that had seeped through thick carpet
and padding to tarnish a hardwood floor … A wooden chair in the back yard had been crushed,
and phone lines were strangely severed.” But the real topper is “… Walls inexplicably
contained odd holes, nail polish, wax and some smelly substance that may have been feces.” After leaving more than $25,800 worth of damage,
Rohrbacher hired a lawyer to sue his landlord for not refunding his deposit promptly enough. 6. Lyndon Johnson Celebrated for his actions regarding civil
rights and condemned for his leadership regarding the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson will inspire
controversy for decades to come. Not for nothing was there the 2016 Tony award-winning
production All the Way, starring Bryan Cranston, that dramatized his accomplishments in the
White House. He was by many accounts a mean, manipulative
man who still accomplished much that has had profound influence for decades through careful
compromise. As he put it, “You don’t bring nice to
a knife fight.” One area where Johnson would be a public relations
disaster today would be his curious habit of urinating in public. It did not matter if he was traveling and
people with cameras were around, he would still do it. As reported on PBS in 1998, there were pictures
in private collections of him doing this across Texas, but publication standards at the time
kept them out of the magazines and pretty much saved his career. 5. Winston Churchill The reputation of this two-term Prime Minister
for Great Britain seems like it will always be in flux. In the 1910s he’ll be the architect of the
Gallipoli quagmire. In the 1930s he’ll be out of political office
entirely. Then in the 1940s he’ll see Britain through
its Darkest Hour but lose reelection in 1945. But he’ll be re-elected in 1951, then years
later there will be controversy over how accountable he was for a 1943 famine in Bengal, and so
on, and so on. That he had a very peculiar habit is apparently
beyond dispute. While many men are comfortable with their
bodies, Churchill took it further than most and around very high-ranking company. Numerous attendants and functionaries, such
as his secretary Patrick Kinna and his bodyguard Walter Thompson, report that Churchill was
blase about walking around nude, to the extent he would dictate official documents during
or after baths. One person who got to experience this up close
and personally was Franklin Roosevelt, who evidence shows had multiple encounters with
Churchill while the Prime Minister was nude in the White House. As Churchill was said to have quipped in his
characteristic style during the first of these encounters, “The Prime Minister of Great
Britain has nothing to conceal from the President of the United States.” 4. Mao Tse-tung Some estimates put Mao in the running for
the deadliest leader of a nation in world history. His “Great Leap Forward” agricultural
program being blamed by some with causing forty million Chinese citizens to starve to
death from 1959 to 1961. To be sure, he became chairman of the People’s
Republic of China in 1949 under much more difficult circumstances than many leaders
would ever face (China had just been devastated by the Sino-Japanese War, there was a civil
war shortly after that ended, etc), so such grievous blunders are more understandable
in a country full of desperate people rocked by deadly turmoil. No such excuses can be made for his personal
habits. In the words Dr. Li Zhisui, his personal physician
of twenty-one years, Mao never bothered to wash his hands, face, or the rest of his body. He also never brushed his teeth, thinking
that merely drinking a cup of tea in the morning was sufficient. When Zhisui suggested the Chairman try it,
he rejected the idea saying “a tiger never brushes his teeth.” Pity the poor women that Mao kept as mistresses,
of which there were a good many. About the only solace they had was that their
leader had a personal pool to go swimming in. 3. Calvin Coolidge President for one and a half terms from 1923
to 1928, “Silent” Calvin Coolidge is remembered for not being a particularly active. He announced in advance that he wouldn’t
campaign for a second full term, and even before then was considered an unusually small
government president. After all, the most famous anecdote regarding
him as a person was about a constituent betting that she could make him say three words and
him responding “you lose.” One thing that could apparently get Coolidge
to expend some energy was curtains. In the wake of his attempt to appoint an attorney
general being rejected by the senate, Coolidge removed the cord from the Oval Office anteroom
curtains and started tying it in knots to relieve stress. Other times he would buzz his staff in over
and over and hide behind the curtains when they came in. There are sources that state his preferred
hiding space was actually under his desk. Whichever the truth was, there was clearly
more going on beyond than the taciturn persona conveyed. 2. Joseph Stalin At the risk of courting controversy, Top Tenz’s
official position on Joseph Stalin and his reign over the Soviet Union from 1928 to 1953
is “thumbs down.” If you need a refresher, the reasons why are
outlined here. Unfortunately, unethical men can sometimes
be the most interesting, and in his case there were a number of curious quirks brought on
by his contradictory lack of decorum and extreme paranoia. According to multiple sources, Stalin had
a Lyndon Johnson-esque lack of concern about other people being around when he went to
the bathroom. Simon Montefiore’s biography Stalin: The
Court of the Red Tsar has an anecdote about how once, surrounded by his usual traveling
companions, Stalin went to the bathroom on some railroad tracks. In the memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin’s
successor describes how he once saw the man of steel give one of his bodyguards a severe
dressing down for the trespass of not accompanying him into the bathroom. Stalin’s paranoia regarding his other end
went beyond having a single food taster: Everyone who attended one of his dinners was required
to have a sampling of it before the comrade himself would dig in. Khrushchev’s interpretation of this was
it was Stalin’s way of projecting his constant murder fantasies onto everyone else. 1. Richard Nixon On the subject of politicians coping with
extreme paranoia, we’ll be finishing this list with the President of the United States
from 1969 to 1974, ol’ “Tricky” Dick Nixon. His paranoia supposedly was largely a result
of his actions to prolong the Vietnam War for political gain (as President Lyndon Johnson
was aware). However much that act of sabotage truly led
him down the path to resignation, he would fill his time while stewing over his fate
in a decidedly odd way. In the wake of the initial press release of
the Watergate Scandal, Nixon went to Camp David. While there, he began compulsively writing
fantasy versions of what he felt would be the best baseball teams of all-time. The players came from different time periods
and leagues as he saw fit. (So basically, in essence, he created an early
version of WhatIfSports?) Sports seemed to be one of Nixon’s true
joys in life. In 1968 he had Hunter S. Thompson accompany
him on his ride through New Hampshire pretty much exclusively because Thompson was the
only available journalist who knew anything about football. Thompson was someone who said of the president
that he had “serious doubts he could pass for human.”

Can A Democrat Win In Texas? | AJ+

welcome to Texas whenever anything of coming home to Texas this is what I think of beef ribs I love these and I am so happy right now I'm going to finish eating this plate off-camera I know so many other people see Texas is either this this or this I am so happy to be back in the great state of Texas thank you GOP country yes Texas is a state that spent the last few decades solidly in the red column and in fact out of any state in the nation Texas voters have gone the longest without putting a Democrat in statewide office the state has also gone for every Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan but katooni eighteens be a new dawn for Texas Democrats I think everything is on the line everything that you could possibly care about this state could be the state that brings this country together at this divided moment and some have high hopes for bata will work to turn Texas blue again you heard me again hey Pam I mean ioan and this Sunday we have traveled to one of my very favorite places Texas and we're here to find out the real odds of this state going blue in 2018 or 2020 so stay with this and hit that subscribe button right now because we're going on a journey and I promise to show you more food so I'm not sharing this the way the last time this date had either a Democratic governor or senator TLC owned the Billboard charts and now people are wondering if beta award can break that streak beta work is a senatorial candidate who's campaigning on immigration reform universal health care and generally not being Ted Cruz Cruz has low approval ratings and this is the first time he's even had a serious Democratic challenger for his seat and I gotta say pork is unlike any other Texas politician I've seen in recent years universal health care comprehensive justice reform or making sure that every single woman so could this be the guy who ends up changing the course of Texas politics I'd say he has a pretty good chance of pulling off an upset the enthusiasm is real high I haven't seen anything like this in a while meet political analyst and Espinosa his bold prediction is that 2018 is the year or Roarke and other Democrats pull off upsets unlike anything seen in two decades Espinosa is a data guy and he broke down why he thinks it looks so optimistic for one first time voters in Texas favorite Democrats by a margin of 5 to 1 in the last election and it wasn't just in the blue cities it also happened in the red parts of the states too and earlier this year in the midterm primaries Texas Democrats doubled their turnout rate from 2014 and Republicans only increase their turnout rate by a tiny bit I think it's the truth is it's a real moment happening in Texas right now and we're seeing it you've seen it in the primary this year we're seeing it the activism with the campaign's that are out there we're seeing it in the fundraising numbers we're confident that it's gonna make a difference in 2018 for the first time in 30 years every congressional district even the most Republican has a Democratic challenger and a handful of them are actually expected to flip flu even some that have been GOP strongholds since the 1960s Texas Dems are also targeting the Republican State Attorney General who's currently under indictment Espinosa says Democrats hopeful outlook is all because of the changing of Texas demographics it's the Latino populations around the state and that this is a population that will rise awaken and seize its political power but what you're also seeing are other groups from around the state and it's all these new people moving to Texas who are saying in themselves wait a minute I'm a Texan too I can vote I have a voice I have something to say and that's what's challenging this Republican power right now now for those of you chuckling at the thought of a blue Texas guess what Texas used to be a blue state Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did she just did it backwards in growing up this woman was my introduction to Texas politics governor Ann Richards she was sharp and witty and she was a Democrat that's right the governor of Texas from 1991 until 1995 was a Democrat and way before her there was this guy their cause must be our cause too because it's not just Negroes but really it's all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice Lyndon Johnson was JFK's vice presidential pick because he was a southern Democrat Johnson would go on to become the president that signed the Civil Rights Act the Voting Rights Act and he gave us Medicaid and Medicare landmark legislation and policies so that's the Texas I knew growing up but that was years and several Republican governors ago so how did Texas lose its blue streak after the civil rights movement white Texas Democrats started to leave their party in droves and they found a home in the Republican Party then came the state's economic boom in the late 1970s and early 1980s and we begin to see people from out of state flocked to Texas bringing with them more conservative ideals and more stringent religious beliefs and Texas becomes a haven for those seeking fewer taxes and less regulation fast-forward to 1994 when that conservatism made george w bush governor and the state has never looked back Texas is ready for a new generation of leadership since then state Republicans partisan redistricting also known as gerrymandering has helped keep the legislature overwhelmingly Republican they have been able to hold on to a state that doesn't necessarily look like that government but again one wave election with a lot of gerrymandering layered in can do a lot of damage and we're hoping to undo that in 2018 but many Republicans say that won't be easy to undo Texas will be red as long as I'm alive and II Hulk is a spokesperson for the Travis County we can party and he thinks while some districts might flip in November there's no way better O'Rourke will win the Texas Senate seat he's still a Democrat he still supports abortion he still supports expanding programs and higher taxes to fulfill the Democratic agenda and still think he's gonna crack 43% personally hope thinks our work is nothing more than another flash in the pan Texas Democrat that gets a lot of attention but then fizzles out like the last Democratic candidate for governor who ended up losing by 20 points Wendy Davis now she was a state senator here in Texas who made national headlines international headlines even for supporting abortion rights and that made her a celebrity but it wasn't enough to carry her through ultimately I think it's gonna all boil down to the fact that people are gonna vote their values but Espinoza told me something that could change the way you've been looking at Texas politics well we like to say as Texas is not a red state it's a non-voting state he's right Texas ranks 46th in voter turnout in 2016 only about half of Texans voted we're volunteers with the organization called jolt and we're trying to mobilize the Latino community to get out and vote so we wanted to know if we could count on your pledge to vote so that's where groups like jolt come in joltin organization that's trying to get young Latinos to the polls a group they believe is crucial for the state to elect Democrats Texas in general people always think like Oh white Cowboys right people riding horses ranchers farmers things like that but that's not Texas no somos parte an organization cosima Joel you know Texas is nearly 40 percent Latin X and by 2030 we will be the majority in fact half of everyone under the age of 18 right now is Latin X that's so many young people who are turning 18 every day and so if we really had you know people going out and voting in large numbers Texas politics would look very different I think it matters that we're out here having a good conversation about it is going to be important for us as a community we need to come together and show that we're a powerful force across especially Texas so could ever it's like this one meant like this be an early indication that Texas is on the move again and what would that mean for 2020 when you think of a progressive Texas you think of a Texas that speaks for the full diversity of the population that lives here people who live in different cities people who look different people who are of a different age and of a different race those are voices that should be represented in everything we do but what we have right now too often is a government that tends to be adversarial with many populations in the state that's not representative of a population that's not representative government at all if we were to really change Texas we could change the country we could change what the outcomes are in upcoming elections regardless of what happens in Texas there's one thing we know to be true there barbecue is delicious every election cycle I told you I'd show you more food hey Pam thanks so much for watching don't forget to Like share and subscribe as you watch us how basically a dance off in the middle of Austin Texas we had an amazing time on this shoot and we will see you next Sunday

Noam Chomsky – The Crimes of U.S. Presidents

you said that if the Nuremberg principles were applied every post World War two president would be indictable probably true can we run rundown on real fast what an eisenhower do it you would indict him for eisenhower overthrew the conservative nationalist government of Iran with the military coup he overthrew the first and last democratic government in Guatemala by military coup and invasion leading to years of in Iran it led to 25 years of brutal dictatorship finally overthrown in 79 in Guatemala it led to massive atrocities which are still continuing that's after almost 50 years in Indonesia this wasn't known until recently but he conducted the major clandestine terror operation of the post-war period up until cuba nicaragua in an effort to break up Indonesia's strip off the outer islands where most of the resources are and undermine the what was then considered as a threat of Indonesian democracy Indonesia was too free and open it was allowing a political party of the poor to participate they were gaining a lot of ground so that the iseman are supported and helped instigate a military rebellion in the outer islands this is just for starters these are all indictable offences one by Kennedy Kennedy was one of the worst Kennedy first of all invaded South Vietnam during the Eisenhower administration they had blocked the political settlement in 1954 and instituted a kind of a Latin American style terror state which had killed maybe 60 or 70 thousand people by at the end of the Eisenhower period and had instigated a response a reaction kennedy recognized that it couldn't be controlled internally so he simply invaded in 1962 about a third of the bombing missions that were carried out by the US Air Force it in South u.s. planes with South Vietnamese insignia of the u.s. pilot the author he authorized napalm he began the use of chemical weapons to destroy food crops they began programs which drove millions of people into what amount of the concentration camps that's aggression in the case of Cuba it was just a massive campaign of international terrorism which almost led to the destruction of the world led to the missile crisis and that we can continue again these are all indictable offences Johnson Johnson expanded the war and in the China to the point where ended up probably leaving three or four million people dead he invaded the Dominican Republic to block what looked like a potential democratic revolution there supported the Israeli occupation in its early stages again we can go around the world thank you take them take say Clark I'll get there but Nixon's next the next thing we don't even have to talk about we can skip that one okay but Ford's been Ford well for it was only there for a short time but long enough to endorse the Indonesian invasion of East Timor which became about as close to genocide as anything in the modern period they pretended to oppose it but secretly supported effect not so secretly the u.s. immediately after the invasion the u.s. did join the rest of the world in formally condemning at the Security Council but ambassador Moynihan was kind enough to explain to us in his words that his instructions were to render the United Nations utterly ineffective in any actions it might take to counter the Indonesian and great invasion and he says proudly that he did this with considerable success and his next sentence says in the next few months it seems that about sixty thousand people were killed and then he goes off to the next topic that's the first few months went on to probably hundreds of thousands seek death formally the u.s. announced the boycott of weapons but secretly increased the supply of weapons including the counterinsurgency equipment so that the Indonesian could consummate the invasion that's just a short period in office but that's indictable seriously in fact that's a major war crime Carter Carter increased as the Indonesian atrocities were increasing they peaked in 1978 Carter's flow of weapons to Indonesia increased when Congress imposed a human rights restrictions but then there was a human rights movement in Congress to block the flow of advanced weaponry to Indonesia Carter arranged through Mondale vice president to get Israel to send us sky Hawks to Indonesia to enable Indonesia to complete what turned out to be near Jenna's killing maybe a quarter of the population or something in the in the Middle East Carter just won the Nobel Prize his great achievement was the Camp David agreements the Camp David agreements are presented as a diplomatic triumph for the United States in fact they were a diplomatic catastrophe at Camp David the United States and Israel accepted finally Egypt 1971 offer which they had then us had rejected at the time except that now that was worse from the us-israeli point of view because it included the Palestinians in order to accept get Israel to accept Egypt's 1971 offer after a major war in atrocities and so on Carter raised eight military and other aid in Israel to more than fifty percent of total aid worldwide Israel used it once in exactly the way they said they were going to do as every sane person knew as an opportunity to attack their northern neighbor first in 1978 then in 1982 and to increase integration of the occupied territories and that's for starters we can continue Reagan I don't think we have to talk about that one either I mean Reagan was the first president to have been condemned by the International Court of Justice for what they called the unlawful use of force meaning international terrorism in the war against Nicaragua again that's just for starters they also the Security Council endorsed that in two resolutions both of which were vetoed by the United States Bush one well we can begin with the invasion of Panama the invasion of Panama which according to the Panamanians killed about 3,000 people since it's never investigated we don't know if that's true or not this was done in order to kidnap a disobedient thug who had been supported by the United States right through his worst atrocities Noriega Noriega he was brought to Florida and and tried for crimes that he committed mostly on the CIA payroll okay that's aggression you could go into the details of the war in Iraq but there were plainly opportunities for they might not have worked but there were opportunities for diplomatic settlement which the Bush administration refused to consider and incidentally the press would not report with a single exception and long island ministry which didn't report the whole story throughout accurately and is the only newspaper in the country to have done so the Bush administration then did it to act and the attack was carried out and in a manner which is criminal under the laws of war they attacked infrastructure and if you attack New York City and you destroy the electrical system our system the sewage systems and so on that amounts to biological warfare and that's the nature of the attack then came a sanctions regime which it's mostly Clinton that began with Bush which is by conservative estimates killed hundreds of thousands of people while strengthening Saddam Hussein that takes us off to Clinton which that's the beginning that's by no means the end to climb through it well we can run through that one case of Isis but there are plenty of others Bush – let's take let's go on with Clinton okay I'm one of Clinton's minor s with minor escapades very minor I was sending a couple of cruise missiles to the Sudan to destroy what they knew to be a pharmaceutical plant there was no intelligence failure according to the only estimates we have from the German ambassador and the director of regional director of Near East foundation is does field work in Sudan and both of them estimated several tens of thousands of deaths from one crews inspect very serious somebody did that to us we'd regarded as bad news and again we can continue during in the Middle East for example the Clinton began by declaring past UN resolutions in the words of his administration obsolete and anachronistic ok so we're finished with that no more international law then comes Apollo a period called a peace process except that during the peace process Israeli us that Israeli settlement which means settlement paid for by the US taxpayer and supported by US military aid and diplomacy continually increased the most extreme year was Clinton's last year the highest level of settlement the highest since 1992 meanwhile the territories were canonized broken up into small regions with infrastructure projects and new settlement I don't know what you call that but it's under military occupation and if anyone else was doing it we call it a worker and again we can continue I wish to I don't think we have to discuss

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind? 共和党?
The Republicans? 或者,民主党?
Or, the Democrats? 多数人可能会说民主党
Most people would probably say the Democrats. 但这个答案不正确
But this answer is incorrect. 自从民主党于1829年成立
Since its founding in 1829 民主党极力反对每一个主要公民权利提案
the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative 且拥有悠久的歧视历史
and has a long history of discrimination 民主党捍卫奴隶制,发动内战
The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War 反对重建,成立了3k党,强制实行种族隔离
opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation 犯下私刑,并且极力反对1950年代和1960年代的民权法案
perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s 相比之下
In contrast 共和党是1854年作为一个反对奴隶制的政党成立的
the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party 它的使命是阻止奴隶制扩散到新西部地区
Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories 目的是完全废除奴隶制
with the aim of abolishing it entirely 然而,结果却因最高法院而彻底受挫
This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. 1857年的德雷德·斯科特诉桑福德案
In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford 法院裁决奴隶不是公民;他们是财产
the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property 那7位投票支持奴隶制的法官?
The seven justices who voted in favor of slavery? 全是民主党员
All Democrats. 两位持异议的法官呢?
The two justices who dissented? 都是共和党员
Both Republicans. 当然,奴隶制问题最终因一场血腥的内战而得到解决
The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. 那场战争中的最高统帅是第一位共和党总统
The commander-in-chief during that war was the first Republican President 亚伯拉罕·林肯
Abraham Lincoln 这个给予了奴隶们自由的人
the man who freed the slaves 联盟国军队投降六天后
Six days after the Confederate army surrendered 约翰·布斯,一个民主党员,刺杀了林肯总统
John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln 林肯的副总统
Lincoln’s vice president 一个名叫安德鲁·约翰逊的民主党员担任总统
a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed the presidency 但约翰逊坚决反对林肯的计划
But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan 即让新解放奴隶融入到南方的经济和社会秩序
to integrate the newly freed slaves into the South’s economic and social order 约翰逊和民主党统一起来反对废除奴隶制的第十三修正案
Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery 给予黑人公民权的第十四修正案
the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship 和给予黑人投票权的第十五修正案
and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote 这三条修正案能够通过,全是因为得到了共和党一致的支持
All three passed only because of universal Republican support. 重建时期
During the era of Reconstruction 联邦军队驻扎在南方,帮助保护新解放奴隶的权利
federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves 到1900年,上百个黑人作为共和党员被选进南方州议会
Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans 22位黑人共和党员在美国国会任职
and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900 直到1935年,民主党并未选出一个黑人到国会任职
The Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935. 但在重建结束后
But after Reconstruction ended 联邦军队离开后,民主党吼叫着夺回了在南方的权力
when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back into power in the South 他们通过诸如黑人条款的措施
They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region 即限制黑人拥有财产和经商的能力的法律
with measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses 然后他们强制实施人头税和读写测试
And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests 用来推翻黑人公民的选举权
used to subvert the black citizen’s right to vote 那么这些都是怎么实施的呢?
And how was all of this enforced? 通过恐袭
By terror 这些多数是由民主党员内森·福斯特创办的3K党唆使的
much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest 正如历史学家艾瑞克·佛纳—他本人是个民主党员—提到的
As historian Eric Foner – himself a Democrat – notes: “实际上,3K党是一支为民主党利益服务的军队”
“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” 伍德罗·威尔逊总统,一个民主党员
President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat 与3K党有很多共同看法
shared many views with the Klan 他在许多联邦机构里重新实施种族隔离
He re-segregated many federal agencies 甚至史上第一次在白宫放映了一部电影
and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House 种族主义电影《一个国家的诞生》,原名为《同族人》
the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.” 十几年后
A few decades later 对1964年具里程碑意义的民权法案唯一巨大的国会反对力量来自民主党
the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats 国会里80%的共和党员支持这项法案
Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. 低于70%的民主党员支持
Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. 民主党参议员阻挠此法案75天
Democratic senators filibustered the bill 直到共和党员们极尽所能集齐了打破僵局所需的额外投票数
for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam 而当他们奴役黑人,让黑人被奴役
And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved 和阻止黑人投票的所有努力都失败后
and then keep them from voting had failed 民主党想出了一条新策略
the Democrats came up with a new strategy 如果黑人要投票,投给民主党就最好不过了
If black people are going to vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. 据称林登·约翰逊在谈及民权法案时说
As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to have said about the Civil Rights Act, “我要让那些黑*200年内都投票给民主党”
“I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred years.” 所以现在
So now 民主党靠那些它花了很长时间压迫着的人们的选票风生水起
the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of its history oppressing 民主党错误地指控共和党是恶棍
Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain 但实际上却是民主党的失败政策在压制着黑人
when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down 庞大的政府福利严重破坏了黑人家庭
Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. 对学校选择的反对使得黑人困在烂学校
Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools. 政治正确化的治安管理使得黑人社区无法抵御暴力犯罪
Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime. 所以,当你想到种族平等和公民权利时
So, when you think about racial equality and civil rights 应该想到哪个政党呢?
which political party should come to mind? 我是范德比大学的政法教授卡罗尔·斯韦恩
I’m Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, for Prager University.