Former Secret Service Agent Shows You How to Get The Truth Out of Anyone | Evy Poumpouras

44:03
now with with language there’s also
44:06
things to look at in language just a lot
44:08
of times it has to do with paying
44:09
attention so if I say to you Lisa you
44:11
know what time did you get home last
44:12
night and you say to me well you know I
44:14
usually get home around 6:00 did you
44:17
answer the question but you’d be
44:19
surprised how many people will let that
44:21
go and they will move on I didn’t ask
44:23
you what time you usually get home I
44:25
asked you what time did you get home
44:26
last night because people are trying to
44:28
avoid lying directly is that why they do
44:30
it yeah snips through the cracks it does
44:33
well look people we all know it’s wrong
44:35
to lie so we don’t like lying so the
44:37
most popular way we lie is through
44:39
omission we will leave something out we
44:43
will be vague in our language and so we
44:45
really want to listen to the language
44:46
are people answering your question when
44:50
you ask a question do they respond back
44:51
with a question who me
44:53
are you talking to me it could be a
44:55
stalling tactic yes it’s me there’s
44:57
nobody else in the room it’s just you
44:58
and I who else would be asking you and
45:00
to listening to the language that people
45:02
use also another indicator is usually
45:06
when we speak we’ll say I I feel this
45:09
way I this I went here I that III what
45:13
you’ll tend to see in verbal language is
45:15
somebody who doesn’t use I it means that
45:18
there’s a lack of commitment that
45:20
they’re telling you something but
45:21
they’re not committed to it so think of
45:22
the sentence if I say to you miss you
45:25
love you can’t wait to see you okay I
45:28
miss you I love you I can’t wait to see
45:32
you there’s more of a commitment on that
45:34
latter one so you can possibly assume
45:37
again assumption but the first person
45:39
really doesn’t miss you all that much
45:40
really doesn’t love you all that much
45:42
doesn’t care whether they see you and so
45:45
there’s so many clues and the things we
45:47
say then also how we say them you know
45:50
do people speak with conviction are they
45:51
vague so when it comes to deception
45:54
people who lie are typically vague
45:56
because when you’re lying there’s so
45:58
much more you have to remember there
46:00
won’t be as detailed Wow yes that was
46:07
far ago and everything is in the book
46:10
that they can find everything is so much
46:12
stuff but it’s all great stuff and it’s
46:14
all it’s all the little things like
46:16
there’s no gimmick there’s no like here
46:18
just do these three steps you will know
46:20
it’s it’s really understanding people
46:23
studying human behavior look I’m
46:25
fascinated by people and everyone’s
46:27
unique and everybody’s different and so
46:29
you want to learn people understand
46:30
people and the more curious you are
46:32
about people the more you’ll be able to
46:35
read them and think what matters is to
46:37
this person why would they lie to me
46:40
well what would there be there what
46:43
would be their incentive their motive
46:45
and that’s where empathy comes in using
46:48
empathy to understand somebody else’s
46:50
perspective see the world not through
46:51
your eyes through their eyes and even
46:54
something simple as when I would do
46:55
interviews with people I would sit in
46:58
the chair the person I would be
47:00
interviewing and would sit because I
47:02
wanted to see what does it feel like to
47:03
sit in this chair where are they looking
47:05
what are they staring at is their window
47:08
is their clock are they distracted by
47:10
something what does it feel like so talk
47:13
to people not the way you want to be
47:15
spoken to but the way they want to be
47:18
spoken to a way that resonates with
47:19
and how do you do that by talking less
47:22
and listening more because they will
47:23
give you clues and insight to who they
47:27
are mmm
47:29
God that was fire that was amazing
47:32
and I think I know the answer to this
47:34
question because I think you just
47:35
answered it but what is your superpower
47:37
gosh my superpower I feel a lot you fail
47:45
a lot yeah
47:46
failure is my superpower the more I fail
47:50
the more resilient I become and the less
47:53
afraid I am of it
47:54
failure is my superpower I love that and
47:57
where can people find you in your new
47:58
book and you show that you’re on and
48:00
everything that you’re doing
48:01
so spy games is every Monday night on
48:03
Bravo it’s 10:00 p.m. Eastern and
48:06
Pacific and then 9 p.m. Central and then
48:09
my book is be called becoming
48:10
bulletproof and honestly like all the
48:12
stuff we talked about it’s in there and
48:14
I just took everything that I learned
48:16
that I was privileged to be in the white
48:18
house to be around these extraordinary
48:19
people to go through all this training
48:21
and my mindset was how do I help people
48:23
how do I serve people I don’t want to
48:26
write a book about me I wanted to write
48:27
a book that people could take and use in
48:29
their everyday lives because all that
48:31
stuff I use today with everything in
48:34
relationships
48:35
it was so vulnerable and there’s so many
48:38
things that go on around us like how do
48:40
we protect ourselves not just physically
48:41
but mentally different people you know
48:44
even people that don’t mean to harm us
48:46
harmless and so how do you how do you
48:50
navigate that world so it’s becoming
48:52
bulletproof you can get it on Amazon it
48:54
comes out in April and so I’m really
48:56
excited about that because again like I
48:58
just I want it to help people and I
49:00
really think that’s a book that really
49:02
can amazing and where can people follow
49:04
you Oh common spelling Greek name hat
49:06
Febby pauperis so a tvy pauperis and
49:10
then p oh um pou re s amazing we’ll put
49:13
all the links in the show notes as well
49:15
guys guys I have been waiting for this
49:17
episode and dying to get this woman on
49:19
for god knows how long and so I am a
49:22
giddy child right now I’m so freaking
49:23
excited that she was able to sit here
49:25
and give all those words of wisdom go
49:27
buy her book go follow her if you’re not
49:29
following me follow me at Lisa Billy and
49:31
if you’re not subscribe to this channel
49:32
guys and you do
49:33
I feel like this is bringing you value
49:34
please please do click that subscribe
49:36
button down there and until next time be
49:39
the hero of your own life
49:44
I have suffered from serious health
49:46
issues for close to four years now and
49:49
when I say I’ve tried everything well I
49:51
pretty much have I’ve been to countless
49:54
doctors read more books on health and
49:56
you can possibly imagine take an advice
49:58
change my diet change my lifestyle
50:00
change my workouts all in an effort to
50:03
help me get stronger get healthier and
50:05
as a result show up in my business and
50:07
my relationships with Han but I’m gonna
50:09
be real with you guys the biggest thing
50:11
I did was take ownership take ownership
50:15
over my own health because the truth is
50:17
no one cares more about your health in
50:19
you and so I started to track my own
50:21
results I started looking at how much
50:23
sleep I got and the correlation between
50:25
that and my mood and productivity enters
50:28
whoop it literally tracks all things
50:31
sleep from my sleep so I cause stages
50:34
disturbances and efficiencies and based
50:37
on how strenuous my day is we can
50:39
actually suggest when I should sleep so
50:42
my body gets the rest I need I also
50:45
started to track my workouts with whoop
50:47
to see if I was pushing myself too much
50:49
and as a result suffering from burnout
50:51
it has a built in feature that allows me
50:54
to track calories burn my heart rate and
50:56
what zone my heart rate is in in real
50:59
time and once I started to do that it
51:02
literally changed everything I was
51:05
finally able to improve my work
51:07
performance and to be honest more
51:10
importantly I’m just so much happier and
51:12
let’s face it isn’t really what we all
51:14
are going for so I’m so freaking excited
51:18
that we have teamed up with whoop and
51:19
today they’re offering 15% off to our
51:22
audience when you use the code impact at
51:25
checkout at whoop calm that’s woop wh
51:28
ooo P calm and use the code impact a
51:32
check out to say 15% off your order
51:35
take your life by the horns strap on a
51:37
root band and remember guys be the hero
51:40
of your own life
51:43
what up guys Lisa here thanks so much
51:45
for watching this episode and if you
51:47
haven’t already subscribed keep that
51:48
little bun-bun in front of you click
51:50
click click away we release episodes
51:52
every Wednesday so be sure to get
51:53
notified until next time go be the hero
51:56
of your own life

A.O.C. and the Daughter Defense

Sorry, Ted Yoho. Having daughters doesn’t get you a sexism free pass.

Brett Kavanaugh invoked it. Mitch McConnell used it too. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck have each talked about it, and this week, Representative Ted Yoho joined their ranks: he, too, is now a member of the having-a-daughter-makes-me-an-ally-to-women — or at the very least, should-excuse-my-bad-behavior — club.

“Having been married for 45 years with two daughters, I’m very cognizant of language,” Representative Yoho said in a speech on the House floor this week, denying that he called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the freshman Congresswoman from New York, a “fucking bitch” after a confrontation on the steps of the Capitol.

Mr. Yoho later expressed regret for the “abrupt manner of the conversation,” in which he told Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that her statements about poverty and crime in New York City were “disgusting.” But, he noted, “I cannot apologize for my passion or for loving my God, my family and my country.”

On Thursday, in a speech on the House floor that has since gone viral — in which she read the vulgarity into the Congressional record — Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said, “I am someone’s daughter too.” She said she’d planned to ignore the insults — it’s “just another day” as a woman, she said — but changed her mind after Mr. Yoho decided to bring his wife and daughters into the fray.

Our culture is full of platitudes about fathers and daughters: the Hallmark card, the weeping dad at the wedding. But invoking daughters and wives to deflect criticism is a particular kind of political trope — and one that’s been used throughout history to “excuse a host of bad behavior,” said the historian Barbara Berg.

The love a man has for the female members of his family, particularly his offspring, is presumed to have special power — to humanize the other half of the population, to allow him to imagine the world his daughter will inhabit. Sometimes, in fact, this happens. Other times, the Daughter Excuse comes across mostly as cynical ploy.

“As if familial affiliation alone equals enlightened attitudes towards women,” said Susan Douglas, a professor of communication and media at the University of Michigan. “It’s like claiming ‘I have a Black friend‚’ as if that makes you anti-racist.”

There is social science that’s shown there is something to being the father of a daughter.

In a study called “The First-Daughter Effect,” Elizabeth Sharrow, an associate professor of public policy and history at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and her colleagues, determined that fathering daughters — and firstborn daughters, in particular — indeed played a role in making men’s attitudes toward gender equality more progressive, particularly when it came to policies like equal pay or sexual harassment protocols. The researchers also determined that those dads of firstborn daughters were, in 2016, more likely to support Hillary Clinton or a fictional female congressional candidate delivering a similar pitch.

“Our argument is not that it is genetics or biology, but that it is proximity,” said Dr. Sharrow. In other words: The daughters help the fathers see the problems they may have previously dismissed.

Witness basketball star Stephen Curry, who has written about how “the idea of women’s equality has become a little more personal for me, lately, and a little more real,” since having a daughter.

Or Dick Cheney, whose views on same-sex marriage shifted earlier than many might have expected because of his daughter, who is gay.

And yet.

Daughters influencing fathers’ views for the better is far different from fathers using their daughters as “shields and excuses for poor behavior,” as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez described Mr. Yoho in her speech.

It’s also different from fathers using them as “props,” as Dr. Berg puts it, to emphasize their alignment with women’s causes — or, by contrast, their disgust over behaviors perceived to be in opposition to them.

Consider Justice Kavanaugh, who — during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford — spoke repeatedly of his daughters (as well as his wife and mother) and noted that coaching his daughter’s basketball team was what he loved “more than anything I’ve ever done in my whole life” — as if loving coaching and allegedly treating women badly as a teenager are mutually exclusive.

“Men have often pointed to their relationships with and love for some women — especially wives and daughters — to combat claims that they have mistreated other women,” said Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “We have seen this both inside and outside of politics, especially when men are subject to accusations of sexual harassment and assault.”

In the wake of the 2016 reports on comments made by Donald Trump on the now-infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, a host of fathers-of-daughters came out to condemn the behavior. Mr. McConnell noted that “as the father of three daughters” he believed that Mr. Trump “needs to apologize directly to women and girls everywhere,” while Mitt Romney said that the comments “demean our wives and daughters.” (It is perhaps worth noting that Mr. Trump, too, has daughters.)

Similarly, in response to revelations of sexual misconduct by Harvey Weinstein, both Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, who had worked with the disgraced Hollywood producer, expressed their disgust on behalf of their female offspring. We “need to do better at protecting our friends, sisters, co-workers and daughters,” Mr. Affleck said on Twitter, while Mr. Damon explained that “as the father of four daughters, this is the kind of sexual predation that keeps me up at night.”

Women, too, have at times invoked men’s daughters — and other female relatives — in trying to appeal to some men. When asked about Mr. Yoho’s behavior, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “What’s so funny is, you’d say to them, ‘Do you not have a daughter? Do you not have a mother? Do you not have a sister? Do you not have a wife? What makes you think that you can be so’ — and this is the word I use for them — ‘condescending, in addition to being disrespectful?’”

The caveat, of course, is the qualification. “Qualifying your outrage against misogyny as due to your role as a father or husband implies that, absent those roles, you would be either unaware of or unconcerned,” said Dr. Dittmar.

Or as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez put it: “Having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man. Treating people with dignity and respect makes a decent man.” Why should daughters still have to be a prerequisite to respect?

Donald Trump Is Our National Catastrophe

This spring I taught a seminar (via Zoom, of course) at the University of Chicago on the art of political persuasion. We read Lincoln, Pericles, King, Orwell, Havel and Churchill, among other great practitioners of the art. We ended with a study of Donald Trump’s tweets, as part of a class on demagogy.

If the closing subject was depressing, at least the timing was appropriate.

We are in the midst of an unprecedented national catastrophe. The catastrophe is not the pandemic, or an economic depression, or killer cops, or looted cities, or racial inequities. These are all too precedented. What’s unprecedented is that never before have we been led by a man who so completely inverts the spirit of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

With malice toward all; with charity for none: eight words that encapsulate everything this president is, does and stands for.

What does one learn when reading great political speeches and writings? That well-chosen words are the way by which past deeds acquire meaning and future deeds acquire purpose. “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” are the only false notes in the Gettysburg Address. The Battle of Gettysburg is etched in national memory less for its military significance than because Lincoln reinvented the goals of the Civil War in that speech — and, in doing so, reimagined the possibilities of America.

Political writing doesn’t just provide meaning and purpose. It also offers determination, hope and instruction.

In “The Power of the Powerless,” written at one of the grimmer moments of Communist tyranny, Václav Havel laid out why the system was so much weaker, and the individual so much stronger, than either side knew. In his “Fight on the beaches” speech after Dunkirk, Winston Churchill told Britons of “a victory inside this deliverance” — a reason, however remote, for resolve and optimism. In “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr., explained why patience was no answer to injustice: “When you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity … then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.”

In a word, great political writing aims to elevate. What, by contrast, does one learn by studying Trump’s utterances?

The purpose of Trump’s presidency is to debase, first by debasing the currency of speech. It’s why he refuses to hire reasonably competent speechwriters to craft reasonably competent speeches. It’s why his communication team has been filled by people like Dan Scavino and Stephanie Grisham and Sarah Sanders.

And it’s why Twitter is his preferred medium of communication. It is speech designed for provocations and put-downs; for making supporters feel smug; for making opponents seethe; for reducing national discourse to the level of grunts and counter-grunts.

That’s a level that suits Trump because it’s the level at which he excels. Anyone who studies Trump’s tweets carefully must come away impressed by the way he has mastered the demagogic arts. He doesn’t lead his base, as most politicians do. He personifies it. He speaks to his followers as if he were them. He cultivates their resentments, demonizes their opponents, validates their hatreds. He glorifies himself so they may bask in the reflection.

Whatever this has achieved for him, or them, it’s a calamity for us. At a moment when disease has left more than 100,000 American families bereft, we have a president incapable of expressing the nation’s heartbreak. At a moment of the most bitter racial grief since the 1960s, we have a president who has bankrupted the moral capital of the office he holds.

And at a moment when many Americans, particularly conservatives, are aghast at the outbursts of looting and rioting that have come in the wake of peaceful protests, we have a president who wants to replace rule of law with rule by the gun. If Trump now faces a revolt by the Pentagon’s civilian and military leadership (both current and former) against his desire to deploy active-duty troops in American cities, it’s because his words continue to drain whatever is left of his credibility as commander in chief.

I write this as someone who doesn’t lay every national problem at Trump’s feet and tries to give him credit when I think it’s due.

Trump is no more responsible for the policing in Minneapolis than Barack Obama was responsible for policing in Ferguson. I doubt the pandemic would have been handled much better by a Hillary Clinton administration, especially considering the catastrophic errors of judgment by people like Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo. And our economic woes are largely the result of a lockdown strategy most avidly embraced by the president’s critics.

But the point here isn’t that Trump is responsible for the nation’s wounds. It’s that he is the reason some of those wounds have festered and why none of them can heal, at least for as long as he remains in office. Until we have a president who can say, as Lincoln did in his first inaugural, “We are not enemies, but friends” — and be believed in the bargain — our national agony will only grow worse.

If We Had a Real Leader

Imagining Covid under a normal president.

This week I had a conversation that left a mark. It was with Mary Louise Kelly and E.J. Dionne on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” and it was about how past presidents had handled moments of national mourning — Lincoln after Gettysburg, Reagan after the Challenger explosion and Obama after the Sandy Hook school shootings.

The conversation left me wondering what America’s experience of the pandemic would be like if we had a real leader in the White House.

If we had a real leader, he would have realized that tragedies like 100,000 Covid-19 deaths touch something deeper than politics: They touch our shared vulnerability and our profound and natural sympathy for one another.

In such moments, a real leader steps outside of his political role and reveals himself uncloaked and humbled, as someone who can draw on his own pains and simply be present with others as one sufferer among a common sea of sufferers.

If we had a real leader, she would speak of the dead not as a faceless mass but as individual persons, each seen in unique dignity. Such a leader would draw on the common sources of our civilization, the stores of wisdom that bring collective strength in hard times.

Lincoln went back to the old biblical cadences to comfort a nation. After the church shooting in Charleston, Barack Obama went to “Amazing Grace,” the old abolitionist anthem that has wafted down through the long history of African-American suffering and redemption.

In his impromptu remarks right after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy recalled the slaying of his own brother and quoted Aeschylus: “In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.”

If we had a real leader, he would be bracingly honest about how bad things are, like Churchill after the fall of Europe. He would have stored in his upbringing the understanding that hard times are the making of character, a revelation of character and a test of character. He would offer up the reality that to be an American is both a gift and a task. Every generation faces its own apocalypse, and, of course, we will live up to our moment just as our ancestors did theirs.

If we had a real leader, she would remind us of our common covenants and our common purposes. America is a diverse country joined more by a common future than by common pasts. In times of hardships real leaders re-articulate the purpose of America, why we endure these hardships and what good we will make out of them.

After the Challenger explosion, Reagan reminded us that we are a nation of explorers and that the explorations at the frontiers of science would go on, thanks in part to those who “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.”

At Gettysburg, Lincoln crisply described why the fallen had sacrificed their lives — to show that a nation “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” can long endure and also to bring about “a new birth of freedom” for all the world.

Of course, right now we don’t have a real leader. We have Donald Trump, a man who can’t fathom empathy or express empathy, who can’t laugh or cry, love or be loved — a damaged narcissist who is unable to see the true existence of other human beings except insofar as they are good or bad for himself.

But it’s too easy to offload all blame on Trump. Trump’s problem is not only that he’s emotionally damaged; it is that he is unlettered. He has no literary, spiritual or historical resources to draw upon in a crisis.

All the leaders I have quoted above were educated under a curriculum that put character formation at the absolute center of education. They were trained by people who assumed that life would throw up hard and unexpected tests, and it was the job of a school, as one headmaster put it, to produce young people who would be “acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.”

Think of the generations of religious and civic missionaries, like Frances Perkins, who flowed out of Mount Holyoke. Think of all the Morehouse Men and Spelman Women. Think of all the young students, in schools everywhere, assigned Plutarch and Thucydides, Isaiah and Frederick Douglass — the great lessons from the past on how to lead, endure, triumph or fail. Only the great books stay in the mind for decades and serve as storehouses of wisdom when hard times come.

Right now, science and the humanities should be in lock step: science producing vaccines, with the humanities stocking leaders and citizens with the capacities of resilience, care and collaboration until they come. But, instead, the humanities are in crisis at the exact moment history is revealing how vital moral formation really is.

One of the lessons of this crisis is that help isn’t coming from some centralized place at the top of society. If you want real leadership, look around you.

Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? “Martin Luther King Jr., Civil Rights, and Christian America”

John Fea’s Virtual Office Hours: Fall 2015 Season – Episode 12

00:08
greetings everyone and welcome to the
00:10
virtual office hours this is episode 12
00:12
of our fall 2015 season my name is John
00:16
fee I’m your host here I teach American
00:19
history at messiah college Abby Blakeney
00:21
our producer as usual behind the camera
00:23
she’s back from Thanksgiving break which
00:26
basically means after today we only have
00:28
two more office hours to do here in our
00:31
fall season and as you really recall we
00:34
are thinking about the place of America
00:38
as the role of America should say as a
00:42
Christian nation and how people
00:44
perceived of America throughout much of
00:47
American history how people perceive
00:49
themselves as living in a Christian
00:50
nation some of you remember that July
00:54
hopefully in July sometimes in the
00:56
summer the second edition of my book was
00:58
America founded as a Christian nation
01:00
will be out so we will be revisiting
01:03
we’re here revisiting that things are
01:04
getting ready for that release now again
01:07
just a caveat I’ve been making this
01:09
caveat before when we talked about the
01:11
idea that Americans believed that they
01:14
were living in a Christian nation we of
01:16
course are stating that historically
01:19
that’s a historical statement it’s not
01:21
an ethical statement it’s not a moral
01:23
statement so again if you want to argue
01:26
with my premise here that America it has
01:29
always seen itself as living in a
01:31
Christian nation what you would need to
01:33
do is you would need to look at the
01:35
evidence I’ve mounted both in the book
01:37
and over the course of the last 11
01:38
episodes and try to suggest that no
01:42
Americans didn’t think that they were
01:44
living in a nation that was Christian
01:46
that would be a historical critique of
01:49
what I’m doing as opposed to it so the
01:50
ethical or political critique to say
01:52
people are wrong for believing that that
01:55
they lived in a Christian nation this is
01:58
again the difference between historical
02:00
thinking and other kinds of thinking my
02:04
point is historically whether they were
02:06
right or wrong whether they were
02:07
following what the founders truly
02:09
believed America has always understood
02:12
themselves as living in a Christian
02:15
nation at least up until the 1970s as
02:17
we’ll see you next week or maybe the
02:18
week
02:18
after today I want to focus on civil
02:22
rights movement now religion and
02:25
christianity has been a dominant theme
02:28
recently in among scholars who were
02:30
writing about the civil rights movement
02:32
and the way they’re writing methyl
02:34
Christianity and forms are had informed
02:37
the civil rights movement thinking here
02:39
especially of David Chappelle’s book
02:41
stone of hope in which he points to an
02:44
Old Testament prophetic tradition that
02:47
that really defined the vision of the
02:50
civil rights movement what I want to
02:52
focus on quickly with you today’s I want
02:54
to think about one particular episode in
02:56
the civil rights movement and that is
02:57
Martin Luther King Junior’s visit to the
02:59
city of Birmingham in April set of 1963
03:03
it’s in that year that King come South
03:06
comes to Alabama to fight against
03:09
segregation in that city many of you
03:11
know the story he is eventually put into
03:14
prison by the public safety commissioner
03:17
of the city Eugene Bull Connor and while
03:20
he is in prison he writes what becomes
03:22
known one of it as one of his most
03:24
famous pieces of writing the letter from
03:26
a Birmingham jail now that letter is
03:29
written from prison obviously and it’s
03:31
addressed to the white clergy in the
03:35
city of Birmingham and most of these
03:37
white clergy that he’s writing to
03:39
believe that segregation should be
03:41
handled locally they don’t like king
03:43
they think he’s an outside agitator
03:45
who’s coming in and disrupting the good
03:48
order of the city which is pretty much
03:50
based upon racial segregation so King
03:54
writes this letter it’s published it’s
03:55
put out in the pamphlet form so it gets
03:57
a kind of national ventually gets a kind
03:59
of national audience and it’s a
04:01
fascinating argument because on one hand
04:03
King is arguing for a a nationalist
04:08
vision right where there is if there’s
04:11
injustice anywhere or injustice anywhere
04:14
i should say is a threat to justice
04:15
everywhere in other words he’s a
04:20
challenging localism he’s challenging
04:22
the idea that local governments local
04:26
clergy get to decide what is right and
04:29
what is wrong on this
04:30
question of race and thus challenging
04:32
segregation in the process so he appeals
04:34
to people like Abraham Lincoln and
04:36
others these great figures of American
04:39
nationalism to say you know we you know
04:42
we have to we have to stop the kind of
04:44
localism that’s going on we have to stop
04:47
these local prejudices and local ideas
04:49
especially if they’re challenging what
04:51
he believes is justice and king secondly
04:56
sort of defines justice through his
04:59
vision of what it means to be a
05:01
Christian so he’s making constant
05:03
appeals in the in letter from a
05:05
Birmingham jail about just laws and
05:08
unjust laws right he’s referencing
05:10
people like everybody from Agustin to
05:13
Aquinas to Paul Tillich the modern
05:17
theologian to he’s going back to the
05:19
Bible and showing how Shadrach Meshach
05:22
and Abednego in the Old Testament
05:24
challenged King Nebuchadnezzar who is
05:27
putting an unjust law upon them so this
05:31
idea of civil disobedience is rooted in
05:33
the Bible it’s rooted in theology at the
05:38
same time then King is bringing these
05:41
two ideas together this idea of
05:43
nationalism vers / localism and this
05:47
Christian idea of justice to suggest a
05:49
new vision for the nation which is going
05:52
to be defined by the idea that we are
05:55
indeed a judeo-christian country and we
05:58
must live up to the principal’s not only
06:01
of our founding fathers but the
06:02
principles as well of God I think he
06:06
summarizes this very very well in
06:09
towards the end of the letter and if I
06:12
can just find it here I want to make
06:15
sure i get the wording right where he
06:17
says he basically says he reminds the
06:20
birmingham clergy here that he’s
06:22
standing up for quote what is best in
06:25
the American dream and for the most
06:27
sacred values in our judeo-christian
06:30
heritage thereby bringing our nation
06:32
back to those great wells of democracy
which were dug deep by the founding
fathers in their formulation of the
06:39
constant
06:39
tution and the Declaration of
06:41
Independence again it’s a powerful
06:43
convergence here of American values
06:46
national values and Christian values and
06:50
King is calling us to a sort of
06:52
different kind of Christian nation a
06:54
sort of beloved community in which
06:56
people are not judged by race or by the
06:58
color of their skin so clearly here even
07:02
Martin Luther King a man of the left a
07:04
man of the civil rights movement makes
07:07
his case based upon many of these
07:11
Christian nationalists kind of
07:14
sentiments that we’ve seen all the way
07:16
in American history all the way from all
07:18
the way back in the early 19th century
07:20
we have two more episodes to go will
07:23
hopefully get to the end of the
07:24
twentieth and twenty-first century here
07:26
in the meantime thanks for watching and
07:29
we’ll see you next time