Episode 21: Conservative Resurgence A.

How and why had the definition of Americanism changed during the period of 1945-1976? Why had identity politics and culture taken on new meanings? What were the effects of these changes? ): The time of the Bicentennial, 1976 looking at the last 30, 40 years before that, the definition of Americanism had changed very, very dramatically and expanded very dramatically. The immigration law of 1965 had ended the quota system which had stigmatized various parts of the world as unworthy of immigration to the United States and had opened the door to considerable diversification. The civil rights movement had tremendously expanded, obviously, the rights of African-Americans and had inspired similar movements among many other groups. With the emergence of black power, brown power, Asian power, womens power during this period, its impossible not to understand that there was, in fact, a kind of re-tribalization, if you will, of American society in which different groups of people saw the benefit of seizing and seeking new ways of self identity, new ways of self expression, new ways to empower themselves politically and socially.

B. By the mid-1970s, how and why had the meanings of freedom and equality changed? How were these concepts being contested in society? By the mid-1970s, there was widespread recognition that even though you have legal rights, there still is a gulf between rich and poor. There still are questions about how far should anti-discrimination laws go to deal with the consequences of past oppression. You know, are we simply going to say that everybodys now equal and theres no longer any formal barriers? Or do we actually try to deal with the enormous consequences of years and years of discrimination? The struggle by the 1970s is a struggle for an end to discrimination in not only in the economic sphere, in jobs and housing and so on, but in schools and in marital and family relationships, leading us I think rather slowly, but still leading us towards a moment where such personal freedoms become the central issue. a different definition of freedom was a throwback you might say to the older negative government view of freedom, of laissezfaire, of lack of regulation, of letting people act as they see fit without any outside interference. So as always you had different strands of ideas, but the dominant idea was still very much this notion of equality for all as the basis of freedom.

C. How and why did the proposed Equal Rights Amendment strengthen social and religious conservatives? In the end, why did the ERA fail? What was important about its defeat? It was the womens movement that posed the biggest threat. In the 1970s the Equal Rights Amendment became a lightning rod. The wanted Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Equality for all not some. It foundered, not on American public opinion which always supported it in the majority, it foundered on two things. I think one is the nature of state legislatures or many state legislatures. Who controls them? And the other

was the media, because the media was content to cover it 50-50. So you got one group saying it would destroy western civilization as we know it and integrate bathrooms and the other group saying, No, wait a minute. It already exists in Pennsylvania. Its not doing that, you know. It publicized falsehoods. So the more coverage there was of it, the more confusion there was. It benefited women and the family because it kept us from being forced into this gender neutral society where you have no more respect, say, for the husband/breadwinner, wife/homemaker role which the feminists disdained. The debates over the ERA helped to galvanize a conservative constituency. In many places that conservative constituency was connected to conservative religiosity. That in turn becomes part of the Moral Majority. It becomes part of the new kind of direct mailing campaigns that take place to mobilize the conservative constituency. And I think its very important in terms of the base that develops for people like Ronald Reagan, who are very, very effective at tapping into those traditional values and invoking those traditional images of flag, worship of God, belief in traditional institutions like the family. It was a tremendous benefit to the conservative movement because it brought new people into politics who had never been in politics before and the other point was it taught the conservative movement that we could win. D. Why and how did President Jimmy Carter retreat from liberalism and experience political difficulties during his tenure in office? During most of 1980 President Jimmy Carters re-election seemed likely. Though his record was mixed and his administration beset by problems, voters found his integrity and personal commitment appealing. But events largely beyond his control quickly weakened his position. Jimmy Carter must be one of the most unlucky presidents in our modern history. He inherited an enormous economic problem with the oil crisis, the invasion of Afghanistan, and then of course, most of all, you had the Iranian crisis

E. What issues and policies did President Ronald Reagan promote? What were the political effects of his presidency? ): Reagan comes along at an interesting time. So some of that backlash that weve talked about, clearly sentiment that is percolating in huge sectors of the American populace and the electorate, he was able to identify those particular points that a lot of Americans say, Why, yeah, hes really right. Isnt government too big? Hes a folksy fellow. He talked common talk.

F. Why had the word "liberal" become a dirty word by the 1980s? One of the great achievements of the conservative movement of the 1960s, 70s and 80s was to make the word liberal a dirty word. Collectively, conservatives saw liberal as synonymous with lack of self restraint, the most extreme aspects of the countercultural movement become associated with liberalism. Instead of saying a liberal is someone who believes in equal rights and equal opportunities,

believes in social security, believes in health care, they ended up trying to hide and say, Well, Im not a liberal. Im just a moderate. And I think what that did was to allow the conservatives to define liberalism G. Why was Bill Clinton considered a "new" Democrat? What did that mean? Why did Clinton win the 1992 presidential election? The Democratic Leadership Council, of which Clinton was, of course, a critical part in the late 80s and the early 90s, tried to come up, to articulate, and to lay out new Democratic party positions on a number of issues. Were going to get tough on crime, for example. Were going to be more cautious about spending. Were going to be more responsible stewards of the publics money and were not going to be those tax-and-spend Democrats the Republicans are always talking about. Clinton was a masterful campaigner and he got better and better at it, and he understood that although these other conservative issues were important, that right in that critical 92 window there, that the economy was what was important. And people were concerned about jobs.

H. Why did George W. Bush win the 2000 presidential election? How did President George W. Bush address major domestic issues? George Bush became president in 2000 because five justices of the Supreme Court decided he ought to be president of the United States. He did not win a majority of the vote but he got close enough on the electoral college that when you had the disputed Florida votes, the courts decided to award them to him and thus he became president. George Bush, on the other hand, he was going to bring compassion to conservatism. But when he became president, he, I think, was much more conservative than any president weve ever had. You have to go back to Calvin Coolidge to find someone who is as conservative. Episode 22: A New Economy A. Why was the American economy in a slump in the mid and late 1970s? How was the economy affecting the American people? More than a third of the oil consumed in the United States was imported. In the 1970s, when oilexporting countries engineered a series of oil shortages, Americans were held hostage by high prices and high consumption habits. : It was oil that ran the engine of the American economy and its scarcity provoked an economic crisis. The economy bogged down in the 1970s because oil is such a key input to so many things in the U.S. economy. And we had two different oil shocks, both caused by the OPEC cartel. As they were able to raise prices, there was a significant increase in input cost throughout all of the U.S. society and that increase is what really led to a stagnation in the economy.

B. What is the basic belief of those who support the "trickle-down" or "supply-side" theory of economics? How is this different from "bubble-up" or Keynesian economics? Trickle-down economics suggests that if you give a bonus to people at the top, theyll trickle it down to folks at the bottom. So in other words, if I cut corporate taxes, corporations will invest in machinery, which will then cause them to hire more people because someone has to work the machinery. Its a leap of faith. If you work on the supply side, you invest on the supply side, then things will happen on the demand side. The big thing in Keynesian economics was to move the focus away from the supply side to the demand sid The bubble-up, New Deal kind of economics created all kinds of economic drivers for people at the bottom that had never existed. So the poor were empoweredpeople of color were empowered. I think there was a real resistance and almost a push back on some of that. When you think about it, how do you shift from bubbling up to trickling down? And I think part of that is about -- you dont like what bubbles up, but you can control what trickles down. C. Why did so many companies "downsize" and/or "outsource" work in the 1980s and 1990s? What effect did this have on workers and their communities in which they lived? During the 1980s corporations began restructuring on a massive scale, driven by deregulation, deunionization and free trade policies that opened up foreign markets Competition in the global marketplace impelled companies to reduce the cost of labor by downsizing, outsourcing, layoffs, or plant relocation. The effect of that for communities across the United States has been devastating. If you go into old industrial centers, what you see is economic devastation because the jobs that once sustained communities like that are no longer in the United States. D. How did women workers fare during this era? Why did a wage gap persist? For millions of women entering the job market in the 1980s, service sector jobs provided employment but offered limited opportunities for income and advancement. The wage gap grows as workers age and particularly as families are formed and again the problem is care and labor and how you combine those household responsibilities with market work. One of the interesting transformations in the world of work is that work is becoming more flexible, that theres more part-time jobs, theres more temporary jobs. But often times flexibility is primarily flexibility for employers, not for employees. So many blue collar jobs that were once full time, long-term jobs have been transformed so that theyre contingent jobs. And people do not have job securitytheyre not given any benefitsand thats a problem.

E. How and why did the development of the Internet change American and world economies in the 1990s? The Internet is sort of the brave new world. We started out with our website and it was, it was very new. And we were trying to develop a website so that if you wanted to find out about Biltmore, and then later find out about Asheville and Western North Carolina and Biltmore, you could come to our website and we would show you all we could to try to talk you to into coming up here for the weekend. An entirely new economic sector was created when the Internet went public A lot of new investors came into the market during the 90s, people that historically would have never gotten involved in the stock market. High tech stocks, particularly those of Internet startup companies, were traded at startlingly inflated prices. F. Why did a speculative bubble emerge around dot.com stocks in the 1990s? What caused the bubble to burst? : In early 2000, high-tech stocks began to slip and by late 2000 the bubble had burst. Investors lost millions, while many dot-com employees who had accepted stock options in lieu of higher salaries lost everything, including their jobs. When the dot.com bubble burst, many unprofitable companies were sunk. But the high-tech industry was here to stay. At the end of the 20th century, the nation was suffering from a financial hangover. The dot-com bubble had burst and the bull market ended. Many people had lost their life savings, while layoffs left millions of others unemployed. Tales of corruption and financial misdoing were again leaking out. Energy shortages brought on financial crises in the west and blackouts in the east.

Episode 23: Life in the Fast Lane A. How was the "culture of wealth" promoted during the 1980s and 1990s? What were the consequences of the emphasis on materialism? Living life in the fast lane had its rewards. But it also took a toll on a population that grew increasingly stressed out, over-extended, and exhausted by its own success. The culture of wealth celebrated materialism and consumption, promoting a vision of the good life that only money could buy.

B. Why and how did individual self-expression change in this period? Who were the "yuppies"? In the early 1980s a new generation of college educated Americans entered professional life. Rising incomes and falling birth rates contributed to the development of a new social class. Yuppies were young, urban professionals hip, successful, people who consumed avidly.

C. Why did (he income gap widen during this era? How was poverty evident in America? Living life in the fast lane had its rewards. But it also took a toll on a population that grew increasingly stressed out, over-extended, and exhausted by its own success For many, the promised good life remained out of reach. While some Americans did prosper in the eighties, most were far from rich. : Meanwhile, growing numbers of poor and homeless struggled to survive, barely registering in the national consciousness. The aspirations that people have to stuffto thingsto expensive items are encouraged by the culture and encouraged among masses of people in ways that they havent been before. What we see in the 1980s and 1990s is the extension of credit to many, many people and really puts people in the position of believing that they can have anything they want.

D. In what ways did women's lives change during the 1980s and 1990s? How did this affect the family? Young people who postponed marriage and childbearing explored a variety of lifestyles for singles, while a new generation of educated, financially independent women experienced a freedom few women of earlier generations had known. think it was an interesting moment for women. I think it was a moment where women had seen their mothers not pursue, necessarily, careers and not have those options. And it was the starting point of where you could pursue that possibility. E. What is "affirmative action"? Why is it controversial? What does this issue illustrate about America? I think the simplest way to think about affirmative action is that it refers to a policy that involves paying attention to race or gender or any other immutable characteristic and using that characteristic as a factor in decision making, decision making about distributing burdens and benefits, distributing resources, etc. Colleges and universities have generally strongly supported affirmative action because they see that kind of inclusivity as an ingredient of academic excellence in their institution. Students learn from each other, not just from the professor, and students have to be prepared to go out and be leaders in communities that are increasingly diverse. From the beginning, affirmative action was challenged by those who felt that it constituted preferential treatment for minorities, and violated constitutional principles of equality Affirmative action is, in some sense, controversial because many people who are not directly benefited, say for example, white men, have the sense, often incorrectly, that theyre being denied some set of opportunities or at least the chances of their winning those opportunities are somehow diminished because of the affirmative action policy.

F. Why were the affirmative action cases involving the University of Michigan important? What were the results of the cases? . In cases like the affirmative action decision involving the University of Michigan, were faced with this question of when this seems to be necessary in order to achieve some deeply important social objective. At issue in Michigan was whether diversity could provide the

compelling interest the Constitution requires in order to do race sensitive affirmative action. And the court ruled, yes it can, at least in higher education.

Episode 24: A Different World A. Why did Iranian militants hold Americans hostage in Iran in 1979-1980? How was this crisis perceived in America? How did it hurt President Carter's chances for reelection in 1980? In March of 1979, a popular revolution led by Islamic holy leaders had toppled the Shah of Iran, a wealthy dictator whom the CIA had helped to install in the 1950s under President Eisenhower. The Shah promoted western values and western capitalism. And despite his dismal record on human rights the United States continued to support him. In the geo-political strategy of the Cold War, Iran had been a key ally in the Middle East. For many Americans, the long ordeal was a reflection of the loss of American power after the Vietnam War. The hostages had spent more than a year in captivity when Carter finally succeeded in negotiating their freedom. But the release came too late to rescue him from defeat by the Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan, in the presidential election of 1980. B. How and why did President Reagan escalate the Cold War and the arms race with the Soviet Union in the early 1980s? What were the effects of this militarization? He was initially regarded as somewhat dangerous by taking a strong stand on the Soviets but I think that, in retrospect, people feel that his strong stand probably did some good. Reagans commitment to supporting anti-communist movements around the world had been a cornerstone of U.S. Cold War policy since the end of the Second World War. In the late 70s, U.S. attention focused on Soviet ambitions in Afghanistan. By 1979, the United States became persuaded to aid Islamic fundamentalists who were seeking to overthrow a government in Kabul that was friendly to, and sort of dependent on, the Soviet Union. And aid began to flow to what were called now we name it with sort of terror, but then they were our friends, the mujahadeen, including ultimately Osama bin Laden. So it begins at the very end of the Carter administration and, of course, its enormously beefed up under Reagan and the idea is to entrap the Soviet Union in a war that would devastate it as Vietnam devastated the United States.

C. What characterized American intervention in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America during the Reagan administration? Why did the United States aid rebel forces in Afghanistan? Who were these people? In Latin America, Reagan championed the cause of the Nicaraguan Contras, who were trying to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government. With the memory of Vietnam still fresh, Congress and the majority of Americans opposed U.S. intervention in Nicaraguas civil war. In 1982, Congress passed the Boland Amendment, prohibiting the federal government from providing military support "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua." The key lens here was the Cold War, the feeling that the Soviets were trying to use the Sandinistas to increase their position in the western hemisphere. And the support to the Contras was designed to prevent the Sandinistas from becoming another Cuba, another bastion for the Soviets to the south of the United States

D. How and why did Mikael Gorbachev initiate major changes in Soviet policies in the mid-1980s? How did President Reagan and his administration respond to these initiatives? In the early 1980s the Soviet Union was ruled by aging hard-liners. Their economic policies drained the economy, while their repressive political policies stifled dissent. The rise of Mikhail Gorbachev to power in 1985 brought new direction to the Soviet Union. Gorbachev recognized that in order to revitalize the Soviet Union he had to initiate significant reform, both at home and abroad. Gorbachev was trying to preserve communism. He felt that their economy had failed and therefore he was going to have what he called perestroika, or restructuring. And then it turned out the bureaucrats resisted that and so he launched the idea of glasnost, or open discussion, as a way of lighting fire under the bureaucrats. But once you open discussion and you ask people, Do you want to be part of this system, they voted with their feet. The answer was no, they wanted out. And that essentially meant it was more and more difficult to control the system. So he decided to meet with Gorbachev first in Geneva, then in Reykjavik, Iceland, and they actually made a deal, the first real disarmament treaty in the history of the United States and the Soviet Union. It was Ronald Reagan, of all people, who decided no longer to be a crusader but to become a pragmatist. He never called Russia, the Soviet Union, an evil empire again after he met Gorbachev and realized that the soviet union was going broke so what he did was out of desperation. In a move that surprised the West, he withdrew all Soviet troops from Afghanistan

E. Why and how did President George H. W. Bush and his administration counter Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990-1991? What were the results of the Persian Gulf War? when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, George Bush, Sr. decided this will not stand because this was not only inhuman, because they devastated Kuwait completely, but also this was our oil interests. In the first major armed conflict of the post-Cold War world, the United States worked with the United Nations to

form a multilateral coalition of countries to counter the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The war against Iraq was won quickly and decisively. In little over a month, Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait and forced to retreat to the capital city of Baghdad.

F. What success did President Clinton have in his attempts to broker peace in the Middle East? Why was the Palestinian-Israeli conflict so difficult? Why did the Middle East remain an area of concern for the United States? The standards of intervention during the Clinton years became more generous than they were before. It wasnt just containment; keep the enemy at bay. But under Clinton and Madeleine Albright the standard became there could be humanitarian intervention. If we see people suffering and their human rights abused completely to the point where they are being murdered arbitrarily, we have to take a stand. There was no oil in Kosovo. There was only many starving, miserable, unhappy people that Milosevic, the president of Serbia, was chasing into exile or killing by the tens of thousands. So we intervened on humanitarian grounds here, just to save these poor people. Clintons efforts to broker peace in the Middle East were less successful. The 50-year-old conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians flared up again in the year 2000 after peace negotiations broke down. The pursuit of American interests in the Middle East increasingly provoked hostility and presented a growing threat to the security of the United States. At the dawn of the new century, the Middle East remained a central concern for the United States.

Episode 25: Globalizing America A. What does "globalization" mean? How is the globalization of the early twenty-first century different from that of earlier eras? Globalization entails the international exchange of information, population, culture, and even disease and contraband. The general notion of free trade is that the international exchange of goods and services not be restricted in any way by national borders. Now the traditional ways of restricting that trade was through the imposition of tariffs. Free trade policy seeks to eliminate these kind of barriers to the international exchange of goods and services.

B. What does "free trade'' mean? What arrangements did the U.S. enter into in order to ease trade restrictions? Who benefited and who lost as a result of these trade agreements? Free trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, are designed to eliminate barriers to trade. The increasing integration and interdependence of national economies provides many new opportunities for industry, investors, and workers. The bargaining chip was inporting without tariffs or restrictions. Third world countries are the ones benefiting like the united states has

C. Why were workers' rights and environmental issues of particular concern as economic globalization proceeded? How were these issues addressed? How could they be addressed? In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, millions of U.S. jobs were lost. While new jobs were also created, they were mostly in the lowest paying sectors. Meanwhile, workers in third world countries did not enjoy the same benefits these jobs had traditionally provided in the United States. There is concern, too, that these free trade agreements, at least up till now, have not included adequate protection of occupational health and safety, of workers rights to form labor unions or to collectively bargain for their wages and job security, and environmental protection. I think theres a growing awareness that having free trade with another nation should not absolve us of negotiating with another nation about protecting the environment and protecting working people at the same time.

D. How were the terrorist attacks on the U.S. on September 11,2001, related to globalization? Why did the terrorists associated with Al Qaaeda attack America? Globalization may make people better off economically but also there are some losers as well as winners. The economist Joseph Schempeter called this creative destruction. To have creation there has to be destruction and those who suffer the destruction often react against it. There is a long proclamation laying out the reasons, the two main ones are Americas habit of invading other countries and installing dictators which support America and them selves to the detriment of the countries people. The other one is Americas support for Israel.

E. How did the American people react to the attacks? Do you think the responses cited in the video were typical? How did you respond? But in a larger sense, the life of the nation and the rest of the world commenced a new phase. We have to live now with a very dark world. No one feels safe anymore and this war is not going to be over until we feel safe again, which will not be in my lifetime nor probably in yours, either. And its really sad that all of us have to live this wayand we have to find somehow the courage and the hope to continue our lives.

F. Why and how did the Bush administration move toward unilateralism before 9/11? How and why did the war on terrorism provide a rationale for a profound shift in U.S. defense policy? He took a unilateral position because mad that these terrorist committed such an atrocity on American soil. And he had that mentality nobody messes with America-NOBOBY! The war on terrorism provided the rationale for a profound shift in U.S. defense policy. In September 2002, the Bush administration introduced the new National Security Strategy. What was shocking in it was its claim to unchallengeable military power. That is, the United States would act to prevent any one country or group of countries from reaching a position where it could challenge, or they could challenge, the United States. Now, the president said, Who is not for us on the terrorist issue, is against us. There was no middle ground for him. And then he said, The time for diplomacy is over, and I think, in my judgment, it was a terrible diplomatic mistake.

G. Why did the Bush administration decide to go to war with Iraq? What is the difference between a "preemptive" and a ''preventative" war? The new policy was first applied in Iraq, which had no involvement in the attacks of 9/11, but where Saddam Hussein had long defied U.N. demands that he produce evidence of his nations disarmament. Traditionally, preemption was always accepted. Preemption meant that if you were about to be attacked, you didnt have to wait to take the blow, you could attack first. But there used to be a test of imminence. Now, what happened in Iraq was there was not an imminent threat to the United States, but we decided to have a preventive war.

H. Why were most of America's great-power allies and many critics at home distressed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq? That set in motion a wave of fear and anxiety throughout much of the world, who had admired the United States, especially after the Kosovo intervention which was humanitarian. And now they said, Well, who is he going to invade next? Where is the list? Of course, now the case can be made after we know there were no weapons of mass destruction, that the president invaded a sovereign state without provocation. Most other nations, including many of the United States traditional allies were not persuaded by the administrations case against Iraq