Niall aims to please, and his 3 hour C-SPAN filibuster was a veritable Ferguson-fest. Taking questions from viewers on his many books (most questions were sensible, but several were of the mentally defective conspiracy kind), he jumped ably from topic to topic -- financial history, World War One, the Rothschild family, Roman/British/American empire-building, etc. -- yet made them appear of a whole concern.

Ferguson has a new book out, hardly a surprise since he produces monographs almost annually now, called Colossus, contextualizing the United States Empire and arguing on its behalf (as well as warning Americans to stay the path -- will they listen?). In fact, this book looks to expand on the conclusions made in his earlier book Empire, of the largely productive and moral role played by British imperial power in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Some things I found out:

Niall is moving to Boston for the fall, a new member of the Harvard faculty.

He terms himself a "liberal fundamentalist," more of an economic liberal than a political conservative. In his most explicit personal political references I have heard to date, he ties his ideas to Thatcher's reform of the British economy, and mentioned as his philosophical forebearers Victorian liberals (Gladstone and Mill, and I suspect Spencer, Cobden, and others of that ilk) and Adam Smith. Only begrudingly did he call himself a "Lockean," finding the label too political.

Niall was quite critical of the Wilsonian idealism of the neo-conservatives, and in fact denied he was part of the neo-cons. Instead, he called himself a "realist," and was less interested in building liberal democracies around the world on the American model (here, here) and more interested in stabilizing international relations, maintaining liberal and open markets, and ensuring a system of order and law in places lacking such things. Saddam should have been removed not because of suspected WMDs (Ferguson thinks that was brittle ground on which to base the war) or because Iraq was insufficiently democratic, but because Saddam endangered Middle Eastern stability and was a brutish thug.

He rather smartly answered one caller's amazement that the Iraqis did not like Americans more, now that they were liberated from Saddam. Ferguson said this (along with a woefully short attention span and patience) was an American fault, wanting to be loved rather than feared and respected. If the goal of Iraq and Afghanistan was international romance (we love you, why won't you love us back?), then it is doomed to fail. Stability comes from respect, not love.

He openly admires Henry Kissinger (big surprise) and appears on the verge of writing a large reconsideration of Kissinger's life in the next several years. A book on World War Two will be coming next.

Anyhow, a very good show by a very talented (and television-friendly) historian. C-SPAN did not have the interview up on their site as of this morning, but it should be soon. Take a peek when it does.